news

Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson, Esmaeil Baghaei, has announced that a memorandum of understanding with the United States has been finalised and signed electronically by both sides.

He added that the agreement has already gone into effect.

“The text of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding was finalised with the signatures of the presidents,” Baghaei told the news agency IRNA. “Now it is time to test the implementation of the agreement.”

Wednesday’s statement appears to confirm that the US and Iran have agreed to suspend military operations, paving the way for further negotiations.

Given that both sides signed the agreement electronically, Baghaei noted that there would be no signing ceremony on Friday in Geneva, Switzerland, as had previously been expected.

Negotiating teams, however, still plan to be in the Swiss city. A decision on a possible in-person meeting between them is expected in the coming hours, though for now such plans are paused, according to Baghaei.

While the office of US President Donald Trump has yet to issue a formal statement on the signing, Al Jazeera correspondent Mike Hanna explained that a White House spokesperson confirmed earlier in the day that it happened.

But Hanna warned that the memorandum is likely to face domestic backlash in the US, where Trump had been under right-wing pressure to take a hard line against Iran.

“There’s a great deal of dissatisfaction with the memorandum of understanding, as it has been outlined to the public at this particular point, even among some Republicans who have expressed the concern that Iran is being treated leniently,” Hanna said.

He also emphasised the administration’s position that the memorandum is not a full-fledged deal but rather a prelude to more negotiations.

“The administration is fighting hard to persuade the American public and American politicians that this is not a defeat for the United States,” Hanna said.

Since February 28, the US and Israel have been jointly engaged in a war against Iran, though a temporary ceasefire suspended much of the most intense fighting on April 8.

Trump has repeatedly said his goal in launching the war was to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Since the memorandum was revealed, he has highlighted the document’s assurances that Iran will not seek a nuclear weapon, though Tehran has long denied any intention of doing so.

But according to a US account, the memo goes beyond the question of nuclear weapons. It sets up a 60-day timeline for a final deal to be struck, and it indicates that the US will rally “regional partners” to create a $300bn for Iran’s reconstruction.

US sanctions would also work towards lifting its sanctions against Iran, and the country would issue waivers for the export of Iranian fuel.

Iran has touted those terms as a victory. On Wednesday, chief negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf told Fars, an Iranian state news agency, that the US had failed to achieve its goals with Iran and pointed to the memo as proof.

“The agreement is a record of US failure,” Ghalibaf said. “People will see it and judge.”

He also explained that the Strait of Hormuz would not return to “pre-war conditions” after the 60-day period for negotiations stipulated in the agreement. He suggested that Iran will expect payments for use of the waterway.

“I emphasise again that the Strait of Hormuz will never return to the previous conditions,” Ghalibaf said.

“Iran has the right to sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz, and of course, we will receive a fee for services.”

That position is likely to put pressure on the Trump administration, which had pledged that the strait, a key waterway for trade, would be “permanently toll-free”.

Since the start of the war, Iran has blocked the waterway, sending global prices for fuel, fertiliser and other goods soaring.

The US had responded with its own blockade of Iranian ports, though that effort is slated to end under the memorandum.

Both sides, however, have emphasised that the memorandum of understanding is not a final agreement on all issues of dispute. More negotiations are expected to resolve lasting impasses.

“It will only become a deal, as such, at the end of the 60-day negotiation period. At least, that’s the intention,” Hanna reported.

Iran’s government has portrayed the interim agreement with the United States as a victory that ended months of conflict and prevented further escalation. The deal halted a war that saw U.S. and Israeli airstrikes, disruptions to trade, and severe economic damage across Iran.

However, interviews with ordinary Iranians reveal a starkly different picture. Many citizens say years of sanctions, combined with the recent conflict, have left them struggling with rising prices, declining living standards, and deep uncertainty about the future. While the fighting may have stopped for now, many remain unconvinced that the agreement will bring meaningful economic relief or lasting stability.

Economic Hardship Continues to Dominate Daily Life

For many Iranians, the ceasefire has not changed the reality of daily economic struggles.

Business owners, students, and workers interviewed across the country described a population focused on survival rather than recovery. Many reported cutting household spending, reducing social activities, and adjusting to higher living costs. Small businesses continue to face weak consumer demand, while young people increasingly worry about their economic prospects.

The war added another layer of pressure to an economy already weakened by years of international sanctions, inflation, and limited foreign investment. As a result, many citizens see little immediate prospect of improvement even if the ceasefire holds.

Divided Views on the Outcome of the Conflict

The agreement has exposed a clear divide between the government’s narrative and public sentiment.

Supporters of the Islamic Republic view the deal as proof that Iran resisted external pressure and preserved its political system. Some hardliners argue that the country emerged stronger and demonstrated resilience despite military and economic pressure.

Many ordinary citizens, however, are less focused on geopolitical outcomes and more concerned about living standards. For them, the key measure of success is whether the agreement leads to lower prices, economic opportunities, and greater stability. So far, few appear convinced that such changes are imminent.

Concerns Grow Over Political Freedoms

Beyond economic concerns, many Iranians fear that the post war environment could lead to tighter political controls.

Some citizens believe the government may use the conflict and national security concerns to justify stronger oversight and restrictions. These fears are particularly pronounced in regions populated by ethnic minorities, where previous protests have often been met with heavy security responses.

There is also uncertainty about whether public frustration over economic conditions could trigger future demonstrations. While many people remain cautious after previous crackdowns, underlying grievances over jobs, inflation, and political freedoms remain unresolved.

The ceasefire may have reduced the immediate threat of war, but it has done little to address the deeper challenges facing Iran. Public opinion appears increasingly shaped by economic realities rather than political declarations of victory.

The government may benefit in the short term from ending the conflict and avoiding further military escalation. However, lasting stability will depend on whether authorities can deliver tangible economic improvements and restore public confidence.

The biggest challenge for Tehran is that expectations remain extremely low. Many Iranians do not see the ceasefire as a turning point but rather as a temporary pause in a broader cycle of economic hardship and political uncertainty. If future negotiations fail to produce sanctions relief, investment, and economic recovery, public frustration could continue to grow despite the end of active conflict.

Stakeholders

• Iranian government and political leadership
• Iranian citizens and businesses
• United States
• Israel
• Ethnic minority communities in Iran
• International investors and energy markets
• Regional governments monitoring stability in the Middle East

What’s Next

Attention will now shift to negotiations aimed at turning the interim agreement into a permanent settlement. Iranian leaders will seek economic benefits and sanctions relief, while Washington is expected to push for further commitments on security and nuclear issues.

Domestically, the government faces the challenge of managing economic expectations and maintaining stability. Whether the ceasefire translates into meaningful improvements for ordinary Iranians may ultimately determine how the agreement is judged inside the country.

With information from Reuters.

Following the US attack on January 3, Venezuela was left in a state of turmoil and uncertainty that does not rule out further military actions. In recent days, there was “a joint operation between Venezuelan and US security agencies in the southeast of Bolívar state, in which organized crime networks were dismantled,” according to a statement from the Venezuelan government. Days earlier, the Coordinadora Simón Bolívar, a historic Chavista organization, had denounced DEA involvement in planning a repressive offensive with the aim of “decapitating” the popular movement in the iconic 23 de Enero neighborhood, which Juan Contreras describes as “the most important in Caracas.”

A community leader, social work graduate, and president of the Coordinadora, Contreras is a longtime Chavista activist and staunch defender of the Bolivarian Revolution. Today he believes there are “shameful situations that must be denounced,” but he holds the US government – ”our enemy” – responsible. Contreras was born and raised in the densely populated and combative 23 de Enero neighborhood, where he still lives and where he welcomed us to analyze the complex situation facing Venezuela, and in particular the social movements.

How are Venezuelan social organizations responding to what has been happening in the country since the US military attack on January 3?

What happened was an act of aggression, an act of war. They [the US] sought and continue to seek to break our people, but we in the social movements have kept up our efforts because we still believe in the revolutionary process. Our enemy is the US government, which must have realized that the problem wasn’t Chávez, because Chávez died and the revolution continued. President Maduro has been kidnapped, and here we are. What we’re experiencing today is unique in history; I don’t think anything like what’s happening in Venezuela has ever happened anywhere else in the world – the closest thing was in 1989 in Panama, when they kidnapped Noriega. But here, their narrative has fallen apart: it has not been proven that Venezuela is a drug trafficking country, that its government is linked to drug trafficking, or that President Nicolás Maduro was one of the biggest drug lords, as they claimed. On the contrary, today all those narratives have been debunked, and what is clear is that they are coming after our energy reserves. The Venezuelan people are well aware of this.

Is identifying a state of war and an enemy the context for the denunciation you issued about the danger of a DEA-orchestrated attack on 23 de Enero?

This is information we’ve received from a reliable source indicating that a large-scale operation is being planned against 23 de Enero, which is not far-fetched. 23 de Enero, as a barrio, has historical significance dating back to the Fourth Republic, between 1958 after the fall of Pérez Jiménez and the advent of democracy. That threat is very real. I believe that at the time, there was an underestimation of the threats posed by the US empire: the fact that our coasts were blockaded, the fact that our airspace was blockaded… Now, what we’re denouncing here has all the hallmarks of becoming a reality. It’s not just me saying this, nor the source that gave us this information, which is a reliable one. It’s that all the propaganda out there points in that direction, starting with the journalists who now live in Miami and are waging a full-scale campaign against the colectivos. “What’s going on with the colectivos? Why aren’t they attacking the colectivos? Why don’t they disarm the colectivos?” Marco Rubio himself has said it, and just recently one of the top military leaders said it: they’re coming for the “armed groups.” The problem is that, in their narrative, they label social movements as armed groups, accusing them of being armed in order to justify their aggression. Well, today our people are armed with consciousness; today, after 27 years, our people are more Bolivarian than ever. These are the people who placed their trust in Comandante Chávez, who committed to refounding the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. That is why we can understand all this cognitive warfare being waged against Venezuela.

There are no guerrillas here; what we have here is a people with a consciousness, a mobilized people, a people who, through culture, through popular education, have managed to advance in building the Bolivarian embryo from the barrio level, with the communal councils and the communes. So, the US seeks to dismantle that organization by employing the tactic of decapitation. They want to destroy the collectives, those who raise their voices against the empire, those who today denounce what is happening in our country, those of us who disagree with what is happening today, and who have maintained a principled and firm stance in the face of that aggression and invasion by the US empire.

Based on the information you have, how would the DEA carry out an attack of that kind on Venezuelan territory?

They have been operating by applying pressure. In all our countries, we have a repressive police force. Perhaps there is a segment of the police ranks – among their core leadership – that understands human rights issues, but there are other segments that are easily co-opted. We have 27 years of experience in which generals, colonels, and captains have turned their backs on us and served the empire’s policies. So, it’s not far-fetched to say that the United States is working with certain police forces, or with specific officials who might be willing to carry out an operation against the most important symbol in Caracas, which is the 23 de Enero parish. From 1958 to 1998, approximately 160 martyrs were killed there by the police. In other words, this is not crazy: it is serious, and as the pressure on our government to move toward an electoral process intensifies, the plan of aggression may also accelerate.

So, of course, it’s entirely possible that they’ll move forward with an action like this to eliminate what they consider “the Bolivarian resistance,” represented by social movements organized into communes, communal councils, and long-standing social organizations such as the Coordinadora Simón Bolívar, which is an expression of the popular power.

Did you receive any show of solidarity from the government?

Someone with influence within the government called us, reached out, we talked, and they agreed to investigate and look into the matter. What they recommended was caution: to steer clear of any provocation. And well, we’re waiting to see if what was discussed will be carried out, that a thorough investigation is conducted into what we’re denouncing. Because up until now, we thought [the US] would never invade, but they did; we underestimated them, and they invaded. And today they have the audacity to sell our oil, manage our finances, provoke us, and say they’re going to turn us into their 51st state. And on top of that, they’ve placed us under tutelage as if they were the owners of our country. This is, of course, shameful, and we must denounce it.

That is why we, as part of the popular movement, remain mobilized and continue to denounce what happened on January 3 and the consequences we are enduring in Bolívar’s homeland.

This situation has not yet had any international repercussions. What message do you have for the social and political forces in Latin America?

It has been 200 years since the Amphictyonic Congress, that call made by the Liberator to build a confederation of nations and defend ourselves against the US empire, which was already showing its claws. What better time to call for a continentalization of the struggle of our social organizations? It is not just Venezuela that is at risk: it is all of Latin America. They are coming for their backyard. Today, brazenly and in an interventionist manner, they are meddling in Colombia’s elections and declaring which candidate they want to win. They did the same in Honduras. 

So, in light of these events, the call to expand the struggle across the continent must be a reality today. Latin America’s only chance to escape the aggression of Donald Trump’s administration is through the coordination of the popular and revolutionary movement across the region. We must unite, we must denounce this situation, and we must move forward, because they’re coming for everything. The only way forward is to make the struggle a continental one. This is something that, at one point, was not only stated by Bolívar but also attempted by Comandante Ernesto Guevara. I believe that is where we should focus our efforts: on uniting the popular and revolutionary forces of Latin America and the Caribbean.

Source: Tiempo Argentino

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has warned that the United States should not interfere in his country’s upcoming presidential race, which is being held in October.

Wednesday’s remarks came after both Lula and his US counterpart, Donald Trump, attended the Group of 7 (G7) conference in Evian-les-Bains, France.

During a news conference, Lula said Trump was entitled to continue his relationship with the Bolsonaro family, whose patriarch, Jair Bolsonaro, led Brazil as president from 2019 to 2023.

“As far as I’m concerned, he can continue liking Bolsonaro, the father, the son, the grandson,” Lula said. “There is no problem with that. It’s his problem. There’s no accounting for taste.”

But Lula then proceeded to establish a firm red line: no interference in Brazil’s elections.

“Now, don’t meddle in the Brazilian elections, because the Brazilian elections are a Brazilian problem, just as American elections are their business, not mine,” Lula continued.

“All I want is the same respect for Brazil that I have for the United States. That’s it.”

A race between Lula and Bolsonaro

Lula is currently a leading contender ahead of October’s race. If the left-wing incumbent wins, it will be his fourth term as president of Brazil. He previously served from 2003 to 2011, before being re-elected to a non-consecutive third term in 2022.

But Lula’s top election rival is a member of the Bolsonaro family: Senator Flavio Bolsonaro, Jair’s eldest son. Flavio is running as the candidate for Brazil’s far-right Liberal Party.

Since returning to office for a second term, Trump has been accused of seeking to sway Latin American elections in favour of right-wing candidates.

In Argentina, he threatened to withhold economic support ahead of a key legislative election last October, and in November, he warned he might also suspend aid to Honduras if his preferred candidate did not win.

But in Brazil, questions have swirled as to whether Trump’s actions have already amounted to illegal intervention in the country’s judicial system.

Trump has made little secret of his support for the Bolsonaro family. Last year, after Jair Bolsonaro was charged with seeking to overturn his electoral defeat in 2022, Trump issued a public letter calling the trial a “witch hunt”.

“The way that Brazil has treated former President Bolsonaro, a Highly Respected Leader throughout the World during his Term, including by the United States, is an international disgrace,” Trump wrote. “This Trial should not be taking place.”

He proceeded to impose tariffs on certain Brazilian goods and sanctions on members of Brazil’s justice system, including Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes.

In September, Jair Bolsonaro was nevertheless sentenced to 27 years in prison for plotting an alleged coup and seeking to subvert Brazil’s democracy.

Trump calls Brazil ‘rough’

But the legal fallout has continued for the Bolsonaro family. After Jair’s third son, Eduardo Bolsonaro, lobbied the Trump administration on his father’s behalf, he was accused of orchestrating US interference in Brazil’s justice system.

Just this week, he was sentenced to four years in prison, after Brazil’s Supreme Court ruled his actions amounted to coercion. Eduardo has denied the charges and called the case a conflict of interest for Brazil’s courts.

Speaking at the G7 summit, Trump tried to address Eduardo’s sentence, though he appeared to mix the younger brother up with his older sibling, Flavio, the presidential candidate.

“ I hear they arrested somebody that’s running for office today,” Trump said. “ I heard that they arrested the Bolsonaro junior, who was doing well in the polls.”

Trump also suggested that Brazil had become “dangerous” for right-wing political views, an idea he has expressed before.

“It’s become a little rough country, right? Politically. A little dangerous, politically,” Trump said at one point.

At another, he appeared to compare the US election system to Brazil’s. “ They play pretty tough, but nobody plays tougher than the United States. Look, our elections are totally rigged. We have rigged elections,” he said.

But at Lula’s news conference, which was held separately, the Brazilian president dismissed concerns about the country’s electronic voting machines.

He called paper ballots a technology “of the last century” and offered to show Trump — a critic of electronic vote tabulation — how the machines work.

Reflecting on Trump’s assessment of Brazil, Lula also questioned the US president’s familiarity with the South American nation.

“I think he doesn’t know Brazil very well,” Lula said. “If he knows Brazil only through his relationship with the Bolsonaro family, then he doesn’t really know Brazil.”

Joao Neves opens the scoring for Portugal with early goal, but Yoane Wissa equalises in first-half injury time.

Cristiano Ronaldo’s record-equalling sixth World Cup got off to a disappointing start as the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DR Congo) secured their first-ever point at the football finals, drawing 1-1 with Portugal in their Group K match.

Yoane Wissa’s header cancelled out Joao Neves’s early goal on Wednesday, and the African side – appearing in their first World Cup since 1974, when their country was known as Zaire – more than held their own.

Portugal’s Ronaldo, 41, was largely a peripheral figure throughout the match, failing to make the impact his great rival Lionel Messi had achieved on Tuesday in scoring a hat-trick against Algeria.

The DRC’s achievement was even greater, given that their preparations had been disrupted by the Ebola outbreak back in their country.

Some Portugal players were wearing wrist bands, given to them by their Prime Minister Luis Montenegro, in tribute to late teammate Diogo Jota, who was killed in a car crash last year.

Portugal got off to the perfect start, with Neves powering home a header from Pedro Neto’s cross in the sixth minute.

However, despite dominating possession, they lacked a cutting edge, and well into time added on in the first half, their opponents made them pay.

Wissa rose unmarked to head past Diogo Costa in the Portuguese goal, sparking wild celebrations on the pitch, the bench and among the Congolese fans in the stadium as the Newcastle forward registered his country’s first-ever goal at a World Cup.

Former Portuguese defensive bulwark Pepe, watching from the VIP seats, did not look impressed.

Bernardo Silva had started the day by joining Real Madrid on a free transfer, but he ended it by watching from the bench after coach Roberto Martinez took him off at half-time.

He was briefly off his feet celebrating when Joao Cancelo’s overhead kick hit the back of the net – only for it to be ruled out for offside.

The Congolese were matching the Portuguese, though, and 35-year-old veteran striker Cedric Bakambu shrugged aside Bruno Fernandes, but his shot came back off the near post.

Ronaldo finally had a chance to shine when presented with a chance by Francisco Conceicao’s pass. But he fluffed his lines, sending it wide of the post.

The same combination linked up again minutes later, with Conceicao – a far livelier presence than Silva had been – teeing up Ronaldo. But once again the result was the same, and the ball went wide.

Portugal thought they had at least got a corner, but when it was not given, Conceicao slammed the ball into the ground in frustration as his side failed to pick up three points in their opener.

Concerned with Ukraine’s ability to protect itself from the onslaught of Russian missile and drone attacks, the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) is demanding to know if the Pentagon can increase deliveries of Patriot air defense system interceptors to that war-torn nation. This comes against the backdrop of extreme U.S. and allied demand on dwindling supplies of these weapons. 

As we have previously noted, between U.S. usage in recent Middle East conflicts and commitments to Ukraine and nearly 20 other nations, there have long been concerns about the supply of Patriot interceptors. Still, the Pentagon has maintained that it has sufficient supplies.

It is hard to say precisely how many Patriot interceptors remain in Ukraine’s stockpile, The New York Times recently noted. 

“The number is classified. At the end of June last year, there were as few as 16 in Ukraine’s arsenal,” the publication stated. Given the low supplies and constant Russian bombardment, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has frequently requested additional interceptors from the U.S. and allies.

SASC said it “recognizes the importance of Patriot air defense systems and Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) interceptors in supporting Ukraine’s self-defense and notes continued concerns regarding interceptor availability, production capacity, and the impact of transfers on United States military readiness.”

“Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, to submit a report to the congressional defense committees, not later than October 1, 2026, assessing the feasibility of increasing deliveries of PAC-3 interceptors to Ukraine,” its directive states.

We have reached out to the committee to find out which variant of the PAC-3 they are referring to. Lockheed Martin is boosting production of the more advanced current-generation Patriot PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) interceptors and it is unclear how many of the other variants are still being made or are in U.S. stockpiles.

SASC wants the following information from the Pentagon:

• “An assessment of current and projected Ukrainian requirements for PAC-3 interceptors over the next 12 months;”

• “An assessment of the availability of PAC-3 interceptors from existing Department of Defense inventories for transfer to Ukraine and the impact of such transfers on United States military readiness and operational plans;”

• “An evaluation of options to accelerate production of PAC-3 interceptors, including through multiyear procurement authorities, advance procurement, expanded supplier capacity, and other industrial-base investments;”

• “An assessment of the feasibility of increasing annual PAC-3 interceptor production and the anticipated timeline for achieving such increases;”

• “An identification of any statutory, regulatory, contractual, or supply-chain barriers to increasing interceptor deliveries to Ukraine;”

• “An assessment of opportunities for allied and partner nations operating Patriot systems to contribute additional PAC-3 interceptors to Ukraine, including options for United States backfill arrangements;” and

• “Recommendations for legislative or administrative actions that would enable increased interceptor deliveries to Ukraine while maintaining acceptable levels of U.S. military readiness.”

In addition, the committee said the secretary should “brief the congressional defense committees on the findings of the report, not later than 15 days after its submission.”

The Pentagon on Wednesday declined comment on the committee’s report, how many interceptors it has provided to Ukraine or whether it has the ability to increase that supply. We have reached out to Lockheed Martin as well and are awaiting a response.

TWZ recently addressed the supply of these munitions in a story about a new report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

The report, on the severity of the depletion of U.S. advanced weapons stockpiles, found that current production PAC-3 MSE “is around the baseline rate of 650 interceptors per year, with half the deliveries going to the United States and the rest to allies and partners.” 

Under a contract with the Pentagon inked in January, Lockheed is committed to boosting Patriot annual production to 2,000.

“Because U.S. procurement in the last decade has averaged 225 missiles per year, deliveries from prior years will not be enough to fully replace expenditures,” CSIS cautioned. “For that, the United States will need to wait for the 3,203 Patriot missiles requested in the Army’s FY 2027 budget. These are projected to start delivery in May 2029.”

As we noted earlier in this story, in addition to the Patriot interceptors already provided to Ukraine, the U.S. used a large amount during the conflict with Iran defending its assets, as well as those of allies.

The CSIS report found that at the start of the war with Iran, “there were about 2,500 Patriot interceptors in the U.S. inventory,” though its accompanying chart does not specify which variant. “During the course of the conflict, between 1,060 and 1,430 Patriots were fired.” We don’t know what that tally includes, but we do know that PAC-2 and PAC-3 series interceptors have been employed in the latest conflict with Iran.

Adding to questions about the ability to supply Ukraine with more Patriots, a top official from Lockheed Martin recently warned that the company cannot give U.S. allies any certainty over when they will receive interceptors despite plans to triple capacity, according to Financial Times.

Brian Dunn, vice president for strategy and business development of missiles and fire control, recently said that the company was working hard to scale up production of critical PAC-3 interceptor missiles amid a supply crunch exacerbated by the war in Iran. 

But in remarks to journalists at the ILA Berlin Air Show, “he sent a sobering message to American allies including Germany, Japan, Poland, the UAE and Saudi Arabia that operate the Patriot air defense system,” the publication reported.

Dunn said the extra capacity “is obviously going to be able to satisfy multiple user requirements in a faster timeline.” However, he added that Lockheed Martin does not “control what the allocation of those missiles is going to be. We can’t tell anybody where you’re going to be on that [priority list].

“Obviously there’s a lot of rhetoric coming right now from the Department of War . . . about how they’re going to reorder, reorganize, who’s going to get missiles first,” he continued. “We don’t control any of that.”

Dunn’s statements highlight concerns we raised long before and during Operation Epic Fury about the rapid expenditure of critical munitions and how that could affect a potential future fight against China. It also goes along with our reporting about the overall inadequacy of the U.S. Patriot force, an issue we have been highlighting for years.

Meanwhile, for Ukraine, the influx of new Patriot interceptors cannot come soon enough. Two nights ago, for instance, Russian forces launched 70 missiles and over 600 drones in a mass assault, according to the Kyiv Independent.

“Of the 34 ballistic missiles fired, 19 were aimed at the capital,” the publication noted.

You can see a video of one of those strikes below.

“Kyiv’s beleaguered Patriot batteries did a valiant job, intercepting 15 of them, along with five of the six 3M22 Zircon hypersonic cruise missiles launched in the attack,” the news outlet added. “Still, even layered defenses were stretched beyond the limit.”

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

Under the MOU, an initial 60-day negotiation period, which can be extended, will begin once the preliminary agreement is signed.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry has said that the signing of a memorandum of understanding in Switzerland, expected to take place on Friday, could take place in the presence of President Masoud Pezeshkian and Donald Trump.

Previously, Iran had said that Washington and Tehran would be represented by Vice President JD Vance and Parliament Speaker and top negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, respectively.

On Wednesday, ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei told reporters that Iran’s plans “for the Swiss summit have not changed”.

“Regarding the manner of signing the memorandum of understanding, one of the ideas is for it to be done by the presidents of the two countries, which is currently being considered,” he added.

Speaking at the G7 summit in France earlier, Trump said he expected the agreement with Iran to be signed “shortly” without specifying the exact date.

“The deal we reached with Iran on Sunday will be signed shortly, tomorrow [Thursday], maybe the next day [Friday],” Trump told a news conference after previous announcements that it would be signed on Friday in Switzerland.

Hormuz to be ‘restored to normal’

In a statement, Baghaei added that maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz will be restored to normal within a defined timeframe, while insisting that outside powers will have no role in the process and that managing that process would be handled by Iran alone.

“This is our own task, and we alone will do it, and there will be no need for participation or intervention from other parties,” he stated.

“Iran and Oman will cooperate to develop a mechanism for managing the Strait of Hormuz, and we will exchange views with other countries in the region wherever necessary.

He said that Iran and the US agreed to “negotiate a final agreement within 60 days”, adding that the naval blockade “must end within 30 days.

A senior US official, briefing reporters on Wednesday, said the MOU establishes a new “minimum” threshold for downblending Iran’s stock of highly enriched uranium and contains measures aimed at safeguarding Lebanon’s “territorial integrity” following Israel’s latest strikes on Hezbollah inside the country.

In exchange, Washington would move to waive, though not fully lift, some of its broad sanctions on Iran once the agreement is signed.

The US-drafted text also guarantees toll-free transit through the Strait of Hormuz for a period of just 60 days, and leaves open the possibility that transit fees could be imposed later, the official added on condition of anonymity.

Rangers have appointed Derek McInnes as manager on a three-year contract after agreeing a compensation deal with Scottish Premiership rivals Hearts.

McInnes is the third boss at Ibrox inside a year and replaces Danny Rohl, whose move to Austrian side RB Salzburg was confirmed earlier on Wednesday.

The 54-year-old joined Hearts from Kilmarnock last summer and led the Tynecastle club to a second-placed finish, missing out on the title to Celtic on a dramatic final day, but edging Rangers out of the Champions League qualifiers.

The former Rangers midfielder turned down an approach from the Ibrox club in December 2017 in order to stay at Aberdeen but has now followed Tynecastle captain Lawrence Shankland in moving from Hearts.

“It is a real honour,” McInnes said. “The demands here are clear and our supporters rightfully have high expectations. It is up to me, my staff and my players to meet those expectations, and have this club performing as it should.

“There is a lot of hard work ahead, but already the preparations have begun and I am looking forward to meeting the current squad in the coming weeks and welcoming some new faces.”

Alan Archibald, Paul Sheerin and Craig Clark will assist McInnes.

While Rohl was head coach, McInnes will have the title of manager and was the frontrunner as soon as it emerged that the German was keen to leave for Salzburg.

Chairman Andrew Cavenagh said the Scot is “someone we have always rated highly” and is “exactly what this club needs at this moment in time”.

He added: “His deep Scottish and Rangers experience are important for us. He knows how to win in this league, and he is coming off an extremely strong season with Hearts.”

Rohl, 37, replaced Russell Martin as head coach in October and steered Rangers into a three-way title fight, but a post-split collapse yielded a third-placed finish behind Celtic and Hearts as the Ibrox club ended the campaign without silverware.

Cavenagh – who publicly backed Rohl at the end of the season – thanked him for his “service and commitment to Rangers”.

“He and his staff put in a significant amount of hard work during his time in charge, which we are greatly appreciative of,” he added.

Mangione would face lighter sentencing if jury accepts he was in a state of ‘extreme emotional disturbance’ during act.

Luigi Mangione, the man suspected of fatally shooting United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson in New York City, will argue a psychiatric defence during his trial.

Judge Gregory Carro said on Wednesday that Mangione’s lawyers informed him that they will assert that their client was in a state of “extreme emotional disturbance” when he allegedly carried out the shooting in December 2024.

New York state allows murder defendants to make the case that they cannot be held fully responsible for their actions because they were in a state of extreme emotional disturbance at the time of the killing.

Thompson’s slaying, which took place outside a hotel in midtown Manhattan, shocked the United States public. Grainy footage of the act quickly spread across social media.

It also drew attention to the widespread anger over sky-high healthcare prices. Police have said that the terms “delay”, “deny”, and “depose” were written on the suspect’s ammunition, a reference to how health insurance companies avoid paying claims.

If the jury concludes that Mangione was emotionally disturbed at the time of the alleged act, it could move to convict him of manslaughter rather than murder. Such a conviction generally results in a lighter sentence.

Relying on a claim of emotional disturbance means that Mangione would effectively admit that he carried out the act, but that he did so under circumstances of impaired judgement. It differs from an insanity plea, which would allow Mangione to serve his sentence in a psychiatric facility rather than a prison.

Mangione, who sat between two of his lawyers dressed in a blue suit, is set to go to state trial on September 8. The 28-year-old has previously pleaded not guilty to state and federal charges in connection to the killing.

His federal trial, which includes stalking charges, is set to begin on October 13. He faces a potential life in prison if convicted in either case.

US District Judge Margaret Garnett, who is overseeing the federal case, threw out murder and weapons charges against Mangione on technical grounds in January. That ruling eliminated the possibility of Mangione facing the death penalty.

Trump says plan to keep controversial acting DNI head, Bill Pulte, in role as he pushes for surveillance, voter ID law.

United States President Donald Trump has delayed the confirmation of his nominee for director of national intelligence (DNI), while calling for lawmakers to pass legislation on surveillance and voter identification requirements.

Trump made the announcement in a Truth Social post on Wednesday, saying he planned to keep acting DNI Bill Pulte in the role and postpone the confirmation of his nominee, Jay Clayton.

Clayton had been scheduled to appear for a Senate confirmation hearing on Wednesday afternoon before Trump forced the delay by directing him to not appear.

The president cited his desire to pressure Democrats to pass a controversial surveillance law and a measure requiring voter identification, as well as his wish not to remove Clayton from his post as federal prosecutor until his replacement was confirmed.

“In the meantime, Bill Pulte will remain as the Acting Director of National Intelligence,” Trump said.

The US president’s nomination last week of Clayton had been a welcome relief to many lawmakers, including prominent Republicans, who raised concerns about Pulte and his lack of experience.

A Trump loyalist and housing official, Pulte had never held intelligence or military positions. The DNI oversees Washington’s 18-agency intelligence community.

Clayton, in contrast, currently serves in what is considered one of the Department of Justice’s most prestigious posts: He works as the US attorney for the southern district of New York in Manhattan.

The DNI vacancy emerged after Tulsi Gabbard announced her resignation in May, citing her husband’s cancer treatment.

FISA and voter identification

Clayton’s confirmation was meant to be fast-tracked to win Democrats’ support for a controversial provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which is currently up for renewal.

Section 702 of the law allows spy agencies to collect the communications of targeted foreigners located outside the US without first acquiring a warrant. Civil rights advocates have condemned the tool, saying it exposes US citizens to the government indirectly collecting their data.

Democrats had pledged not to renew the provision if Pulte remained in his role.

In his post, Trump maintained that Clayton could be confirmed before the vote on FISA, giving Democrats the opportunity to change their position.

Trump also added another condition, saying he would not approve FISA without lawmakers also passing a law requiring voter IDs in US elections. The legislation has been a key priority for Trump in advance of the midterm elections in November, but he has not been able to overcome a 60-vote threshold in the Senate.

“Therefore, to add a slight bit of intrigue but, for the Good of the Nation, and the People of our Country, I will not approve FISA without THE SAVE AMERICA ACT going along with it,” Trump said in his Truth Social post.

Despite the statements, Republican Senator Tom Cotton, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, initially said he would proceed with Clayton’s confirmation hearing on Wednesday unless Trump withdrew his nomination or ordered him not to appear.

Trump ultimately did direct Clayton to skip the hearing. That, in turn, forced Cotton to postpone the hearing. Afterwards, the senator issued a statement expressing regret at the circumstances.

“It’s regrettable that the president has directed Jay Clayton not to appear at his confirmation hearing today,” Cotton said in a statement.

“Mr. Clayton is a patriot and a highly qualified nominee, as the president has said repeatedly. While today’s hearing is now unfortunately postponed, I look forward to proceeding with his confirmation in the near future.”

Democrats, meanwhile, described the situation as chaotic.

“At every turn, the president has injected more uncertainty into a process that should be focused on one thing: keeping the American people safe,” Senator Mark Warner said in a statement.

“The president’s latest intervention only underscores a simple reality: the biggest obstacle to resolving these issues has not been Senate Democrats or Senate Republicans. It has been the chaos and confusion coming from the White House itself.”

When dozens of farmers bade farewell to their family members on the morning of Friday, June 12, and headed out in different directions to work on their farms, 17 of them were not lucky enough to return home alive. The farmers were killed after terrorists invaded their fields in the Maradun Local Government Area (LGA) of Zamfara, North West Nigeria.

Locals say 13 other farmers were injured during the attack, with three of them referred to the Usmanu Danfodiyo University Teaching Hospital (UDUTH) in Sokoto. A survivor of the attack, who identified himself only as Bello, told HumAngle that he was on his farm in the outskirts of Gora in the Maradun LGA, at around 9 a.m., when he heard the first gunshot. He said he thought it was one of the Yan Sakai local security guards, but it became clear that it was a terrorist attack when the gunshot sounded a second time. Yan Sakai security volunteers are young people carrying weapons to protect residents from terrorist attacks. 

Bello recalled that he was lying face down while others fled. As the gunfire persisted, he managed to pull himself to the other side of the road before running home. “I was lucky, my farm is right on the side of the road; most of those killed had their farms a little bit away from the road,” he said.

For over ten years, rural terrorism has become widespread and persisted in Zamfara and other northwestern states. In many ungovernable areas, farmers are compelled to pay a farming tax before they are permitted to work on their fields as the wet season arrives. The armed groups also require farmers to make payments running into millions to cultivate their crops. Even after paying, not all communities are granted access to their farmlands. Many communities have been displaced, and food stores have been torched because residents failed to pay the required farming tax.

HumAngle recently reported that about 40 leaders of a farming community were abducted at a peace deal meeting with a terrorist leader in a village in the Maradun LGA. The community leaders were lured into a meeting to discuss how much they would pay to a terror group, only for them to be abducted by the leader of the criminal syndicate. In a separate report, we also documented how farmers were being displaced after paying millions of naira as farming tax to terrorists in Zamfara.

“There were a lot of motorcycles with bandits on top, shooting sporadically, but I managed to escape. The bandits [terrorists] must have divided into groups because there were gunshots from all corners,” Bello said.

The chairman of the Maradun LGA, Sanusi Dosara, stated that the recent devastating attack reflects the ongoing efforts of terrorists to disrupt farming activities in the state. Since early June, there has been an increase in attacks aimed at farmers in Zamfara. 

Prior to the latest incident, two farmers were killed while tending to their fields near the Kaya community, not far from Gora in Maradun. Earlier, eight farmers were killed in an attack in Gima village, located in Anka LGA. According to locals, the farmers who lost their lives in the Gima assault were: Sani Kanen Tidurogo, Salisu Kadda, Bello Kyabe, Ibrahim na Yakubu Ziti, Yusuf Malan Rabi, Masaudu Sani Adake, Abdulmajid Sani, and Adamu Dungo.

“The terrorists are intentional about what they want,” Abdulmudallib Anka, a resident, told HumAngle. His house in Anka is filled with internally displaced persons from Gima and other villages. “The day of that attack, the terrorists circled a group of farmers working on their farms before they started shooting sporadically.”

Abdulmudallib noted that the recurring attacks have shown the terrorists are ready to continue their onslaught against the civilian population, so as to stop them from gaining access to their farms. There have also been reports of attacks in which farmers were killed in the communities of Kaura Namoda, Tsafe, Zurmi, and Birnin Magaji LGAs over the past few days.

Sulaiman Abdullahi, a youth leader in Birnin Magaji, said the situation has forced several farmers to stop going to the farm.

“Early June, farmers were attacked outside Tungar Danjuma and Gidan Kyafda, which led to the death of about six farmers with several others injured,” Sulaiman said. “That same day, farmlands on the Birnin Magaji – Kaura Namoda road were also attacked around 1 p.m.”

In Zurmi LGA, the terrorists struck on June 7 and invaded the outskirts of the town, along the road to Kaura Namoda, killing two farmers working on their farms. 

A newly emerged video offers what appears to be a first look at China’s R6000 uncrewed tiltrotor aircraft in free flight, marking a significant step beyond the tethered hover tests that had been seen previously. The design has attracted interest on account of its similarities to Bell’s MV-75A Cheyenne II, America’s crewed second-generation tiltrotor. More broadly, the development of this aircraft could have very significant implications for the People’s Liberation Army as well as civilian operators.

The footage, which first appeared on Chinese social media, shows the large drone in vertical flight, making a pedal turn (rotating around its vertical axis in the hover), and in sustained forward flight with its twin proprotors fully tilted. Previous imagery was limited to tethered evaluations that demonstrated basic hover capability. Now, with flight testing advancing, more could be revealed about the aircraft’s performance envelope.

As in the previous imagery, the aircraft’s engines are unshrouded, with their streamlined fairings removed. Like the MV-75, the R6000 features fixed engine nacelles with hinged proprotors, in contrast to the first-generation tiltrotor design found on the V-22 Osprey, in which the entire nacelle pivots up and down as a complete unit.

Previous imagery showing the R6000 conducting a tethered hover test had begun to circulate last November, as we discussed at the time.

While no details have been released about the scope of the current trials, the ability to conduct sustained untethered flight is a key milestone for any tiltrotor program, given the complexity of the aircraft’s aerodynamics and flight-control systems. Tiltrotor designs are especially challenging, as evidenced by the V-22’s checkered record through the years. 

In October 2024, a photo emerged showing the first completed prototype of the R6000 at the Wuhu United Aircraft Production Workshop in China’s eastern Anhui province. United Aircraft had unveiled the design, also referred to as the UR6000 and Zhang Ying (or Steel Shadow), at the 2024 Singapore Airshow.

Developed by the Chinese firm United Aircraft, the R6000 is one of the largest uncrewed tiltrotor designs currently in development anywhere in the world. Combining the vertical takeoff and landing capabilities of a helicopter with the speed and range advantages of a fixed-wing aircraft, it is — officially, at least — aimed at logistics, disaster relief, offshore support, and other missions requiring access to areas without prepared runways. United Aircraft has presented both crewed and uncrewed versions of the R6000 in the past.

As we have outlined previously, a crewed or uncrewed tiltrotor in the R6000 class could fulfill various military applications for the People’s Liberation Army (PLA).

The aircraft would be particularly valuable for sustaining PLA island bases in the South China Sea, as well as isolated installations elsewhere in the Pacific and along China’s remote border regions, where conventional airfield infrastructure is limited.

This kind of aircraft could support overseas deployments and regional contingencies, including a potential operation against Taiwan, by moving troops, supplies, and equipment between dispersed locations without relying on prepared runways.

In particular, the R6000 would be well suited to operating from the Type 076 amphibious assault ship and other large People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) amphibious ships, greatly extending their reach for logistics, reconnaissance, and other missions.

As well as logistics, a fully developed R6000 has clear potential as a multi-mission platform. Its payload capacity could also accommodate intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) equipment, electronic warfare payloads, communications relay systems, or potentially even precision-strike weapons. It is worth noting at this point that a special operations version of the MV-75 is already in the works, with a gunship variant likely, and a sea control concept has been displayed, too. China is likely to at least explore similar development paths for its tiltrotors.

In this respect, the R6000 also makes for an interesting comparison with Bell’s V-247 Vigilant, which was originally pitched to meet the U.S. Marine Corps multirole, VTOL-capable drone program, known as MUX. The V-247 has also been pitched to the U.S. Navy, while Bell has presented renderings showing V-247s operating together with the crewed V-280 Valor tiltrotor design, which the U.S. Army’s MV-75 is based on.

When it comes to advanced uncrewed aviation, this is an area that China has invested heavily in over the past decade. Its projects span everything from smaller tactical drones to high-altitude reconnaissance platforms and increasingly sophisticated combat drones. The R6000 fits squarely within Chinese efforts to develop a range of uncrewed transport aircraft, including developing large autonomous logistics aircraft capable of operating in challenging environments.

In the vertical-lift segment, China is also busily exploring crewed tiltrotor designs.

Earlier this month, new footage emerged showing what is understood to be China’s first crewed tiltrotor aircraft during flight trials. That aircraft had first broken cover in August of last year, as we wrote about at the time.

Although the R6000 has, in the past, been pitched primarily for civilian applications, the technology has obvious military relevance. Large autonomous tiltrotors could provide rapid resupply to dispersed forces, support operations in remote regions, or deliver cargo to ships and austere bases without the need for conventional runways. Tiltrotors have huge potential for the PLA, which has major littoral mission demands and a growing fleet of amphibious warships to which these kinds of aircraft are especially well suited.

As such, the R6000 is worth watching as another indicator of the Chinese military’s increasingly ambitious vertical-lift programs, as well as its diverse and growing series of uncrewed aircraft.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

Russian artist Robert Kuzakov, known as Semyon Skrepetsky, was shot dead in Poland just three days after a performance protest in Berlin near the Russian embassy. He was known for his caricatures of politicians including Vladimir Putin and Alexei Navalny.

Israeli air strikes have continued to target towns in southern Lebanon despite an agreement between the United States and Iran set to be formally signed on Friday to end the war on all fronts.

Israeli drones carried out three attacks in Tyre that resulted in injuries while a drone also targeted the Bint Jbeil district in Nabatieh, Lebanon’s state-run National News Agency said on Wednesday.

The fighting in Lebanon is considered one of the biggest threats to the framework agreement in the US-Israel war on Iran with Tehran warning that new Israeli strikes on Lebanon and continued occupation of its territory would be regarded as a violation of the deal.

Earlier on Wednesday, Al Jazeera Arabic correspondents on the ground reported that Israeli forces carried out an air strike on the outskirts of Kfar Tebnit, also in the Nabatieh district. They also launched raids on the town of Nabatieh al-Fawqa and shelled the Ali al-Taher heights and the outskirts of the town.

Hezbollah fighters, meanwhile, launched at least 10 rockets towards Israeli forces near Kfar Tebnit.

A day earlier, Israeli attacks killed at least four people in Nabatieh, including in drone strikes on several vehicles.

There has been a reduction in violence since the US-Iran agreement was announced, but attacks have not stopped, Al Jazeera’s Zeina Khodr said, reporting from Beirut.

“Security sources believe that the Israeli army is trying to occupy more ground, especially strategic high ground around Nabatieh,” she said.

“Yes, families have started to return to their villages, but people are worried. They say they don’t trust that Israel will abide by the ceasefire.”

United Nations spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said the number of projectiles fired between Israeli forces and Lebanon fell to 174 on Sunday, compared with 705 the previous Sunday.

Of these, 169 were attributed to Israel and five to Hezbollah, he said.

Lebanon ‘most sensitive issue between the sides’

The situation in Lebanon is one of the main pillars of the US-Iran agreement, Al Jazeera’s Almigdad Alruhaid said, reporting from Tehran.

“As we approach the signing of the deal, it is becoming the most sensitive issue between the sides,” Alruhaid said.

Iran said the Israeli military has violated the ceasefire in Lebanon 84 times in the past two days and warned that Israel should expect “a harsh response” if it does not stop its attacks, he reported.

This came after Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the withdrawal of the Israeli military from Lebanese territory is one of the core demands right now to move forward with the framework agreement Iran has with the US, Alruhaid said: “So the Iranians say the situation in Lebanon, in particular southern Lebanon, is an integral part of the memorandum of understanding.”

Lebanon was among the top priorities for the Iranians when they started negotiations with US President Donald Trump’s administration, according to Mohammad Eslami from Tehran University.

“Once the Iranians not only retaliated against the Israeli attacks on Dahiyeh and Beirut but also pre-emptively attacked Israeli territory, they showed right from the outset they are determined and very serious about supporting Lebanon, the Lebanese people, the Lebanese government and the resistance factions in Lebanon,” Eslami told Al Jazeera.

Israel’s invasion akin to ‘war crimes’

Meanwhile, the human rights group Amnesty International said on Wednesday that the Israeli army’s mass forced displacement orders in Lebanon amount to war crimes under international law.

“In parts of southern Lebanon, the Israeli military’s forced displacement of civilians and prevention of their return amounts to unlawful transfer – which is a war crime,” Amnesty said in a statement.

The Israeli army has “radically expanded” its use of such orders, displacing hundreds of thousands of people across Lebanon, it said.

“Instead of forcibly uprooting communities and designating entire swathes of Lebanese land as ‘no-go zones’ for civilians, Israeli forces must immediately withdraw from Lebanese territory,” said Kristine Beckerle, Amnesty International’s deputy regional director for the Middle East and North Africa.

The Israeli military declared about 4.6 percent of Lebanon as a “no-go zone” on November 28, 2024, a day after a previous ceasefire took effect, Amnesty noted.

This year, just three days after an April 17 ceasefire announcement, the restricted area was expanded to about 6 percent of the country, and residents were ordered not to return to villages previously home to tens of thousands of civilians.

Lebanese officials said Israel, which has been carrying out a large-scale offensive in the country since March 2, has killed more than 3,800 people, wounded 11,850 and displaced more than one million.

Dodgers defeat the Rays

From Maddie Lee: Whenever Shohei Ohtani is questioned, it seems, he does something spectacular.

On Tuesday, with discussion still swirling over whether his knee problem from the week before would influence his two-way availability when he took the mound Wednesday, Ohtani broke open a scoreless standoff with a sixth-inning solo home run.

It held as the winning run, as the Dodgers went on to beat the Rays 1-0.

“That’s just him,” Dodgers starting pitcher Justin Wrobleski said of Ohtani. “He’s obviously the best player of all time. I’m super lucky and blessed to be his teammate and watch him play. It’s been super cool.”

Up to that point, neither team’s starting pitcher had flinched.

Wrobleski had given up just three hits in six scoreless innings. And, along with five strikeouts, he hadn’t allowed more than one baserunner in any inning, squashing the scrappy Rays’ ability to manufacture a run.

Continue reading here

Shaikin: The Dodgers are ruining baseball! Stop them! But first let me vote for all their players

Dodgers box score

MLB standings

Angels defeat the Diamondbacks

Mike Trout hit a two-run home run and an RBI double for the Angels in a 7-0 shutout of the Arizona Diamondbacks on Tuesday night.

Trout’s 436-foot two-run shot to center came in the fifth inning and gave the Angels a 5-0 lead, and his sixth-inning double drove in Denzer Guzman.

Reid Detmers (3-5) worked seven innings for the Angels, giving up no runs and three hits while striking out three. He has given up three or fewer earned runs in each of his past five outings and nine of his last 10.

Continue reading here

Angels box score

MLB standings

From Kevin Baxter: Growing up the son of an NFL wide receiver, Alex Freeman said he felt a lot of pressure to play the American version of football, not the one the rest of the world plays.

“I always got asked if football was the path,” he said last summer. “But I always had a secret love for soccer.”

And he had to keep it a secret because he wasn’t sure his father Antonio, a Super Bowl winner with the Green Bay Packers, would understand.

But his stepfather did. Jake Hinkle introduced Alex to the sport and served as his first coach while his mother Rochelle urged him on.

Now his biological father, who last played in 2004, the year his son was born, has joined the cheering section as well.

“I was with him at the hotel,” Freeman said, “and he was just giving me those kinds of speeches that you hear from a dad. He’s just telling me to be myself. I think he knows that being myself has gotten me to this point. So why change that, right?”

He put a massive exclamation mark on what has been a breakout 13 months by setting up Gio Reyna for the final goal of a 4-1 win for the U.S. in its World Cup opener against Paraguay. The U.S. returns to group play Friday in Seattle where it will face Australia, with the winner of the match taking the inside track toward advancing to the knockout rounds as the group champion.

Continue reading here

Swanson: He lost his father to Iran’s regime. At the World Cup in L.A., he cheered for Team Melli

Click here for complete TV schedule, groups and players to watch

Tuesday’s World Cup results

Group I
France 3, Senegal 1
Norway 4, Iraq 1

Group J
Argentina 3, Algeria 0
Austria 3, Jordan 1

Today’s World Cup TV schedule

All times Pacific
10 a.m. Portugal vs. DR Congo, Fox, Telemundo
1 p.m. England vs. Croatia, Fox, Telemundo
4 p.m., Ghana vs. Panama, FS1, Telemundo
7 p.m., Uzbekistan vs. Colombia, FS1, Telemundo

World Cup Group standings

Group A
Country, W-D-L, Goal Differential, Points
Mexico, 1-0-0, +2, 3
South Korea, 1-0-0, +1, 3
Czechia, 0-0-1, -1, 0
South Africa, 0-0-1, -2, 0

Group B
Switzerland, 0-1-0, 0, 1
Canada, 0-1-0, 0, 1
Qatar, 0-1-0, 0, 1
Bosnia-Herzegovina, 0-1-0, 0, 1

Group C
Scotland, 1-0-0, +1, 3
Morocco, 0-1-0, 0, 1
Brazil, 0-1-0, 0, 1
Haiti, 0-0-1, -1, 0

Group D
United States, 1-0-0, +3, 3
Australia, 1-0-0, +2, 3
Turkiye, 0-0-1, -2, 0
Paraguay, 0-0-1, -3, 0

Group E
Germany, 1-0-0, +6, 3
Ivory Coast, 1-0-0, +1, 3
Ecuador, 0-0-1, -1, 0
Curacao, 0-0-1, -6, 0

Group F
Sweden, 1-0-0. +4, 3
Japan, 0-1-0, 0, 1
Netherlands, 0-1-0, 0, 1
Tunisia, 0-0-1, -4, 0

Group G
Belgium, 0-1-0, 0, 1
Egypt, 0-1-0, 0, 1
Iran, 0-1-0, 0, 1
New Zealand, 0-1-0, 0, 1

Group H
Spain, 0-1-0, 0, 1
Cape Verde, 0-1-0, 0, 1
Saudi Arabia, 0-1-0, 0, 1
Uruguay, 0-1-0, 0, 1

Group I
Norway, 1-0-0, +3, 3
France, 1-0-0, +2, 3
Senegal, 0-0-1, -2, 0
Iraq, 0-0-1, -3, 0

Group J
Argentina, 1-0-0, +3, 3
Austria, 1-0-0, +2, 3
Jordan, 0-0-1, -2, 0
Algeria, 0-0-1, -3, 0

No games played yet for the remaining groups

Group K
Portugal
Congo DR
Uzbekistan
Colombia

Group L
England
Croatia
Ghana
Panama

The top two teams in each group plus the next eight best third-place teams advance to the next round.

Lawrence Tanter is no longer the voice of the Lakers

From Broderick Turner: The smooth and soothing voice that generations of Lakers fans grew so accustomed to when Lawrence Tanter was the longtime public address announcer has put down his microphone.

Tanter, known as the “Voice of the Lakers,” has retired from his game-day role, the team announced Tuesday, and he will become a special advisor for Lakers game presentation.

Tanter, 76, sat in his courtside seat as the public address announcer for 43 years at Lakers games, starting in 1982 when they played at the Forum and lasting until late March, when the team announced he would miss a game to attend to his health. Those with knowledge of the situation who are not authorized to speak publicly on the matter said he had a stroke.

Continue reading here

This day in sports history

1954 — Rocky Marciano scores a 15-round unanimous decision over Ezzard Charles at New York to retain the world heavyweight title.

1961 — Gene Littler shoots a 68 in the final round to edge Doug Sanders and Bob Goalby in the U.S. Open.

1962 — Jack Nicklaus beats Arnold Palmer by three strokes in a playoff to win the U.S. Open.

1962 — Brazil beats Czechoslovakia 3-1 in Santiago, Chile to win its second straight FIFA World Cup title. Czechoslovakia scored first on a goal by Josef Masopust at 15 minutes. Two minutes later Amarildo tied the score. In the second half, Zito and Vavá scored goals to give Brazil the victory.

1973 — Johnny Miller shoots a 63 in the final round to win the U.S. Open by one stroke over John Schlee at Oakmont, Pa. Miller’s 8-under 63 is the first ever carded in a major championship.

1976 — The 18-team NBA absorbs four of the six remaining ABA teams: the New York Nets, Indiana Pacers, San Antonio Spurs and Denver Nuggets.

1979 — Hale Irwin wins the U.S. Open by two strokes over Gary Player and Jerry Pate.

1989 — The Quebec Nordiques select Swedish center Mats Sundin with the No. 1 pick in the NHL Draft. He’s the first European player to be taken with the first pick.

1990 — Fifty-year-old Harry Gant becomes the oldest driver to win a NASCAR race as he posts a 2.4-second victory over Rusty Wallace in the Miller 500 at Pocono International Raceway.

1991 — Payne Stewart escapes with a two-stroke victory over Scott Simpson in the highest-scoring U.S. Open playoff in 64 years.

1992 — Philadelphia 76ers trade Charles Barkley to Phoenix Suns.

1994 — O.J. Simpson doesn’t turn himself in on murder charges, LA police chase his Ford Bronco for 1½ hours before he eventually gives up (seen live on national TV).

1995 — Claude Lemieux snaps a tie at 3:17 of the third period as the New Jersey Devils open the Stanley Cup finals with a 2-1 victory over the Detroit Red Wings. The victory, the ninth on the road, breaks the NHL playoff record for road wins.

2007 — Angel Cabrera holds off Tiger Woods and Jim Furyk by a stroke to capture the U.S. Open. Cabrera shoots a 1-under-par 69 in the final round at brutal Oakmont (Pa.) Country Club.

2007 — Kate Ziegler breaks swimming’s oldest world record, shattering the 1,500-meter freestyle mark by 9 1/2 seconds at the TYR Meet of Champions Mission Viejo. Ziegler wins the 30-lap race in 15:42.54, easily erasing Janet Evans’ 1988 mark of 15:52.10 set in Orlando, Fla. At the time, Evans was the first woman to break 16 minutes.

2008 — The Boston Celtics win their 17th NBA title with a stunning 131-92 blowout over the Lakers in Game 6. Kevin Garnett scores 26 points with 14 rebounds, Ray Allen scores 26 and Paul Pierce, the finals MVP, adds 17.

2010 — The Lakers beat Boston for the first time in a Game 7 to repeat as NBA champions. The Lakers win their 16th NBA championship, dramatically rallying from a fourth-quarter 13-point deficit to beat the Celtics 83-79.

2011 — Rory McIlroy becomes the first player in the 111-year history of the U.S. Open to reach 13-under par, and despite a double bogey into the water on the final hole, his 5-under 66 is enough set the 36-hole scoring record at 131.

2012 — Webb Simpson wins the U.S. Open outlasting former U.S. Open champions Jim Furyk and Graeme McDowell.

2018 — Brooks Koepka wins a second consecutive U.S. Open, the first player to do so since Curtis Strange in 1989.

2024 — Boston Celtics beat the Dallas Mavericks 106-88 in Game 5 to clinch the club’s record 18th NBA Championship. Boston forward Jaylen Brown voted Finals MVP.

Compiled by the Associated Press

This day in baseball history

1915 — George “Zip” Zabel of the Chicago Cubs was called into the game against the Brooklyn Dodgers with two out in the first inning. He won 4-3 in the 19th inning in the longest relief effort in the majors.

1943 — Player-manager Joe Cronin of the Boston Red Sox hit a three-run pinch homer in both games of a doubleheader against the Philadelphia A’s. The Red Sox won the opener 5-4 and lost the second game 8-7.

1960 — Ted Williams of the Boston Red Sox connected for his 500th home run off the Cleveland Indians. Williams, the fourth to accomplish the feat, hit a two-run homer off Wynn Hawkins in a 3-1 win.

1971 — Don Kessinger of the Chicago Cubs went 6-for-6, with five singles and a double, in a 7-6, 10-inning decision over the St. Louis Cardinals at Wrigley Field.

1978 — Ron Guidry of the New York Yankees struck out 18 Angels to set an American League record for left-handers. Guidry, who struck out 15 in the first six innings, ended with a 4-0 four-hitter.

1993 — Baseball owners voted 26-2 in favor of expanding the playoffs for the first time in 25 years, doubling the teams that qualify to eight starting in 1994.

2007 — Brandon Watson extended his hitting streak to 43 games, breaking a 95-year-old International League record with a base hit in the Columbus Clippers’ 9-8 loss to the Ottawa Lynx. Jack Lelivelt set the IL record for the Rochester Hustlers in 1912.

2007 — Frank Thomas hit his record-breaking 244th homer as a designated hitter in Toronto’s 4-2 loss to Washington. The solo shot in the third inning moved Thomas past Edgar Martinez for the most homers by a DH in major league history.

2009 — Ivan Rodriguez catches the 2,227th game of his career, breaking Carlton Fisk’s record, in Houston’s 5 – 4, 10-inning loss to his former team, the Texas Rangers. For Texas, Omar Vizquel, the all-time leader for games played at shortstop, picks up his 2,677th hit, tying Luis Aparicio for most hits by a Venezuelan player.

2008 — Seattle’s Felix Hernandez struck out the side on nine pitches in the fourth inning of a 5-4 win over Florida, becoming the 13th pitcher in American League history to accomplish the feat.

2016 — Michaeal Saunders leads the Toronto Blue Jays to a 13-3 win over the Baltimore Orioles with three home runs and 8 RBIs.

2021 — The Arizona Diamondback set a new all-time mark with their 23rd consecutive road loss losing to the Giants 10-3.

Compiled by the Associated Press

Until next time…

That concludes today’s newsletter. If you have any feedback, ideas for improvement or things you’d like to see, email me at houston.mitchell@latimes.com. To get this newsletter in your inbox, click here.

Toronto, Canada – When Diana Gallego listened to Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s widely touted speech at the World Economic Forum at the start of this year, she couldn’t help but feel a disconnect.

Carney had made an impassioned plea to the world’s “middle powers” to break with a United States-led international order that he said was no longer working, and his words found receptive audiences around the world.

But for Gallego, co-executive director of FCJ Refugee Centre, an organisation that supports refugees and asylum seekers in Canada’s largest city, the prime minister’s statements rang hollow amid his government’s hardening approach to immigration.

“We saw the [prime] minister going to Davos [with] this beautiful discourse, saying we should not copy our neighbours … But internally, the policies are telling us another story,” Gallego told Al Jazeera. “Canada is closing the doors now.”

Gallego is among more than a dozen experts – from lawyers to professors, rights advocates and former government officials – who told Al Jazeera that Canada is at a “troubling” crossroads in its policies towards migrants and refugees.

As Canadians have grappled with rising economic and social pressures in recent years, a decades-old consensus on the benefits of immigration has frayed.

Hostile rhetoric blaming newcomers for Canada’s ills has intensified, and Carney’s government has slashed temporary visas and restricted access to asylum. Experts say a “generational shift” is under way.

“The general rhetoric is, ‘We don’t want you here’,” said Gallego.

Influx in temporary migration

A settler-colonial state, Canada has encouraged successive waves of immigration throughout its history, from largely European settlement in the early to mid-1900s to specialised programmes that brought refugees and high- and low-skilled workers to Canadian shores.

For decades, that influx of newcomers was widely viewed as a positive thing: immigration was fuelling the country’s economy, staffing key job sectors and counteracting a rapidly ageing population.

But over the past few years, Canada has seen one of the most dramatic shifts in how the public views immigration – and the government has tapped into increasingly negative sentiment to cut programmes and pass new, restrictive laws.

The policy changes began under former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, whose Liberal Party government had dramatically increased temporary immigration during the COVID-19 pandemic to fill labour market gaps.

The figures shot up rapidly and, by October 2024, there were nearly 3.15 million non-permanent residents in Canada, accounting for roughly 8 percent of the population, according to official figures.

At the same time, systemic issues – from a shortage of affordable housing to high grocery costs and long hospital wait times – were putting the squeeze on many Canadian households.

Public attitudes quickly hardened, and a 2024 poll (PDF) found a majority of Canadians saying for the first time in decades that there was “too much immigration”.

Since then, several incidents of xenophobic violence have been reported, including in some of Canada’s largest cities, where the influx of migrants has been among the most visible.

Under pressure as angry discourse soared, the Trudeau government promised in 2024 to get immigration back to “sustainable” levels, and the cuts began, including most notably to international student visas.

“The reality is that not everyone who wants to come to Canada will be able to – just like not everyone who wants to stay in Canada will be able to,” Marc Miller, Canada’s former immigration minister, said in September that year.

‘Erroneous beliefs’

The numbers of arrivals dropped quickly as student and work visas were cancelled, forcing thousands of people to leave Canada or remain without legal status. By the start of this year, non-permanent residents totalled about 2.67 million, according to government figures, a 15 percent drop from the peak in October 2024.

“I don’t think you can blame the housing crisis in Canada on immigration, but there’s no doubt that the radically increased numbers under Justin Trudeau’s regime had a political effect,” Allan Rock, a former Canadian justice minister and Liberal lawmaker, told Al Jazeera.

The government, Rock explained, has been “reading the room and sensing that Canadians were connecting local economic and financial difficulties with migration”.

At the same time, right-wing politicians have seized on those public attitudes, with the opposition Conservative Party earlier this year pushing the governing Liberals to cut healthcare for people it described as “fake refugees”.

The Conservatives, also, have echoed US President Donald Trump in advocating for changes to “birthright citizenship”, claiming that the “outdated rule” that grants citizenship to anyone born in Canada “presents yet another strain on our immigration system that Canada can’t handle”.

“With over 7 per cent of Canada’s population here on temporary status – and arrivals massively outpacing the capacity of our housing, healthcare and jobs markets – something needs to change,” the party said.

Rights advocates have denounced that rhetoric while accusing policymakers of falsely linking migrants and refugees to social problems to absolve themselves of responsibility for a years-long failure to properly fund healthcare, education and other services.

On the housing issue, for instance, experts have found (PDF) that, while immigration increases demand for housing stock, its effect on prices is far less important than public discourse would have people believe.

“Leadership means not simply caving into public opinion when it’s based on erroneous beliefs,” Rock told Al Jazeera. “We’re buying into, and we’re supporting, a growing international trend to tighten borders and build walls and validate erroneous beliefs about refugees and migrants.”

“It’s a betrayal of values that this country has always stood for, and I find it troubling.”

Carney doubles down

Yet, since taking office in April 2025, Carney – the prime minister – has continued where his predecessor Trudeau left off on immigration.

In late March, Carney’s Liberal government passed a sweeping new law that grants Ottawa the power to cancel visas en masse, including for permanent residents, if it deems it in the “public interest” to do so.

The law, known as Bill C-12, also restricts access to Canada’s refugee status determination system in ways that lawyers told Al Jazeera are “arbitrary” and likely run counter to the country’s constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The government has justified the measure – which is expected to face a constitutional challenge in court – as part of an effort to streamline a backlogged asylum system and prevent “fraud”.

At the end of last year, nearly 300,000 cases were pending at the independent tribunal that adjudicates refugee claims in the country, known as the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB).

A spokesperson for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), the federal immigration department, told Al Jazeera that it had introduced Bill C-12 “as global migration pressures intensify”.

The law introduces “measures to address challenges such as sudden increases in asylum claims and situations where existing processes may be used to circumvent regular immigration pathways”, the spokesperson said in an emailed statement.

“This means we can provide faster protection for those in need,” they said, adding that Bill C-12 also respects Canada’s obligations under the United Nations Refugee Convention as well as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

But experts say the law will do little to address the backlog at the IRB. They have also accused lawmakers of failing to dispel – and even of playing into – xenophobic rhetoric rather than addressing the real concerns of Canadians or structural problems in the asylum system.

The government is “creating this sense in the public that people are scamming us, they’re taking advantage of the system [and] there’s something broken that needs to be fixed”, said Julia Sande, a lawyer at Amnesty International Canada.

“People’s struggles are real. People are facing a housing crisis, inflation and unemployment, wage stagnation and widening inequality,” she told Al Jazeera.

“Then, instead of taking responsibility or making the changes needed to address these things, governments look for a group to blame – and who’s better to blame than people who don’t have the right to vote and can’t vote you out?”

Carney’s ‘honeymoon’ phase

Despite such concerns raised by rights advocates, Canada’s changing immigration policies do not appear to have drawn much attention – or pushback – from the wider public.

A wide-reaching effort by civil society groups earlier this year to get the government to make amendments to Bill C-12 failed to secure any meaningful changes.

In addition to that law, the Carney government also has rolled back a healthcare programme for refugees, extended a freeze on refugee resettlement applications, and announced significant funding cuts to several ministries, including the immigration department.

Planned cuts at the IRB – the board that adjudicates refugee claims – have also been reported, fuelling concerns that delays may get worse.

“The fact that there is no real plan in place to deal with this backlog [at the IRB] then contributes to negative opinion by the public about refugees,” said Maureen Silcoff, a refugee lawyer who previously served as a member of the tribunal.

“I think the government has a responsibility to proactively undo some of the myths that are circulating,” Silcoff told Al Jazeera. “This is especially important in times where we see in other countries that there’s a surge of anti-immigrant and anti-refugee rhetoric.”

Nevertheless, Carney continues to enjoy high approval ratings as he has justified government policies during his first year in office as part of an “elbows up” response to pressure from the Trump administration.

“The Carney government still seems to be [enjoying] a honeymoon of sorts,” said John Carlaw, an assistant professor at Toronto Metropolitan University who specialises in Canadian politics and immigration.

“We’re seeing a major withdrawal of social spending and then an investment in militarism and border enforcement,” Carlaw told Al Jazeera, describing it as a “troubling period” in Canada.

“I think C-12 really showed the government is not interested in hearing from communities that work with migrants and immigrants to make policies that are consistent with a human rights framework. They just don’t want to listen to dissent.”

‘Not immune’ to backsliding on human rights

Despite that, rights advocates say they will continue to push back against the direction Canada is heading on immigration.

“We can’t stop fighting,” Luisa Ortiz-Garza, a migrant rights organiser at Parkdale Community Legal Services, told a packed gymnasium at Trinity-St Paul’s United Church in downtown Toronto in late April.

Several dozen people joined the event, dubbed “No More Divide and Rule”, to denounce xenophobia and urge the government to grant legal immigration status for all migrants and refugees in Canada.

“What [the government is] doing is actually just putting people against each other,” Ortiz-Garza told Al Jazeera in an interview at her organisation’s office a few days before the gathering.

“It’s citizens against migrants [and] migrants against migrants because there is this idea that some migrants did things right and other migrants just jumped the queue or abused the system,” she said.

“We’re trying to have these conversations and bring people together: allies, citizens, migrants … so that we can actually talk about this and remind people about unity.”

That was echoed by Sande at Amnesty International, who warned that Canada is “not immune” to a backsliding on human rights. “Things will just continue to get worse until governments feel they’re held to account,” she said. “Yes, scapegoating may start with migrants, but it never ends there.”

China has announced it will send a round of humanitarian aid to Lebanon and Iran and play an active role in fostering regional peace. The foreign ministry spokesman described Beijing as ‘deeply saddened’ by the humanitarian disaster.

The small constituency of Makerfield in northwest England has found itself in the eye of the storm of British politics with a by-election on Thursday that will not only produce a new member of parliament but could also pave the way for a new prime minister.

The by-election was triggered last month when the previous MP, Josh Simons, stood down to allow Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham to contest the seat. If Burnham wins, he intends to challenge UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer for the leadership of the ruling Labour Party.

Starmer is facing mounting pressure to step aside following dismal council election results last month and this week’s resignation of Secretary of State for Defence John Healey and Armed Forces Minister Al Carns over the United Kingdom’s defence budget.

Seeking to derail Burham’s hopes for the Labour leadership, however, is far-right Reform UK candidate Robert Kenyon, whose campaign has been dogged by controversy over alleged sexist and misogynistic social media posts but who remains within striking distance in the polls. Reform came second at the last election in Makerfield, however, and are seen as presenting a real challenge to Labour, which has held the seat since its creation in 1983.

Here’s a closer look at the race, why it matters and how its consequences could extend far beyond Makerfield.

Why is a by-election happening in Makerfield?

Despite winning the 2024 general election in a landslide, Labour’s popularity has tanked over the past two years as support for the far-right, anti-immigration Reform UK has soared. In council elections last month, Reform swept up hundreds of council seats at Labour’s expense. Overall, Labour lost nearly 1,500 local council seats while Reform surged from 100 to about 1,450 seats.

On the right, Labour’s rhetoric on immigration has failed to stem support for Reform UK, which continues to attract both former Conservative voters and sections of Labour’s traditional working-class base – particularly in the north of England. On the left of the party, many voters who feel aggrieved by Starmer’s stance on Israel and cuts to welfare have shifted towards the Green Party.

Now, according to polling group Ipsos, Starmer is the most unpopular prime minister since it began voter surveys in the late 1970s.

As Labour’s internal tensions have grown as a result, Burnham has consistently emerged as one of the party membership’s preferred alternatives to Starmer. Recent polling suggests Starmer would defeat most potential challengers in a leadership contest, with one notable exception: Burnham.

As Mayor of Manchester, Burnham is not an MP and cannot currently stand for leadership of the Labour Party. Earlier this year, he was blocked from standing for Parliament via another by-election in Gorton and Denton, a seat Labour ultimately lost to the Green Party.

As pressure on the prime minister has mounted, however, Labour’s National Executive Committee has been increasingly unwilling to block Burnham from standing as an MP again.

Announcing his resignation as Makerfield MP following the council elections, Simons said Labour was heading towards a divisive leadership contest with “no hope, no energy that anything would change”. He described Makerfield as “where Andy Burnham has lived for 25 years” and said the mayor was “coming home”.

“Labour needs to change and the whole government needs to change,” Simons added.

Who is standing and what are they campaigning on?

Labour: Andy Burnham

Burnham currently serves as the highly popular Mayor of Greater Manchester, having left Westminster after previously serving in several cabinet positions under former Labour prime ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

As mayor, Burnham has built a reputation as one of Labour’s most recognisable politicians, benefitting from his distance from Westminster while arguing that it could learn from what he calls “Manchesterism” – a blend of pro-business policies designed to attract investment while bringing essential services back under public control.

Known by some supporters as the “King of the North”, Burnham gained national prominence for challenging the Conservative government during the COVID-19 pandemic and for his long-running campaign for justice for the victims of the Hillsborough disaster.

His appeal to Labour’s working-class base in the north of England has led some party members to view him as Labour’s strongest candidate for winning back the so-called “Red Wall” – former industrial constituencies that have increasingly shifted towards Reform UK in the north of England.

Political commentator and journalist Aaron Bastani told Al Jazeera that Burnham’s personal reputation “makes a difference” and that he represents Labour’s best chance against Reform UK.

“A lot of Reform voters actually like him. Many people have a good word to say about him, and he’s been a politician in the area for 25 years.”

But he added that, among some voters, he is still tarred by his “association with Labour as the party of government”.

“Many Reform voters see Labour as the party that backed the Iraq war, and there’s a deep sense of disillusionment with the political establishment … What’s interesting is that some Reform voters were making left-wing criticisms of Burnham, such as the cuts to winter fuel payments and broader dissatisfaction with the government’s direction.”

Reform UK: Robert Kenyon

Hoping to spoil Burnham’s chances is Reform’s Kenyon, affectionately referred to by some members of the UK media as “the plucky plumber” in reference to his profession. He represents a party whose rapid rise and anti-immigrant message has transformed Britain’s political landscape.

Reform UK’s rise has largely been driven by Nigel Farage, the architect of Brexit, whose party has capitalised on the collapse of support for the former ruling Conservative Party. Many big names from the Conservatives have defected to Reform in recent months. That has enabled Reform to attract both traditional right-wing voters and some former Labour supporters, largely on a platform that directs local grievances towards migration.

“For many voters, the proliferation of vape shops and takeaways on high streets has become a shorthand for a sense of decline,” Bastani told Al Jazeera.

“It’s often one of the first things people talk about when discussing immigration and changes to their local area. The concern isn’t really about vape shops themselves – they’re seen as visible symbols of a declining economic model, the loss of local identity and a feeling that places are deteriorating.”

Bastani, however, described Kenyon as “unimpressive”. His campaign has been overshadowed by allegations relating to historic social media activity.

Anti-extremism group HOPE not hate published posts attributed to Kenyon that included COVID-19 conspiracy theories, endorsements of sexualised comments about television presenter Carol Vorderman and remarks about female rugby players.

The group also highlighted comments on an online forum in which Kenyon allegedly described himself as sexist and suggested women make false rape allegations to obtain abortions.

Restore Britain: Rebecca Shepherd

Another factor is Restore Britain, a breakaway far-right party founded by former Reform UK MP Rupert Lowe, who argues that Reform UK has become too mainstream and is no longer hard enough on combating undocumented immigration.

Lowe, a former Reform member, was suspended by Reform UK in March 2025 after publicly criticising party leader Nigel Farage and was later expelled following a series of workplace bullying allegations and complaints from female staff members, which he denies.

Since launching the new party less than four months ago, Restore Britain claims to have attracted more than 96,000 members and 13 councillors, many of them former Reform figures. Should a significant share of those voters ultimately switch from Reform UK, it could dent Reform’s share of the vote just enough to benefit Labour.

Conservative: Michael Winstanley

Winstanley is the former mayor of Wigan, standing as candidate for the former ruling Conservative Party. He was elected as a councillor for the local ward of Orrell and 2000, and served for 16 years.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch called Winstanley “an excellent champion of the area having lived in, worked in and represented the local community for years”.

Observers do not expect any great show of Conservative voters at this election, however. In May’s local elections in Wigan, Labour won 42 seats, Reform 25, and the Conservatives got none. And, in the last general election in Makerfield, the Tories came in third – behind Labour and Reform – with just over 10 percent of the vote.

What do the polls say about the candidates?

Polling suggests the contest is effectively a two-horse race between Labour and Reform UK. The largest survey of the campaign, conducted by Opinium for Forward Democracy, indicates Burnham holds a narrow lead.

Based on a mixed-method survey of 543 local residents, Burnham leads Kenyon by five percentage points among voters most likely to cast a ballot. Among those rating themselves at least seven out of 10 likely to vote, Burnham stands on 46 percent compared with Kenyon’s 41 percent.

However, Kenyon’s share may have been damaged by the 7 percent that Shepherd is expected to win in Restore Britain’s first parliamentary outing. The Conservatives are polling at just 2 percent.

Furthermore, while Labour currently leads in the by-election campaign, the constituency’s longer-term political trajectory may ultimately favour Reform UK. When respondents were asked how they would vote in a future general election, Reform UK led with 42 percent compared with Labour’s 34 percent, suggesting that Burnham’s personal appeal may be helping Labour outperform its own national reputation.

In May, Labour lost all eight of its local council seats in Makerfield to Reform.

Tom de Grunwald, founder of Forward Democracy and StopReformUK.Vote, said tactical voting could prove decisive. “If you live in Makerfield and you would normally vote Green, Liberal Democrat, or anyone else, and you don’t want Reform UK to win this seat, the maths is clear: Andy Burnham is the only candidate who can stop them,” he said.

However, Bastani said he is sceptical that many Restore Britain supporters will ultimately return to Reform UK. “A lot of those voters now see Farage as part of the establishment,” he said, adding that Restore Britain could outperform expectations on polling day – which could split the far-right vote and benefit Burnham. While he expects Burnham to win, Bastani said the result should not obscure the rise of Reform.

“I’d be surprised if Burnham didn’t win. But if Reform were running a stronger candidate, this could look very different. If Farage somehow managed to win a seat like this against someone with Burnham’s profile, it would rank among the most significant political achievements of his career.”

There are so many questions to be answered about what led to yesterday’s fatal mishap involving a B-52H bomber at Edwards Air Force Base. The crash was tragic on a level the base, which sits at the center of America’s flight testing ecosystem, has not experienced, at least to our knowledge, for 75 years. The human impact here is just hard to quantify at this time. At the same time, there will be a major developmental impact, too, especially when it comes to work that is being done to modernize the B-52. This is a constellation of programs that are seen as vital to U.S. national security, and are also already running far behind schedule and over budget.

At this time, we do know that the aircraft in question was being used to support the Radar Modernization Program (RMP), and its loss will have ramifications for that effort. The RMP has already suffered years of delays and major cost growth, the latter of which triggered a deep, legally mandated review. However, in the past year, the U.S. Air Force has been talking more positively about progress on this critical upgrade, as well as other parts of a larger B-52 modernization effort that have faced their own hurdles.

“It was a B-52 that was on initial takeoff, supporting the Radar Modernization Program,” Air Force Col. James Hayes, Deputy Commander of the 412th Test Wing at Edwards, said at a brief press conference yesterday. “It was a local test sortie. It took off, and immediately after takeoff, crashed and burst into flames.”

The 412th is the main unit at Edwards. As noted, the base serves as the Air Force’s main test and evaluation hub.

“After reviewing the footage of the crash, it was deemed that this was an unrecoverable crash and unsurvivable,” Col. Hayes added. The B-52 had “a mixed crew of military, government civilians, and government contractors supporting this test mission.”

“Right now, our thoughts and prayers are with the families of those that lost their loved ones,” he also stressed. “This is a tragedy.”

When reached by TWZ for comment today, Boeing reiterated a brief statement it made yesterday that confirmed two of its employees died in the crash. The company’s full statement is as follows:

“We extend our deepest condolences to the loved ones of the eight crew members who lost their lives in the B-52 crash at Edwards Air Force Base, California. It is with great sadness that we confirm two Boeing employees were among those on board. We are in contact with their families and are offering support.”

Boeing, the original manufacturer of the B-52, is serving as the prime integrator for the RMP. Raytheon is supplying the new AN/APQ-188 active electronically-scanned array (AESA) radar, which is derived primarily from the AN/APG-79. In the United States, versions of the AN/APG-79 are in service today on U.S. Navy F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and all EA-18G Growlers, as well as U.S. Marine Corps F/A-18A-D Hornets. The AN/APG-82 used on Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles and F-15EX Eagle IIs also builds on the AN/APG-79. The AN/APQ-188 will replace the mechanically-scanned AN/APQ-166 found on B-52s today.

The RMP is one of many major upgrades planned for the Air Force’s entire fleet of 76 B-52s in the coming years. The bombers are also set to get all-new engines, improved communication suites, and more. The changes will be so substantial inside and out that the designation of the bombers will switch from B-52H to B-52J in the process.

B-52 Future Stratofortress: The Upgrades That Will Transform The B-52H Into The B-52J

“It is too early to tell,” a U.S. Air Force official told TWZ today when asked about potential impacts to the RMP.

We have also reached out to Raytheon.

The publicly stated plan for the RMP has called for the integration of the AN/APQ-188 radar onto two B-52s to support initial testing. Modification of those bombers began in Fiscal Year 2023, and the first example with the new radar touched down at Edwards in December 2025. Air Force budget documents say the second radar test B-52 is expected to be ready some time in Fiscal Year 2026, which began on October 1, 2025. Whether that milestone has already been reached is unclear.

It is also not known how many AN/APQ-188s may be available at all at present. “The remaining test-phase radars are expected to be delivered through the summer of 2024,” Raytheon said in a press release back in 2023.

As noted, the RMP has already suffered significant delays. Under the original program schedule, flight testing was expected to start in 2024. The initial goal was for AN/APQ-188-equipped B-52s to begin flying operational sorties in 2027. As it stands now, the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase of the program is expected to run into the middle of 2029, with initial operational capability then coming in 2030.

These delays have also come along with substantial cost growth. In 2021, the estimated price tag for development of the AN/APQ-188 and integration of those radars onto the Air Force’s full fleet of 76 B-52s was pegged at nearly $2.4 billion, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO). By 2023, the RMP’s costs had risen by 12.6 percent, per GAO. The program was eventually subjected to an extensive legally required review of its requirements and cost targets, which led to a scaling back of planned capabilities, at least initially.

“Part of what we did to control cost is to work at what are the main things that we need on this radar? As you may recall, we’re buying a radar that is largely a F-18 Hornet radar with some small modifications. We did that intentionally because that is what was on the market at the time,” Air Force Lt. Gen. Andrew Gebara, Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Deterrence and Nuclear Integration, explained in August 2025. “It would actually cost us more if we asked [a contractor] to design the new radar.”

Gebara’s remarks came during a virtual talk hosted by the Air & Space Forces Association’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies.

“Having said that, it doesn’t mean that we need everything on that radar that the Hornet had on it,” he continued. “We have a certain number of minimum things that we need to do to be able to do our B-52 mission. And so part of the cost saving [review] was looking at what are those things, to make sure that we’re prioritizing precious dollars on things that we need.”

Gebara said at that time that the revised RMP plan still kept the door open for “opportunities for growth in the future, if it comes to that.”

The AN/APQ-188 is still set to provide essential new capabilities, in part just by being a more modern AESA design. As TWZ has written in the past:

“In general, AESA radars offer greater range, fidelity, and resistance to countermeasures, as well as the ability to provide better overall general situational awareness, compared to mechanically scanned types. Increasingly advanced AESAs bring additional capabilities, including electronic warfare and communications support.”

“For the B-52, any new multi-mode AESA will improve the bomber’s target acquisition and identification capabilities, including when used together with targeting pods available for the bombers now. New radars for the bombers will also be helpful when it comes to guiding networked weapons over long distances to their targets and could provide a secondary ground moving target indicator (GMTI) and synthetic aperture radar surveillance capabilities. The radar upgrade could help defend B-52s from air-to-air threats, including through improved detection of incoming hostile aircraft.”

“Boeing has already looked at some schedule improvement that we’ve seen,” Air Force Gen. Dale White, the service’s Direct Reporting Portfolio Manager for Critical Major Weapon Systems, also told TWZ and others more recently at a roundtable at the Air & Space Forces Association’s (AFA) annual Warfare Symposium in February. White was speaking at the time collectively about progress on the RMP and the Commercial Engine Replacement Program (CERP) for the B-52 fleet.

At that time, Gen. White also highlighted how the relatively small size of the B-52 fleet, combined with the operational demands placed on it, had created additional challenges for modernizing the bombers. The B-52s are in high demand to support conventional combat operations, as underscored by their heavy use in the recent conflict with Iran. A portion of the fleet is also a key element of the air leg of America’s nuclear deterrent triad, which imposes additional hard operational requirements for available aircraft.

USAF B-52 taking off from England on an Iran strike mission yesterday, carrying a load of 500-pound GPS-guided JDAM bombs. pic.twitter.com/23RGpCe8GB

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) April 1, 2026

“The challenge with B-52 that I think everybody forgets, it’s such a small fleet that has such a tremendous requirement in terms of readiness,” White said. “You’ve got to have a certain number on the ramp. That’s a requirement.”

With the B-52 fleet expected to fly into the 2050s, it is extremely likely that the Air Force will move to regenerate a bomber from storage to replace the one lost yesterday, just to meet general operational demands. That is typically a weeks-long process, at best, for an aircraft of this type and size.

Since 2015, the Air Force has returned two other B-52s to service to make up for losses. One of these aircraft replaced a B-52 that crashed and burned at Andersen Air Force Base on Guam in 2016. The other one took the place of a bomber that was totaled on the ground when an electrical fire broke out during routine maintenance at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana in 2015. Thankfully, there were no fatalities in either of those mishaps.

With CERP and the other modernization efforts underway, there is high demand for resources to support B-52 test and evaluation work overall. This is reflected in a nearly tenfold year-over-year increase in the planned budgeting for B-52 test aircraft asset support at Edwards. The Air Force received just over $1.5 million to help pay for “the test aircraft, manpower, Bomber Modular Data Acquisition System (BMDAS), and facilities at the Air Force Test Center” in Fiscal Year 2026, according to official budget documents. The service is now seeking nearly $11 million in this same line item for the next fiscal cycle.

In the meantime, as mentioned, the Air Force has rightfully made clear that its immediate priorities following yesterday’s B-52 crash are engaging with the families of those who perished and working on the investigation, which could take months to complete. Edwards has also at least shut down flight operations today, primarily due to the state of the runway following the mishap.

The full scale and scope of the impacts to the RMP from yesterday’s loss remain to be seen.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

London, United Kingdom – Activists who gained access to the widely condemned Great Israeli Real Estate Event in London have shared photos with Al Jazeera that show property in illegal settlements being marketed.

The invite-only event, held at Edgware United Synagogue, was part of a roadshow promoting the sale of land and property in Israel, but in reality, these included homes in areas such as Givat Zeev and Tivuch Shelly in the occupied West Bank, as well as settlements in East Jerusalem.

“Exciting new project just 10 minutes from Jerusalem!” read a leaflet advertising homes, “some with pools!” in Maale Adumim, a West Bank settlement illegal under international law.

Isabel, a member of the Jewish Anti-Zionist Action group who spoke to Al Jazeera on condition of anonymity, said that the mood at the fair was peaceful and heavily protected, including by plainclothes men fitted with body cameras.

She did not hear any participants mention Palestinians, she said, adding that when it came to the occupied Palestinian territory, real estate agents spoke of “Anglo-communities” where English-speaking people from the United States, the UK and South Africa could relocate to.

She said a popular selling point used by real estate agents was that due to the war on Gaza, it was a good time to buy property in Israel, as prices had dropped and they might be willing to offer a discount.

The atmosphere reminded her of the opening week of university with social chatter, stalls and strangers pushing flyers at attendees.

“Unlike outside the synagogue, where there was lots of protests, it was calm inside with a heavy police presence, [security] people even wearing body cams. The room was all set up with stalls, in what I would describe as like freshers’ fair. On the tables were free pens, chocolates.”

When Isabel spoke with representatives from the Israeli real estate company Harey Zahav, she was shown advertisements for properties in Jerusalem as well as Netanya, a resort city in central Israel.

More than 100 British legislators, including members of Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Labour Party, had signed a letter on Friday urging the government to “uphold its obligations under international law” and ensure the event “promoting illegal activities does not proceed”.

Layla Moran, a British MP of Palestinian descent and one of the letter’s signatories, described the sales as “unacceptable”.

Gaza war could mean discounts, said participants

When Isabel told participants she was interested in something a little quieter, they said in hushed tones that they also had a portfolio of properties in “Judea and Samaria”, the Israeli term for the occupied West Bank.

One representative said that organisers asked them not to advertise properties in these locations. When asked why, he said it was due to these “crazy times” when people wanted to stop purchasing property in Israel.

He said they had all the information packs for those properties, but requested her details so he could send them to her afterwards.

At the stand of Tivuch Shelly, another Israeli real estate company, Isabel said representatives were more reticent to discuss properties in the occupied West Bank, but were openly advertising properties in Givat Hamatos and Ramat Eshkol, two settlements in occupied Jerusalem, on their flyers.

An activist with Jewish Anti-Zionist Action at one point shouted out that “this event sells property on illegally occupied stolen Palestinian land” before he was removed by security.

But the overall mood inside the fair was in sharp contrast to the protests and tense atmosphere outside the event.

In the buildup, rights groups, including Amnesty International, as well as the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, slammed the event for openly advertising the sale of land in illegal Israeli settlements.

Outside, hundreds of protesters shouted slogans and held posters reading, “Stop Israel’s illegal sale of stolen Palestinian land” and “Thou shalt not steal”.

The Metropolitan Police said 15 people were arrested during the demonstrations “for a range of offences, including public order matters”.

Green Party leader Zack Polanski has written to Khan, calling for the event to be investigated by the Metropolitan Police.

Khan earlier said he had discussed the event with the London police force and had been told that any allegations of criminality relating to the potentially unlawful sale of property at the fair would be assessed by the Met as part of a probe.

Israeli settlement expansion

Israeli settlers are Israeli citizens who live illegally on Palestinian land.

Israel started building illegal settlements after capturing the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip in the June 1967 Six-Day War, and now, more than 700,000 settlers – 10 percent of Israel’s population – live in 150 illegal settlements and 128 outposts spread across the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem.

The government has openly funded and built settlements, and Israeli authorities give their settlers in the occupied West Bank about $5.6m a year to monitor, report and restrict Palestinian construction in Area C, which is administered solely by Israel and comprises more than 60 percent of the West Bank.

United Nations bodies and most countries view the West Bank settlements as illegal, citing international conventions.

But the US has provided diplomatic cover to Israel for decades, with Washington consistently using its veto power at the UN to protect Israel from diplomatic censure.