news

On the 80th anniversary of the first flight of the de Havilland Canada Chipmunk basic trainer, an aircraft that generations of British and other military pilots learned to fly on, it’s worth recalling perhaps the most unusual episode of its career. Between 1956 and 1990, a handful of these propeller-driven trainers kept watch on Warsaw Pact forces in the divided and heavily fortified city of Berlin — a front line of the Cold War.

One of the two Chipmunks flown last week by the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight is WG486 — formerly attached to the RAF Gatow Station Flight for intelligence-gathering flights over Berlin:

At the end of World War II, defeated Germany was left divided between the Allied powers of France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The division of the country also extended to the former capital, Berlin, which was left deep within the Soviet occupation zone. Under the quadripartite agreement, the Western Allies retained the right of access to Berlin, using land and air corridors running into the Western-occupied zones of Germany.

The quadripartite agreement also included provisions for the Allied powers to maintain ‘liaison missions.’ Formally, these were supposed to ensure communications between the Western Allies and the Soviets. In practice, they soon became a critical way of gathering intelligence, especially since the Western missions were permitted to move, relatively unimpeded, in the Soviet zone, which would later become East Germany. The same applied to the Soviets in the West. For the British, the liaison mission was known as the British Mission to Soviet Forces in Germany (BRIXMIS), and it was based in Potsdam, just outside Berlin.

Meet The Real Cold War Spies Of BRIXMIS • FULL DOCUMENTARY | Forces TV

The agreement also ensured access to West Berlin for the Western Allies, flying through three air corridors in and out of the city. Each of the Western Allies had an airport in the city, with the British using RAF Tegel. These corridors were full of transport activity during the Berlin Airlift of 1948-49, when the Soviets attempted to cut off the Western sectors of the city by blockade. Outside the corridors, Western Allied military aircraft could also fly over the Soviet Zone of Berlin, although this was something Moscow was never happy about.

By the mid-1950s, relations between East and West were becoming more tense, and this airspace access began to be exploited for intelligence-gathering.

After the Berlin Airlift, the Western Allies were prohibited from flying combat aircraft in the corridors. Transport and training types, like the Chipmunk, were excluded from this rule, and in late 1956, the British launched the top-secret Operation Schooner (later renamed Operation Nylon), under which the trainers would conduct spy flights within the roughly 1,200-square-mile Berlin Control Zone.

Flying out of Gatow, the Chipmunk flights were officially for continuation training, which provided the required cover story. Actual training flights were also regularly conducted, also to preserve the cover.

From the mid-1950s onward, East Germany rapidly became the focal point for Soviet military expansion in Europe, and the British and other Western Allies had a growing need for precise intelligence on Soviet basing, equipment, tactics — anything, in fact, that provided a better understanding of the adversary and potential warning of an attack.

The U.K. Prime Minister’s office individually approved the Chipmunk flights from RAF Gatow. Two or three sorties were typically scheduled for each week. These were flown under visual flight rules (VFR) — so only in good weather — and not above 1,500 feet. The quadripartite Berlin Air Safety Center, which ensured the security of flights in the Control Zone, was notified in advance, and each flight was planned to last around three hours.

The primary ‘targets’ were the numerous Soviet military installations located within the Berlin Control Zone. The Soviet controller within the Berlin Air Safety Center, not coincidentally, often stamped the flight request card with the words “Safety of Flight Not Guaranteed.”

Mission equipment, at first, was a handheld camera, operated by a BRIXMIS member in the front cockpit of the Chipmunk, with the RAF pilot sitting behind. Each sortie required careful preparation, with the crew wearing oxygen masks at all times to prevent their identification. They would climb aboard the aircraft inside a hangar, with the cameras already loaded, and the engine would be started behind closed doors. After all, Soviet ‘watchers’ were posted around Gatow, and observation towers overlooked the base.

Though the Soviets were well aware of the real nature of these flights (once, according to one BRIXMIS account, a camera lens was accidentally dropped from an open cockpit onto a busy parade ground), the quadripartite agreement provided diplomatic immunity to the Royal Air Force pilots. Nevertheless, Moscow was upset about any Western flights outside of West Berlin, and harassment of aircraft was hardly rare. At least once, a Chipmunk was damaged by groundfire from a Soviet infantryman.

The importance of Schooner/Nylon increased as the Soviets made efforts to conceal their military activity in East Germany. To try to avoid the eyes of the liaison missions, they set up more Permanent Restricted Areas (PRA) — another provision of the quadripartite agreement. Within the Berlin Control Zone, the Chipmunks had access to several major Soviet divisional HQs, including some of its best-equipped and highest-readiness forces.

The construction of the Berlin Wall in 1961 underscored the East-West standoff and led to the Soviets further bolstering their military presence in and around the city, including new air defense missiles and surface-to-surface sites. According to some accounts, Chipmunks were among the first assets to bring back evidence of the extent of the border closures enacted by the Soviets in August 1961.

By the end of the 1960s, one of the Gatow Chipmunks had received a permanent camera installation, and both got new radios. According to one pilot, the new camera was powerful enough to “record the maker’s name from the inside of a tank if the turret was open.”

10 April 1978, the British BRIXMIS Liaison Mission had access to two Chipmunk aircraft, which they used for photo reconnaissance over parts of East Germany, between West Berlin and the Inner German Border. In this case they’ve captured a T-64 engine being removed for maintenance. pic.twitter.com/NQTdOn7Qul

— The Tank Museum (@TankMuseum) June 5, 2023

On one occasion, a BRIXMIS member recalled being intercepted and closely followed by a Soviet Mi-24 Hind attack helicopter, which escorted the Chipmunk from the Soviet helicopter base at Oranienburg to the north of Berlin.

Right at the very edge of the Berlin Control Zone was an especially interesting ‘target,’ the Soviet airbase at Werneuchen. This was latterly home to MiG-25 Foxbat reconnaissance jets, and it also hosted periodic deployments of Soviet long-range bombers. It was also deep within a PRA, making ground access very difficult. The Chipmunks would fly close enough to photograph every aircraft on the flight line, aware that if they strayed beyond the main runway centerline, they would be outside the Berlin Control Zone and would be shot down.

Also connected to Werneuchen and even more remarkable in terms of mission equipment is the fact that at least one Chipmunk was fitted with electronic intelligence (ELINT) gear. This modification was approved by the U.K. Prime Minister in 1981 but was only revealed by aviation journalist Ben Dunnell in 2024. It is known that the ELINT equipment was used to gather information about a new Soviet battlefield radar, equipping the 9K35 Strela-10 (SA-13 Gopher) short-range air defense system. However, it was also used in at least one flight over Werneuchen. No other details of the results of these missions have ever been released.

The Chipmunks remained busy until the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 heralded the end of the Cold War. Immediately before German reunification, in 1990, BRIXMIS was stood down and, with it, the need for intelligence-gathering flights came to an end. At its biggest strength, the RAF Gatow Station Flight never had more than four Chipmunks assigned.

The Gatow Station Flight remained active until 1994, when the last Chipmunk departed. Gatow finally closed as an RAF station the same year.

Last week, as the Royal Air Force marked the 80th anniversary of the classic Chipmunk trainer, it is worth remembering the unique role that the aircraft played during one of the tensest periods of recent history, during which the intelligence it collected helped keep the peace between East and West.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

US secretary of state says a ‘pretty solid’ deal is on the table in terms of opening up the Strait of Hormuz.

The United States will either secure a strong agreement with Iran or confront the country “another way”, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio says after President Donald Trump moved to temper expectations that an agreement to end the war is close.

“We thought we might have some news last night, maybe today. I wouldn’t read too much into it,” Rubio said in New Delhi on Monday, referring to the potential agreement to end the US-Israeli war on Iran, which began on February 28.

“We have what I think is a pretty solid thing on the table in terms of their ability to open up the straits, get the straits open,” he told reporters in the Indian capital, where he has been on an official visit.

Washington and Tehran have observed a ceasefire since April 8 while mediators push for a negotiated settlement although Iran has continued to block the Strait of Hormuz to most shipping and the US has blockaded Iran’s ports.

A day earlier, Trump wrote on Truth Social ⁠⁠that the US blockade would “remain in full force and effect until an agreement is reached, certified, and signed”.

“Both sides must take their time and get it right,” he added.

There was no immediate response from Iran’s government. But the Tasnim News Agency, linked to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, said the US was still obstructing parts of a potential deal.

“We’re either going to have a good agreement, or we’re going to have to deal with it another way. We’d prefer to have a good agreement,” Rubio said.

Points of contention

A senior Trump administration official outlined what he said were the latest contours of the issues being negotiated.

Speaking on the condition of anonymity, the official told the Reuters news agency that Iran had agreed “in principle” to dispose of its highly enriched uranium and open the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for the US lifting its naval blockade.

The US understood that Supreme Leader ⁠⁠Mojtaba Khamenei had endorsed the broad template of the deal, he added.

There was no immediate confirmation from Iran or elaboration on what an “in principle” ⁠⁠agreement meant.

The US official said Washington envisioned first reopening the strait and lifting the US naval blockade. Negotiating the details of the nuclear measures would take more time, he said.

The official pushed back on suggestions that Iran had not accepted disposing of its stockpiled enriched uranium. “It’s a question about how,” the official said.

Charles Kupchan, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said the back and forth between the US and Iran means a deal will not likely be agreed anytime soon.

“I think this is kind of par for the course for the Trump administration. One day they walk this way. The next day they walk that way,” he told Al Jazeera.

“Part of the conversations are private. Part of it is public diplomacy, but until we have a concrete sense that the Iranians are likely to say yes to getting rid of their highly enriched uranium … and to opening this Strait of Hormuz with no restrictions, I think one can say that we’re still far away from a lasting deal,” Kupchan said.

Victor Wembanyama scored 33 points to lead the San Antonio Spurs in a 103-82 rout of Oklahoma City and level the NBA Western Conference Finals at two games each.

The 22-year-old French 7-foot-4 (2.24m) centre shot 11-of-22 from the floor, 3-of-7 from three-point range, and added eight rebounds, five assists, three blocked shots, and two steals in 31 minutes for the Spurs on Sunday.

“I need to find ways to impact the game in many areas,” said Wembanyama. “I have a lot of responsibilities, but I’m here for it. All of us, we’re going to have to do things we didn’t sign up for.”

Hosts San Antonio pulled level at 2-2 in the best-of-seven playoff series, with Game Five on Tuesday in Oklahoma City and Game Six back in San Antonio on Thursday.

“This was our first deficit in the playoff series. We just responded,” Wembanyama said. “It was nothing amazing. It wasn’t magic. We just did what we needed to do. The series is far from over.”

Wembanyama knows what the Spurs must do to win the NBA title.

“We’ve got six more wins before we can rest,” he said.

The Spurs seek their first trip to the NBA Finals since winning the crown in 2014, while the Thunder hope to become the NBA’s first back-to-back champions since Golden State in 2017-2018.

Spurs coach Mitch Johnson said Wembanyama was aggressive to try and keep San Antonio from falling into a 3-1 series hole.

“Our competitive response all year has been pretty good, and he has been at the forefront of that,” Johnson said.

“Tonight he felt an obligation to set a tone for us in a variety of ways. The aggressiveness was a reflection of that… I think he wants that responsibility. He’s built for it.”

The Thunder had been unbeaten on the road in this year’s playoffs but were foiled in a bid to reach 6-0 by a strong Spurs defensive effort.

“Any time we can turn defence into offence, turnovers and rebounding, that’s when we’re at our best,” Johnson said.

“We can get out and run and play and get out in pace. Our activity was great tonight, and we’re going to need to get better at it as the series moves on.”

The Spurs stretched their lead as large as 25 points, while the Thunder were only ahead by a single point.

“I’m not going to get into details, but in general, being more disciplined and just trusting the game plan even more,” Wembanyama said of the secret behind the Spurs’ defensive effort.

The NBA Defensive Player of the Year also cited coming together defensively as the Spurs forced 17 turnovers and made 11 steals.

“That’s super important,” said Wembanyama. “We’ve got good individual defenders, and when we connect, we’re able to hold teams to low scoring numbers.”

NBA Most Valuable Player Shai Gilgeous-Alexander led the Thunder with 19 points.

Oklahoma City won an NBA-best 64 games this season, with the Spurs second on 62 victories.

Wembanyama sank a half-court shot at the buzzer – the longest made basket of his career – to give the Spurs a 50-38 half-time lead and himself 22 first-half points.

“I was just thinking shoot to score,” Wembanyama said. “I wasn’t messing around.”

The Spurs opened the third quarter with a 15-5 run to seize their biggest lead to that point at 65-43, and Oklahoma City could not catch San Antonio from there.

“We needed that momentum going into the second half,” San Antonio’s Devin Vassell said of the half-court “Wemby” hoop.

Vassell and Stephon Castle each scored 13 points for the Spurs, while De’Aaron Fox added 12 points and 10 rebounds.

This summer, the U.S. Navy will demonstrate the ability of the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford, with its two A1B nuclear reactors, to power a base on land. The test at Naval Station Norfolk in Virginia is part of a larger effort to ensure facilities can remain up and running even if existing power sources are lost due to attacks and other contingencies. Using ships to provide electricity ashore is not new, but being able to use a Ford class aircraft carrier in this way might open up additional operational possibilities, as well as help in future disaster relief scenarios.

Acting Secretary of the Navy Hung Cao briefly mentioned the planned test at a hearing before members of the House Armed Services Committee on May 14.

“This summer, Norfolk Naval Base [sic] is going to be powered from an aircraft carrier,” Cao said on May 14. “We’re going to export the energy from the aircraft carrier to the base.”

“The Department of the Navy is executing a multi-pronged strategy to ensure the delivery of firm, baseload power to our installations for energy resilience and mission assurance,” a Navy spokesperson subsequently told TWZ directly when we reached out for more information. “One line of effort in the strategy is to deliver power from a Ford class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier to a compatible shore installation, to demonstrate the capability to meet emergent, mission critical needs. An initial test of this capability is being planned for later this year at Naval Station Norfolk.”

This statement refers to the Ford class generically, but the USS Gerald R. Ford is currently the only ship of its kind to have been commissioned into service. It is also homeported in Norfolk and just recently returned from a marathon 326-day deployment. That is the longest an American carrier has been at sea since the Vietnam War, and included supporting the mission to capture Venezuela’s dictatorial former President Nicolas Maduro and combat operations against Iran.

USS Ford returns home after 11-month deployment for Iran war and Maduro’s capture

Supercarriers like Ford are already very much floating cities, with typical crew complements ranging from roughly 4,000 to 5,000 individuals, including members of the embarked air wing. They have immense power-generation requirements.

As noted, each Ford class carrier has two A1B nuclear reactors, the exact power output of which is classified. However, they are said to offer a 25 percent increase in “reactor energy” compared to the A4Ws used on Nimitz class aircraft carriers, as well as be simpler to operate. Based on that, the A1B is generally assessed to be rated at some 700 MWt. Two of them would then have a combined rating of 1,400 MWt. This is a fraction of what is offered by typical commercial power-generating reactors in the United States today. At the same time, those reactors are also designed to provide electricity across entire regions rather than just to a single military base.

Being able to use the Ford and other future carriers as floating power plants for major bases like Norfolk could offer a useful backup option for providing electricity if established power sources suddenly become unavailable for any reason. American officials have been increasingly sounding the alarm that many areas previously considered inaccessible sanctuaries, including in the U.S. homeland, could now be at risk during future conflicts. The scale and scope of long-range threats, as well as options for carrying out near-field attacks, only continue to grow. The proliferation of longer-range one-way attack drones, something where the barrier to entry is also low, has had a particularly pronounced impact on this threat ecosystem.

Demonstrating the ability of a Ford class aircraft carrier to provide power ashore might open up other operational possibilities. The U.S. military, as a whole, is increasingly focused on new distributed concepts of operations involving widely dispersed forces, many of which could be forward-deployed at operating locations with limited established infrastructure.

Turning an aircraft carrier into a floating powerplant could be valuable in a wide array of non-combat scenarios abroad and at home, including during disaster relief missions. Getting the power back on is often a critical component of those operations, which in turn can help restore access to medical care and other essential services.

Many critical U.S. military facilities are themselves in areas prone to natural disasters, the impacts of which can be severe and have significant second-order ramifications. Bases provide epicenters for recovery, too, routinely providing essential services after disasters. They could do so after attacks or in other contingencies. Making sure they have uninterrupted power in any of those scenarios would be critical. There are also long-standing concerns about the resiliency of America’s aging power grids, which could also be an indirect threat vector, including from cyberattacks.

During his testimony, Acting Secretary Cao highlighted how a carrier serving as a powerplant could also provide other support in a non-combat scenario.

“The energy that’s produced from these, we can … use it for a four-stage distiller making water, fresh potable water,” he said. “On a carrier, we’re pumping millions of gallons over the side every day of fresh potable water that tests at pH 7 [neutral pH], right, that we can now export in places like California, where you have a drought.”

As noted, none of this is entirely new. The U.S. military has a long history of using ships, including conventionally-powered aircraft carriers, to provide power ashore. One of America’s very first carriers, the USS Lexington (CV-2), helped provide electricity to Tacoma, Washington, between December 1929 and January 1930. At the time, the city’s grid relied on hydroelectric power sources, the output from which had dropped severely due to a mix of environmental factors. In 1931, Lexington also brought medical personnel and humanitarian aid to Nicaragua following an earthquake, an early example of the general value of carriers in the disaster relief role.

During World War II, the U.S. Navy and the Royal Navy in the United Kingdom collectively utilized at least seven Buckley class destroyer escorts as floating power plants. The Buckley class was well suited for this use given its propulsion system, which consisted of steam turbines powering electric motors. At least one of these ships, the USS Donnell, was converted to this role after suffering severe damage during combat operations in the North Atlantic. It was deemed to be too expensive to repair the ship to return to service in its original role.

An especially relevant past example is that of the MH-1A. This was a floating nuclear power plant converted from a World War II Liberty ship, originally named the SS Charles H. Cugle and later renamed Sturgis. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) operated MH-1A, which had a power rating of 10 MW, and used it to provide electricity in the Panama Canal Zone between 1968 and 1975. The ship and its reactor were subsequently returned to the contiguous United States. MH-1A was defueled in 1977. It remained in storage for decades before the decision was finally made to decommission it, a lengthy process that was only completed in 2018. Sturgis was subsequently scrapped.

At the time of writing, it is unclear if the Navy has any ships or barges in inventory that are explicitly capable of providing power ashore. Electricity is routinely provided to naval vessels in port from grids ashore, and the ability to send power the other way, at least in an ad hoc manner, has come up in the past. For instance, in 1982, the Navy considered sending the Los Angeles class attack submarine USS Indianapolis to Hawaii to serve as a floating nuclear power station in the wake of Hurricane Iwa. Indianapolis was not ultimately deployed for this purpose in that case.

As an aside, the Navy has also long used decommissioned nuclear-powered submarines as floating schoolhouses for sailors learning how to operate and maintain nuclear reactors.

There are examples of ship-to-shore power generation elsewhere globally. Currently, Russia’s Akademik Lomonosov is the only purpose-built floating nuclear power plant in operation today, and you can read more about it here. However, South Korea’s Samsung Heavy Industries is actively working on a new floating nuclear power station design, and similar developments could be on the horizon elsewhere. There are also non-nuclear floating power plant designs in service, notably with commercial firm Karpowership in Turkey, and in development today.

Floating Nuclear Power Plant (FNPP) “Akademik Lomonosov”

Powership Video

There are still questions about the viability of employing Navy carriers like Ford in this way today. For one, ships sitting in port are inherently more vulnerable than ones at sea. Carriers are high-value assets that would be top targets in any major conflict, to begin with. Using a carrier as a replacement for traditional power sources, especially for a base that may have already have been or still be under attack, could come along with substantial additional force protection requirements. At the same time, carriers are inherently well-protected and relatively hardened platforms, especially against lower-end, smaller-scale threats.

There is also an operational capacity question. The Navy is currently struggling to meet operational demands with the 11 carriers it has available now. Between continued delays in the construction of new Ford class carriers and the schedule for retiring aging Nimitz class ships, there is a possibility that the force could shrink further in the near term. The Navy just extended the service life of the USS Nimitz to bring its impending inactivation in line with the expected delivery date of the second member of the Ford class, the future USS John F. Kennedy.

Around the Yard at NNS: John F. Kennedy (CVN 79) Builder’s Sea Trials

Pulling any of the Navy’s heavily in-demand aircraft carriers, which provide unique power projection capabilities, out of rotation to sit in port generating power could be a tough sell. That being said, carriers that are in between deployments could be used in this way, in some cases with relatively minimal disruption to other aspects of the force generation cycle. The seriousness of the contingency in question would also factor into the Navy’s assessment of its general force requirements and priorities.

It is worth noting here that the U.S. military has already been making investments in other forms of energy resiliency at established bases, as well as the ability to provide significant amounts of power at forward locations, in recent years. Acting Secretary Cao’s comments last week about the upcoming test at Naval Station Norfolk were prompted by a question about ongoing work on new small modular nuclear reactors, or SMRs, to help power U.S. military bases. The U.S. Army is currently the lead service for those efforts, as you can read more about here. The U.S. Air Force has also been heavily involved.

“We’ve got to have an overall programmatic champion for the SMR program,” Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Caudle, the service’s top officer, who also testified at the hearing alongside Cao, said. “So I think we’re dithering a bit there, and not really landing on the pilot, and laying out the program of record.”

“While the Army may be tapped to be the overall lead for it [SMR], I see no world in which the Navy is not going to be part of that discussion and bring our expertise through our long-established Naval Reactors [office], deep understanding of reactor physics, and understanding [of] safe operation.”

As an aside, the Navy just recently announced its intention to expand its nuclear-powered fleets by using this method of propulsion on the future Trump class battleships. This, in turn, has raised new questions about the outlook for those ships, which you can read more about here.

When it comes to using Ford class aircraft carriers as floating nuclear power plants, the test this summer will help in determining whether this could be another mission to add to the repertoire of these ships.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

Both the US and Iran have recently signaled progress on efforts to reach a deal to end their conflict, though their accounts of its terms differ on some issues across respective media narratives, Anadolu reports.

US President Donald Trump on Saturday said an agreement with Iran to end the war was “largely negotiated” and awaited finalization.

On Sunday morning, Iran’s semi-official Tasnim news agency also published a report on the details of a potential agreement. However, certain aspects of what has been agreed seem to diverge.

Here is a comparison of the US and Iranian versions of the deal by key issues.

Strait of Hormuz

Citing a US official, Axios said the deal that Washington and Tehran are close to signing would extend a ceasefire by 60 days, during which the Strait of Hormuz would be reopened.

During the 60-day period, the Strait of Hormuz would be opened without any tolls, and Iran would remove the mines it has placed there to ensure unrestricted maritime passage.

In return, Washington would lift its blockade on Iranian ports, added the report.

The New York Times also said it was informed by three senior Iranian officials that Tehran had agreed to a memorandum of understanding to halt fighting and reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio also said on Sunday that the agreement could, if successful, result in a “completely open” Strait of Hormuz, with no tolls or restrictions on passage.

“They don’t own it. It’s an international waterway,” Rubio told reporters of the strait, in remarks that came during his visit to India.

A report by Iran’s semi-official news agency Tasnim, however, said that the Strait of Hormuz will not fully return to its pre-war status if the agreement is reached.

Instead, the number of ships allowed to pass would be restored to pre-war levels within 30 days, the outlet added.

Tehran also demands an end to the US blockade on its ports, arguing that no changes will be made in the strait if the blockade remains in place.

For its part, the US argues that the quicker Iran removes the mines and allows shipping to resume, the sooner the blockade will be lifted.

READ: Iran ready to reassure world it is not pursuing nuclear weapons, president says

Sanctions relief and release of frozen Iranian assets

Iran was seeking the immediate unfreezing of funds and a permanent lifting of sanctions, but the US position indicates these measures would only be granted after Iran made concrete concessions, according to the Axios report.

As part of the proposed 60-day agreement, the US is offering temporary sanctions waivers that would allow Iran to sell its oil freely. These waivers are explicitly linked to Iran reopening the Strait of Hormuz, removing mines, and ending restrictions on maritime traffic. Once these steps are taken, Washington would also lift its naval blockade on Iranian ports.

Tehran, however, says no agreement will be reached unless at least a portion of the frozen Iranian assets is released immediately. Iranian media confirmed the discussion of temporary oil sanctions waivers in the latest US proposal but insisted on broader and more permanent sanctions relief.

Nuclear file

The Axios report said the draft deal includes commitments from Iran not to pursue nuclear weapons, along with provisions to negotiate a suspension of uranium enrichment and the removal of its stockpile of highly enriched uranium.

The Iranian media reports, however, indicate that Tehran has not yet accepted anything on its nuclear program.

A potential deal would involve a 60-day negotiation window on Iran’s nuclear program, according to Tasnim.

Extent of ceasefire

Both US and Iranian media reports suggest that the cessation of hostilities would mean a halt to fighting on all fronts, including Lebanon.

This was also highlighted by Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei on Saturday, when he said Tehran was prioritizing an end to hostilities across all fronts, including Lebanon.

Context

Regional tensions have escalated since the US and Israel launched strikes against Iran in February. Tehran retaliated with strikes targeting Israel, as well as US allies in the Gulf, along with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

A ceasefire took effect on April 8 through Pakistani mediation and was later extended by Trump indefinitely. Washington and Tehran also held rare direct talks in the Pakistani capital Islamabad on April 11-12, but have failed to reach an agreement.

Trump’s Saturday remarks came after Pakistani army chief Asim Munir’s visit to Tehran. The visit was the second of its kind in recent weeks, as Munir is directly involved in Islamabad’s mediation efforts.

READ: Trump says Iran talks ‘constructive’ but blockade will remain until final deal is reached

Al Jazeera’s Heidi Pett reports on the Syrian legislative elections in Hasakah and the town of Kobane – areas recently reintegrated under government control after being held by pro-Kurdish fighters for more than a decade.

US president says any potential agreement with Tehran will be ‘good and proper’ as mediation efforts continue.

For nearly 20 years, Mario Habib has run a barbershop in Beirut’s Furn el Chebbak neighbourhood – through wars, economic collapse and political crisis in Lebanon. Mario says many customers now come not just for haircuts, but for relief, conversation and a sense of normal life in a country where, as he puts it, ‘normal life itself became the dream’.

Cuba has announced the first shipment in an expected donation from China of about 60,000 tonnes of rice, as the Caribbean island contends with an ongoing humanitarian crisis.

In a series of social media posts on Sunday, Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel confirmed that the first load of 15,000 tonnes had arrived a day earlier in the port of Havana.

He also expressed “deep gratitude” to China, as well as to members of the European Parliament who denounced the pressure campaign his government faces.

Since January, the United States has increased its sanctions against Cuba, as part of a hardline turn under the second term of President Donald Trump.

“Thank you very much for the solidarity, and for the firm and unequivocal condemnation of the collective punishment to which our people are being subjected,” Diaz-Canel wrote, likening Cuba’s situation to “genocide”.

While Trump has sought to check China’s growing influence on Latin America, Cuba has increasingly relied on the Asian superpower for assistance.

Already, China has donated solar panels to Cuba to help update its ageing energy grid and transition the island away from fossil fuels. Currently, Cuba relies on imports for nearly 60 percent of its oil supply, according to the International Energy Agency.

But since the start of the year, the Trump administration has largely blocked the export of oil to Cuba.

The de facto oil blockade began shortly after January 3, when the US launched a military operation to abduct and imprison Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

Trump followed that operation with the announcement that no more oil or funds would be transferred from Venezuela to Cuba.

By the end of the month, he had also issued an executive order identifying Cuba as an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to the US and threatening economic penalties to any country that supplies it with oil.

Since then, only a single Russian tanker has been permitted to reach the island. Earlier this month, Energy Minister Vicente de la O Levy announced that the island had exhausted its oil supplies.

While Cuba is no stranger to power outages, the recent crisis has caused island-wide blackouts and has brought public services — including transportation and medical care — to a standstill in many areas.

But Trump has continued to impose sanctions on the island’s communist government, in an apparent effort to force regime change.

Media reports have indicated he has sought Diaz-Canel’s resignation and would be open to a situation akin to Venezuela’s, where Maduro’s government has been left largely intact, though Maduro himself has been replaced.

Trump has also repeatedly suggested he may consider a military response should Cuba fail to give in to his demands, though his administration has sent mixed messages about possible intervention on the island.

“Other presidents have looked at this for 50, 60 years, doing something, and it looks like I’ll be the one that does it,” Trump said last week from the Oval Office.

Negotiations between the two countries, however, are likely to be strained after the Trump administration unveiled a murder indictment against Cuba’s former president, Raul Castro, for the 1996 downing of two planes run by Cuban exiles.

Since the 1960s, Cuba has been under a sweeping US trade embargo that has weakened its economy.

US officials, however, have blamed the Cuban government for economic mismanagement and the oppression of its people, particularly political dissidents.

Earlier this month, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio disclosed that the Trump administration offered $100m in humanitarian aid to Cuba, on the condition it implement “meaningful reforms”.

In Sunday’s posts, however, Diaz-Canel sought to project defiance in the face of Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign.

“The ‘maximum pressure’ strategy — which some in the US morbidly trumpet — is part of a strategy intended to justify the false narrative of an impending collapse, and thereby pave the way for military intervention,” he wrote.

Diaz-Canel added that Cuba would continue to strengthen its ties with the US’s economic and political rival, China.

“The cherished bonds of friendship and cooperation that unite us grow stronger in these crucial times,” he said.

The right-wing president highlighted anti-crime operations and economic progress, while critics warned of abuses.

Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa has used his State of the Union speech to tout his United States-backed crime-fighting strategies as well as improvements to the economy.

Addressing the National Assembly in the capital Quito on Sunday, Noboa cited the extradition of a dozen crime bosses to the US and the seizure of almost 300 tonnes of drugs as examples of what he described as his decisive and effective approach.

“We will seek them out, find them and extradite them,” Noboa said of wanted criminals. He also asserted that the South American country cannot develop “if families live in fear”.

Organised crime is the leading concern among Ecuadorians this decade, after a spike in homicides during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Since 2021, Ecuador has struggled to contain drug violence as rival cartels partner with local gangs to battle for control of routes and coastal ports used to smuggle cocaine. The country is wedged between Colombia and Peru, the world’s top cocaine producing countries.

Last year, Ecuador recorded its highest homicide rate in decades, with approximately 50 murders for every 100,000 residents, according to the Ministry of the Interior.

In response, Noboa, who was reelected last year to a four-year term, has used a state of exception to allow the military to implement a variety of crime-fighting strategies, including joint patrols with police officers and property searches without warrants.

Earlier this year, Ecuador’s military also carried out an operation with US forces against a training camp allegedly used by Colombian drug traffickers, attacking the site with drones, helicopters and boats.

Noboa’s approach, however, has come under criticism from civil society groups, who say his iron-fisted methods have failed to reduce crime while putting civilians in danger.

Glaedys Gonzalez, an analyst for the Andean region at the International Crisis Group, said on Sunday that Noboa may have been optimistic in his speech regarding the country’s security.

“Progress on violence is far from being achieved,” Gonzalez said. “It is evident that the situation in Ecuador has reached unprecedented levels.”

Sunday’s speech also promoted Ecuador’s economic progress, with Noboa telling lawmakers that poverty dropped from 26 percent to 21.4 percent in 2025. Extreme poverty, he added, went down from 10.4 percent to 8.4 percent.

Noboa was first elected in 2023 during a snap election triggered when then-President Guillermo Lasso dissolved the National Assembly and shortened his own term.

Strategic ambiguity, the US policy of neither explicitly supporting nor opposing Taiwanese independence, has been considered effective for decades in maintaining stability in the Taiwan Strait. However, the summit between Trump and Xi Jinping on May 14-15, 2026, in Beijing revealed signs that this formula’s effectiveness is beginning to be limited. China pushed the US not merely to “not support” but to actively “oppose” Taiwanese independence. The US responded by displaying an inconsistent position. Taiwan openly asserted its sovereignty. All three responses emerged within less than 24 hours, and no international forum was able to manage the contradictions.

AT His strategic ambiguity is not simply a matter of US foreign policy. It reflects deeper limitations in the global governance system in addressing unresolved sovereignty issues. At the same time, China is actively promoting an alternative world order through its Belt and Road Initiative, non-interventionist principles, and multipolarity agenda, which indirectly influence how the Taiwan issue is positioned on the international stage. Without a concrete framework for joint governance, the potential for miscalculations across the Taiwan Strait will continue to increase.

On May 16, 2026, the day after Trump left Beijing, Taiwan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued an official statement. Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation. It is not under Chinese rule. This statement was not new rhetoric.

What makes this significant is the context. Trump had just called a $14 billion arms sale to Taiwan a bargaining chip in negotiations with Xi Jinping. China had just successfully pushed the US to soften its tone on Taiwan. In less than 24 hours, three main actors make statements that cannot all be true at the same time. And there is no one international institution that has the authority to decide which is more valid.

This isn’t a sudden diplomatic failure. It’s the result of a policy of strategic ambiguity that has been in place for more than five decades and is now beginning to show its limitations.

Strategic ambiguity was once effective because all parties had an incentive not to test its limits. That situation is changing. China is becoming increasingly assertive. militarily and increasingly actively shaping an alternative global order. Taiwan is becoming more assertive in claiming its political identity. The US under Trump is increasingly unpredictable. In these conditions, the ambiguity that once served as a buffer for stability has now become a source of uncertainty. The global governance system lacks adequate instruments to fill the gaps left by this increasingly outdated formula.

Starting from the background, a US strategic ambiguity towards Taiwan was born of deliberate compromise. In the Shanghai Communique (1972), Washington used the word “recognizes” China’s position that Taiwan is part of China, not “accepts.” The difference in vocabulary was no accident. It opened diplomatic normalization with Beijing without formally abandoning Taipei.

This formula was then codified through the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 and three joint US-China communiques. During the Cold War era and the two decades that followed, this formula remained relatively stable because China was not yet strong enough to challenge it militarily and Taiwan was not yet confident enough to challenge it politically. As noted by T.Y. Wang in the journal Politics and Policy, strategic ambiguity is designed not only to deter China from attacking Taiwan but also to restrain Taiwan from taking steps that Beijing might deem provocative.

But the conditions that made that formula effective have changed structurally. Taiwan’s democratization since the 1990s has produced a political identity increasingly independent of the “One China” narrative. The PLA’s military modernization has changed the cost calculations of conflict. And Trump’s return to the White House has brought a transactional approach that, as noted by the Global Taiwan Institute, exacerbates existing ambiguities with conflicting signals that are record arms sales accompanied by a striking rhetorical silence on US security commitments to Taiwan.

On the ground, this uncertainty has already resulted in a measured escalation. Military exercises: Justice Mission 2025 In December 2025, a full-scale blockade of Taiwan was simulated, with over 90 aircraft crossing the median line of the Taiwan Strait in a single day. These median line violations were not an anomaly. Since 2022, they have become increasingly routine and have rarely elicited an organized response from the international community.

The most important part to understand next is about the One China Policy. The One China Policy affirms that a single label includes three irreconcilable positions. Beijing maintains that Taiwan is an unreturned province and that reunification is a non-negotiable goal. Taipei maintains that the Republic of China (ROC) is a sovereign state that predates the People’s Republic of China and that the two have never ruled each other. Washington maintains its own version, based on the Taiwan Relations Act, that recognizes Beijing’s position without explicitly endorsing it.

These three positions exist simultaneously because they have never been tested in an international forum that has the authority to decide which is more valid. Brookings Institution; he noted that this policy was originally designed for a period when China was not yet acting like a revisionist power. Now, conditions have changed, and the old formula requires a recalibration that has yet to materialize.

There’s a compelling argument here. Strategic ambiguity has also served as a deterrent to war. It prevents China from attacking because it’s unsure whether the US will intervene. It also prevents Taiwan from declaring formal independence because it’s unsure whether the US would defend it. In this logic, ambiguity is a feature, not a bug.

However, analyst Brandon K. Yoder in the European Journal of International Relations, The effectiveness of deterrence hinges on credibility, which is currently eroding. When Trump called weapons for Taiwan a “negotiating chip,” he indirectly communicated to Beijing that the US commitment was conditional. When commitments are conditional, their deterrent effect is significantly weakened.

What results is not new stability, but rather an increasingly unpredictable gray area. Each party operates based on its own assumptions about the limits that can be tested. Without governance mechanisms that explicitly clarify these limits, the risk of miscalculation continues to grow.

The Taiwan issue cannot be read in isolation from China’s broader agenda of reshaping the global order. Over the past two decades, Beijing has not only protested the existing international system but also actively developed an alternative.

The Belt and Road Initiative, which now encompasses more than 140 countries, is more than just an infrastructure project. As analyzed in China Quarterly of International Strategic Studies, BRI serves as both a governance and economic mechanism, linking infrastructure development with new standards of connectivity and cooperation that reflect the Chinese model of development without political conditions.

Beyond the BRI, China is actively pushing three major initiatives: the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative, and the Global Governance Initiative. They share a common thread that is strengthening the norm of sovereignty, rejecting intervention based on Western values, and promoting multipolarity as a substitute for single-party hegemony. Bruegel noted that the concept of “Community with a Shared Future for Mankind” popularized by Xi at Davos 2017 has even been included in several UN General Assembly resolutions, demonstrating how far China has succeeded in pushing its global narrative into multilateral institutions.

The relevance to the Taiwan issue is that the more countries accept China’s sovereignty-based, non-interference-based governance framework, the more limited the space for international mechanisms to challenge Beijing’s claims to Taiwan. China’s global governance agenda and its claims to Taiwan are not separate issues. They are part of the same project: redefining who has the right to set the rules of the game in what have traditionally been called “internal affairs.”

This also makes Trump’s and Xi’s bilateral approach a more suitable instrument for China’s interests. When the Taiwan issue is managed through negotiations between the two great powers, broader norms, such as the right to self-determination and representation of sovereign entities, are not discussed. Observer Research Foundation noted that BRI cooperation with the UN from 2015 to 2019 was more about mutual legitimacy than structural integration, and a similar pattern is seen in the way China uses multilateral forums to validate its diplomatic positions without actually committing to the process.

Trump’s and Xi’s meeting in May 2026 shows a pattern that deserves serious attention. That is, the Taiwan issue is now managed almost entirely outside the multilateral framework. There are no regional forums, no UN mechanisms, no activated joint protocols. There are just two leaders, two delegations, and an agenda far broader than just Taiwan.

Observation: Both sides reveal a glaring asymmetry. In China’s version, Taiwan is referred to as the “most important issue,” and Xi warned of potential conflict if handled incorrectly. In the US version, Taiwan is not mentioned at all. CSIS noted that the meeting resulted in a commitment to “strategic stability” without concrete instruments to realize it. The lack of crisis communication protocol. Limited incident management framework. There isn’t any commitment to refrain from provocative military exercises.

This is not simply a shortcoming of the meeting. It reflects a more systemic limitation. namely the limitations There is no sufficiently authoritative multilateral platform to address this issue. The UN Security Council is hampered by Beijing’s veto power. ASEAN adheres to the principle of non-intervention, which actually benefits China’s narrative. The G20 has no mandate to address sovereignty disputes.

The result is what could be called a governance deficit. This doesn’t mean there are no institutions, but rather that the existing ones are insufficiently effective for the situation. And it’s in this deficit that military escalation moves in to fill the space that structured diplomacy should be filling. Modern Diplomacy noted that the US approved an $11.1 billion arms package for Taiwan by 2025 while simultaneously sending ambiguous rhetorical signals, a combination that makes it difficult for both China and Taiwan to read exactly where the real line is.

The following three recommendations are not intended to resolve the Taiwan status question. Their purpose is more limited and more immediate. namely for reducing the risk of miscalculation before a minor incident escalates into an uncontrollable crisis. All three rely on existing political conditions and momentum.

First, the momentum of the Trump-Xi meeting should be used to establish a permanent, dedicated military crisis communication channel for incidents in the Taiwan Strait. The most relevant precedent is the Washington-Moscow hotline, established after the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, precisely because the world had nearly come to war due to miscommunication, not intention. CNBC noted the May 2026 meeting resulted in a relatively constructive atmosphere between the two leaders. This is a rare window of opportunity and should be used for something concrete.

Second, Indonesia, as a BRICS member and ASEAN dialogue partner with a relatively balanced working relationship with Washington and Beijing, could propose a regional consultation forum focused on managing incidents in the Taiwan Strait. This would not be a forum to decide Taiwan’s status, but rather a technical mechanism for de-escalation procedures and crisis communication. ASEAN has the foundation for this through the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation, and Indonesia’s current position within BRICS provides added legitimacy in Beijing’s eyes.

Third, the US, China, Japan, and South Korea need to negotiate a joint commitment that no party will change the status quo in the Taiwan Strait through force. This is inspired by the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, which successfully committed European countries not to change their borders by force, despite many of their mutual distrust. The agreement did not resolve existing disputes, but it did raise the costs of escalation measurably. With Xi seeking economic stability before 2027 and Trump seeking to avoid military engagement far from the US mainland, both sides’ calculations are now more open to this type of commitment than in previous periods.

It can be concluded that strategic ambiguity is one of the most ingenious products of Cold War diplomacy. It maintained stability in the Taiwan Strait for decades, not by solving the problem, but by making all parties unsure whether testing its limits was a good idea.

The conditions that make that formula work are changing simultaneously. China is stronger and more assertive. Taiwan is more assertive in its political identity. And the US under Trump is sending signals that are more easily read as conditional than committed. These three changes are not occurring one after the other, but simultaneously, and the global governance system has not yet responded accordingly.

The Trump-Xi meeting in May 2026 is neither a turning point in the war nor a step toward a resolution. It is a reflection of the current situation: three actors with three different interpretations, no referee, and increasingly little room for error.

What’s needed isn’t a final solution on Taiwan’s status, as that won’t come anytime soon. What’s needed are concrete steps that reduce the risk of miscalculation while keeping all options open. Crisis channels, regional consultative forums, and non-escalation commitments are small steps but have clear historical precedent. The question is whether the political will for these small steps can still be found amidst the escalating rivalry.

Baltimore, United States – Muslim Americans are grieving after two gunmen last week opened fire at the Islamic Center of San Diego, killing three people.

But at the annual conference for the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) in Baltimore, community leaders stressed the urgency of turning the sorrow into action.

Nearly 25,000 people turned out for the annual event, held on Saturday and Sunday. Speakers addressed the recent shooting, pointing to the courage of the three victims as examples for the broader community in a time of heightened Islamophobia.

“We owe them more than condolences. We owe them resolve,” said Lena Masri, a lawyer at the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

She explained how the victims — a security officer, a caretaker and a neighbour — sacrificed their lives to save others. The security officer, Amin Abdullah, exchanged fire with the shooters, while the other two victims, Mansour Kaziha and Nadir Awad, rushed to help and called for emergency services.

“They protected the physical space of our community: the masjid [mosque], the school, the children, the teachers, the worshippers,” Masri explained.

“Our responsibility is to protect the civic space of our community: the right to worship, the right to speak, the right to organise, the right to defend Palestine, the right to build institutions.”

That was the recurring theme of the conference: that the Muslim American community cannot afford to be passive and must draw on its strength to push back against bigotry and hate.

Speakers emphasised voting, organising and donating to community institutions and candidates who align with Muslim Americans. They also underscored the need to hold officials accountable and push for an end to Israel’s atrocities in Palestine.

“We owe Gaza more than grief. We owe Gaza advocacy that cannot be intimidated into silence,” Masri said.

Islamophobia and Palestinians’ dehumanisation

Symbols of Palestine could be seen everywhere at the conference, from bags emblazoned with watermelons and flags to keffiyeh-patterned scarves, shirts and water bottles.

At a bazaar featuring dozens of vendors, conference-goers left messages of solidarity on a tent that will be sent to Gaza by the charity Life for Relief and Development (LIFE).

In speeches and on panels, advocates drew a link between anti-Muslim bigotry in the United States and Israel’s abuses in Gaza, the occupied West Bank and Lebanon.

Some of the loudest promoters of Islamophobia in the US are also staunch Israel supporters, among them right-wing commentator Laura Loomer and Congressman Randy Fine.

Both Loomer and Fine are allies of US President Donald Trump, whose administration has unleashed a crackdown to deport critics of Israel who live in the US but are not citizens.

Altaf Husain, a professor at the Howard University School of Social Work, said anti-Palestinian voices are trying to “scare” Muslims as a means of silencing criticism of Israel.

“They want to shut this down, so it’s a direct connection,” Husain told Al Jazeera.

He said the large turnout at the ICNA conference shows that the community is not intimidated and will not back down.

In the response to the shooting in San Diego, Husain pointed out that the community raised more than $3.5m for the victims’ families and moved to bolster security around Muslim institutions.

Layers of security

Saad Kazmi, the president of ICNA, said the organisation relied on three layers of protection to secure this weekend’s event: its own security guards, an outside firm and local law enforcement agencies in Baltimore.

While there is anxiety in the community over the rise of Islamophobia and Trump’s immigration crackdown, he said Muslim Americans must take matters into their own hands and work with “sensible” people across the political spectrum to defeat hate.

“We are very thankful that we live in a country that is ruled by the Constitution and law,” Kazmi told Al Jazeera.

Kazmi added that the shooting in San Diego only added to the community’s determination to assert and protect its rights. The Islamic centre in the city, he noted, did not shut down after the attack.

“If anything came out of this, it is that there are more attendees to the masjid, more people who believe that the way forward is to strengthen ourselves, strengthen our community and march on,” Kazmi said.

After the shooting, Loomer doubled down on her anti-Muslim rhetoric, calling on immigration authorities to target the Islamic Center of San Diego.

She also called for the deportation of all Muslims from the US, describing them as an “invasive species”. But few Republicans disavowed Loomer, who maintains close ties to the White House.

Rather, more than 60 Congress members have joined the Sharia-Free America Caucus since it was established in December. CAIR has designated the caucus a hate group.

At the state level, governors and local legislators have disparaged Islam while also pushing to penalise Palestinian rights activism.

Texas and Florida, for example, have labelled CAIR a “terrorist” group, while implementing measures against “Sharia law” that critics consider anti-Muslim dog whistles.

Rights under attack

In March, after CAIR sued Florida Governor Ron DeSantis over its “terrorist” designation, a federal court blocked the label from being imposed.

In his ruling, Judge Mark Walker wrote that DeSantis’s executive order (EO) targets the Muslim community as a whole.

“It should be lost on no one that Defendant’s EO targets one of America’s largest Muslim civil rights organizations for indirect suppression of speech. But, as we all know, it is easy for those in power to target minority groups with little pushback,” Walker wrote.

“Sadly, history teaches that it is often minority religious groups who find themselves in the crosshairs.”

On Saturday, several panels praised the US legal system and the laws that protect freedom of religion and speech. But the panellists argued that human rights do not defend themselves; people must step up to protect them.

“You’ve got to imagine rights are a territory, and you have to occupy that territory. If you do not actively occupy that territory, that territory will be taken from you. And that is exactly what has been happening,” Tom Facchine, an imam from New Jersey, said.

Last year, Palestinian immigrant Leqaa Kordia found her rights in jeopardy when immigration agents knocked on her door and detained her over her activism against Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza.

Kordia spent more than a year in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention before an immigration judge ordered her to be released in March.

But Kordia — who is still fighting deportation — told ICNA conference attendees on Saturday that she has no regrets, encouraging them to remain politically active and engaged.

“Speaking up, it comes with a cost … It cost me my health, my life, literally my freedom, and I’m living in uncertainty that tomorrow I’m going to be here, or I’m going to be deported,” she said.

“It comes with a cost, but it’s worth it. It’s worth it because silence, it costs even way more than speaking.”

Harlan Ullman of the Killowen Group argues that US President Donald Trump is chasing any deal to relieve mounting pressures at home, even as key nuclear and Hormuz issues remain unresolved.

Israel’s attacks on southern Lebanon seem to be expanding with these fresh strikes.

Israeli strikes have killed at least six people in southern Lebanon as the Israeli army issues fresh evacuation orders.

Israeli air raids in al-Namiriya killed two young men who were riding on a motorcycle, and another young man in al-Duweir was also killed while he was on a motorcycle, according to Lebanon’s National News Agency (NNA).

In the town of Abba, a Syrian man driving a motorcycle was killed by an Israeli strike, and in Jebchit, one man was killed in another attack. A paramedic was killed by a drone strike while he was inspecting the site of a recent air strike in Arab Salim, and an air raid in Bazouriyeh in Tyre left one person dead, NNA reported.

Israel’s army spokesperson issued 16 evacuation orders in southern Lebanon, and local sources said Israel was striking before and after the order was given.

“These attacks are very violent, and they are targeting places that are filled with many people, homes and communities,” said Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Tyre, Obaida Hitto. He explained that many of these places are not near the front line.

‘Expansion of Israeli attacks’

“We are seeing significant expansion of Israeli attacks,” Hitto said.

Rescue teams managed to recover three bodies from the rubble of a house that was targeted by Israeli warplanes in the town of Srifa, in southern Lebanon’s Tyre district, according to the NNA.

Hezbollah said it carried out a series of attacks on Israeli military infrastructure and military positions throughout the day. Hezbollah forces targeted Israeli soldiers stationed in a house in the Biyyada area of the South Governorate with a drone.

Hezbollah also launched a rocket barrage at soldiers in the town of Rashaf in Nabatieh Governorate.

Israel’s continued bombardment of southern Lebanon comes amid tense peace talks between the United States and Iran. Despite an ongoing ceasefire, Israel and Hezbollah have continued to trade fire.

Since Israel’s conflict with Hezbollah began in early March, Israeli air strikes in Lebanon have killed 3,151 people and wounded 9,571, the Health Ministry has said in a statement carried by the NNA.

Hitto said civilians are stuck between a rock and a hard place, having to decide whether they should stay in the south, closer to their homes and communities, or continue a long-term displacement outside the south.

Naim Qassem, the secretary-general of Hezbollah, called upon the Lebanese government to “reverse the decisions it has taken to criminalise the resistance”.

In remarks reported by NNA, Qassem vowed that recent US sanctions against nine people linked to Hezbollah “will only strengthen our resolve”, and criticised Beirut for not taking a stronger stance against Israel.

President Donald Trump was able to purge his most vocal critics within the Republican Party, as Americans voted for the congressional candidates who will run in November’s midterm elections.

One of the most prominent politicians to be unseated was Representative Thomas Massie, who pushed for the release of the Epstein files.

The Democratic Party partially released a report about performance that noted “a persistent inability or unwillingness to listen to all voters”.

Host Steve Clemons asks former Trump aide Hogan Gidley, and Matt Duss – former adviser to Senator Bernie Sanders – about the challenges facing both parties.

There are moments in history when civilizations continue to advance materially while progressively losing confidence in the values  and structures that once gave direction and coherence to collective life. Institutions continue to function, markets continue to expand, and technological progress accelerates uninterruptedly, yet beneath this movement emerges a quieter uncertainty.

As Simone Weil observed, “to be rooted is perhaps the most important and least recognized

need of the human soul.”[1] Yet contemporary societies often struggle to sustain those forms of

belonging and shared meaning that once anchored human communities. The crisis is

therefore not simply political or economic. It concerns meaning itself.

Artificial intelligence has appeared precisely within such a historical juncture. Most contemporary discussions approach AI primarily as a technological revolution, or as an element of economic and geopolitical competition between great powers. Governments now frame it as a strategic race, corporations present it as the next engine of productivity, and Silicon Valley often speaks of AI in the language of inevitability and destiny, recalling Aldous Huxley’s fear that technological progress might ultimately weaken rather than deepen human civilization.[2]

 But such interpretations may ignore something deeper still. AI may be less the cause of a civilizational transformation than one of its clearest symptoms. It reflects a broader historical transition in which inherited moral and symbolic frameworks are dissolving faster than new forms of collective meaning can emerge.

Slouching Towards Bethlehem[3]

This condition closely resembles what Antonio Gramsci described as an interregnum: a period in which the old world is dying while the new world struggles to be born. [4] Such periods produce not only political instability, but also moral exhaustion, the erosion of shared narratives, and declining confidence in beliefs once considered self-evident. Civilizations have passed through similar moments before.

The enduring fascination of Edward Gibbon’s monumental The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire lies not merely in its account of imperial decline, but in its portrayal of the slow weakening of the moral and symbolic foundations that once sustained an entire civilization.[5] Rome did not collapse overnight. Its institutions remained impressive long after few still believed in the civilization they were meant to serve. Administrative power survived even as collective meaning and aspirations deteriorated.

That pattern feels strangely familiar.

Never before have technological capacities appeared so extensive while social distrust, political fragmentation, and loneliness have become so pervasive. Hyperconnectivity was supposed to bring societies closer together. In many cases, it has done the reverse.

AI in the Anthropocene

AI emerges from within this historical condition . It appears perfectly suited to societies organized around abstraction, speed, quantification, and technological mediation. In this sense, AI is profoundly historical. It results from a long civilizational development in which rationalization, efficiency, and technical calculation have come to replace older moral, religious, and symbolic frameworks as primary sources of legitimacy and meaning. What distinguishes AI from previous technologies is that it extends these same principles into domains traditionally considered irreducibly human. Activities once understood as distinctly human, such as reasoning, creativity, interpretation, and even emotional interaction, are now becoming technologically mediated.

The deeper unease therefore concerns anthropology as much as technology. What remains distinctively human when machines become capable of imitating reasoning, generating art, and mediating human relationships?

Such moments of civilizational disorientation are not entirely unprecedented.

The Renaissance confronted a similar rupture. Medieval Europe had long possessed a relatively coherent worldview capable of organizing religion, politics, morality, and human identity within a common order. By the late fifteenth century, however, this equilibrium was beginning to fracture under the pressure of new scientific discoveries, religious wars, and the weakening of older political and spiritual authorities. Thinkers such as Niccolò Machiavelli and Giovanni Pico della Mirandola sought, in radically different ways, to redefine humanity’s place within a rapidly changing world.[6] Pico celebrated human beings as creatures capable of shaping themselves through freedom and intellect, while Machiavelli recognized more soberly that periods of transition dissolve inherited certainties and force societies to confront instability and power directly.

Both understood that historical transformation is ultimately existential before being institutional. Our own transition may prove even more radical because technology no longer transforms only economic or political life, but cognition itself.

AI now mediates everyday experience itself: how people search for information, communicate, work, and make sense of the world around them.

Algorithms no longer merely distribute information. They shape attention, influence perception, and affect how individuals relate emotionally to public life and to one another. Under such conditions, the distinction between human judgment and technological mediation becomes far less clear.

The Price of Nostalgia

One striking feature of the contemporary digital environment is the degree to which individuals now participate voluntarily in their own data extraction. Recent Instagram trends such as the viral “What Were You Like in the ’90s?” challenge encourage users and celebrities alike to upload curated archives of personal photographs spanning decades of their lives. Presented as nostalgia and entertainment, these trends also generate immense quantities of highly valuable visual and behavioural data: faces across time, emotional reactions, aesthetic preferences, social interactions, and patterns of self-presentation. Whether or not such material is directly incorporated into future AI systems, the broader objective remains significant. Human memory, identity, and even nostalgia itself increasingly becomes raw material for computational analysis and commercial platforms.

Reactions to AI therefore oscillate easily between fascination and anxiety. Beneath both lies a deeper uncertainty about whether modern societies still possess a coherent understanding of what human beings are for, beyond economic productivity and consumption.

Friedrich Nietzsche anticipated aspects of this crisis more than a century ago. His declaration that “God is dead” did not merely constitute a theological provocation but signalled the emergence of a civilization in which traditional moral structures would lose authority long before new ones could replace them.[7] Nietzsche feared not nihilism alone, but the possibility that societies might become incapable of generating new forms of transcendence once older ones had collapsed. We saw how his worldview provided an intellectual base for Fascism.

I Read, therefore I Am

In increasingly mediated environments, the act of sustained reading itself begins to take on a countercultural character. To read is, in some sense, to resist. We have access to more information than any previous generation, yet physical books can still provide a sense of orientation. The books people return to, annotate, or simply keep close over time often reveal something enduring about the way they think and who they are.

The central issue, therefore, is not simply whether artificial intelligence will become more powerful. The deeper question is whether societies organized around AI can still sustain stable forms of responsibility and belonging strong enough to preserve coherent collective life. This is ultimately a political and civilizational problem before it is a purely technical one.

Much contemporary discourse still assumes that technological advancement naturally produces historical progress. History offers little evidence for such confidence.

Civilizations do not endure simply because they innovate technologically. They endure because they preserve, or reinvent, systems of meaning capable of holding societies together over time.

The Roman Empire mastered engineering yet gradually lost the moral cohesion that had once sustained it. Renaissance Europe produced extraordinary creativity precisely because it confronted existential instability directly rather than attempting to ignore it.

Contemporary Western societies appear caught between immense technological sophistication and growing uncertainty about their own civilizational narrative.

AI therefore represents more than innovation. It reflects a transformation in how human beings understand themselves, authority, knowledge, and reality itself. The danger is not simply that machines become too powerful. It is that societies now outsource judgment, imagination, and responsibility while slowly losing the cultural and moral resources required to govern these technologies wisely. Yet periods of interregnum are not necessarily periods of decline alone. They are also moments in which civilizations redefine themselves.

AI For Good ?

Historical transitions create possibilities as well as dangers. The Renaissance emerged from the crisis of medieval Europe. Modern democracy emerged from the upheavals of industrial society. Today’s uncertainty may likewise force Western societies to confront questions long obscured by economic growth and technological optimism:

What constitutes a good society? What forms of belonging remain possible in a hyper-mediated world? What aspects of human life should never be reduced to data, prediction, or optimization?

AI cannot answer these questions. But its emergence makes avoiding them increasingly difficult.

[1] Simone Weil, The Need for Roots: Prelude to a Declaration of Duties Towards Mankind (1949/1952).

[2] See Aldous Huxley, Brave New World (1932) and his later essays such as Brave New World Revisited (1958), where he warns that technological efficiency and social conditioning could erode authentic human experience.

[3] The phrase alludes to the final lines of W.B. Yeats’ poem “The Second Coming” (1919): “And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, / Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?”

[4] Antonio Gramsci, Prison Notebooks (written 1929–1935, published posthumously). The “interregnum” concept appears in Notebook 3: “The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.”

[5] Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (6 volumes, 1776–1789). Gibbon famously attributed part of the decline to the rise of Christianity and the erosion of civic virtue.

[6] Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Oration on the Dignity of Man (1486) — often called the “Manifesto of the Renaissance”; Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince (1532) and Discourses on Livy.

[7] Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science (1882, §125 – “The Madman”) and Thus Spoke Zarathustra. The full phrase is usually rendered “God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.”

Tehran, Iran – Iran and the United States have evoked historical and geographical references to the MENA region as the world awaits the announcement of a possible deal to end the conflict between the two countries.

Iranian officials have revived key moments in the nation’s history to drive forward a message of a David-versus-Goliath battle between the two sides, with the underdog ultimately victorious.

This comes as US President Donald Trump announced that a deal with Iran had been “largely negotiated”, with Tehran also indicating there could be an agreement soon. Both sides have been keen to portray any deal to end their 66-day conflict as a victory.

Historic messaging

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei drew parallels to the march of the Romans against the Persians in the third century, with the invading party ultimately being forced to “come to terms” with the latter.

Baghaei also posted an image of Roman Emperor Valerian after he was captured by Persia’s King Shapur I in the year 260. It is an illustration repeatedly drawn on by Iranian authorities in recent months to evoke nationalist sentiments and promote the idea that the country is again bravely standing up to another invading force.

Sunday also happened to mark the anniversary of a more recent conflict, when Iran – under a new revolutionary government still in place today – fought an eight-year war with its neighbour, Iraq, from 1980 to 1988.

Every year, the Islamic Republic celebrates the 1982 recapture of Khorramshahr, a city with an Arabic-speaking majority in the western Iranian province of Khuzestan.

Khorramshahr marked a turning point for the Iranian side in a protracted war that killed hundreds of thousands from both sides, with that battle being one of the bloodiest.

It has been used in government discourse and messaging during the latest war with the US and Israel to symbolise the country’s long history of resistance and determination to maintain the sovereignty of its lands.

Ahmad Vahidi, the commander-in-chief of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), used the battle to signal that Tehran would continue to fight the US and Israel in the region.

“The liberation of Khorramshahr is a lasting model for victory in future Khorramshahr, and the liberation of Quds sharif [Jerusalem], and the destruction of the evil Zionist regime by the axis of resistance and the fighters of the Islamic world,” he said, in reference to Israel.

Masoud Pezeshkian, Iran’s relatively moderate president, linked the event to the current standoff.

“Iran’s Khorramshahr today is the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz,” he wrote on X. “Resistance, sacrifice and fighting off aggression are rooted in the culture of this land.”

Preparing for peace

Mohammad Mokhber, an adviser to Iran’s slain Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said both former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and US President Donald Trump failed to fully recognise Iran’s power when starting a war.

“The first was buried in the trenches of Khorramshahr, while the second has been afflicted with a political crisis in a quagmire created by the Zionist regime,” he wrote on X.

Kazem Gharibabadi, a member of Iran’s negotiating team and its deputy foreign minister for international affairs, linked the issue of Khorramshahr with the United Nations Charter and the country’s current concerns.

“Any nation that falls victim to aggression and occupation has an intrinsic right for legitimate defence to safeguard its territory, independence and integrity,” he said.

Gharibabadi added that Tehran is currently following the same logic of “peace-seeking paired with power, diplomacy paired with integrity and decisive defence”.

First Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref said the recapture of the city in 1982 showed that the new government could defeat aggression on its own terms.

Tehran now aims to “overcome our savage enemy” through holding its ground, he wrote on X.

The latest barrage of messaging from leaders in Tehran came after Trump appeared to suggest that he wanted to take control of Iran.

On his Truth Social account on Saturday, the US president posted a photo of the US flag covering the map of Iran, with the question: “United States of the Middle East?”

In response, the X accounts of multiple Iranian embassies abroad posted a US map covered with the flag of the Islamic Republic, with the question: “United States of Iran?”

The Trump administration has emphasised that it wants a long-term suspension of uranium enrichment in Iran and the extraction of high-enriched nuclear material from the country.

It also wants the Strait of Hormuz – through which one-fifth of the world’s oil shipments normally pass, but which Iran has blockaded – reopened fully without any tolls from Iran, officials have said.

Israeli officials have remained largely silent about a US deal with Tehran, but have reportedly been pushing to resume the war.

A mile from the Manhattan jail where convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein was found dead in 2019, an unassuming Tribeca gallery at 101 Reade Street has been transformed into a physical archive of the disgraced financier’s many cases.

More than 3.5 million pages of law enforcement documents published by the United States Department of Justice have been printed, bound and stacked across 3,437 volumes to line the walls of a room from floor to ceiling.

The exhibition, titled “The Donald J Trump and Jeffrey Epstein Memorial Reading Room”, was organised by the Institute for Primary Facts, a nonprofit that says it focuses on transparency and anti-corruption initiatives.

Epstein was arrested on sex trafficking charges in July 2017 before hanging himself in his New York jail cell a month later, denying victims a chance at justice. The “reading room” is an attempt to shed light on the many cases connected to Epstein that never went to trial.

The shelves hold documents released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, alongside timelines, handwritten visitor notes, and a memorial space dedicated to survivors and victims.

Since opening two weeks ago, the gallery has drawn a steady stream of visitors, including survivors of a string of offences linked to Epstein.

Lara Blume McGee, who was only 17 when she was abused by Epstein, visited the reading room last week.

“I found something brutally human in the Trump-Epstein reading room,” Blume McGee told Al Jazeera. “Proof that our lives mattered enough to be gathered, cataloged, and finally seen.”

She described entering the room as walking into a “paper city”, with three and a half million pages on display, a sight that hit her “like a physical blow”. What she remembers most vividly is the silence.

“The silence was thick with memory,” she said. “Row after row, each bound volume a life, a name, a day that should never have happened if the US government had acted when he was reported to the FBI in 1996.”

The overwhelming scale of the archive is intentional. Organisers say the physicality of the documents forces visitors to confront not only the extent of Epstein’s crimes, but also the number of lives affected by them.

Thousands of victims have been identified in connection with Epstein’s abuse network. One of the most prominent survivors, Virginia Giuffre, died by suicide in April 2025.

David Garrett, a co-founder of the exhibition, said the project was built around survivors from the outset.

“We are centred around the victims and survivors more than anything,” Garrett said. “The biggest thing is transparency and accountability.”

Garrett described the exhibition as part of a broader effort to create “real-life pop-up museums” aimed at generating public pressure around corruption and institutional failure.

“Our goal is how can we drive public outrage in order to put pressure on Congress and the Department of Justice to get full and real transparency and hopefully eventually accountability,” he said.

The process of assembling the archive was itself chaotic. Garrett said organisers downloaded the files from the Department of Justice in March, believing they had received properly redacted documents. Only after printing the collection did they discover that many survivors’ names remained visible in the files.

“What seems to have happened is the Department of Justice modified its search function instead of actually redacting the names,” Garrett said. “The names of survivors were left unredacted while the names of witnesses and co-conspirators were hidden. They brazenly broke the law.”

Finding a venue also proved difficult. Garrett said several locations backed out after initially agreeing to host the exhibit, fearing controversy or retaliation. The Tribeca gallery ultimately became the fifth venue that organisers approached.

Despite these challenges, survivors and advocates quickly embraced the project.

On Tuesday, the gallery became the site of a 24-hour livestream reading of the files led by survivors, advocates and supporters.

Dani Bensky, an Epstein survivor, opened the broadcast Monday afternoon, standing at a podium inside the dimly lit gallery with one of the thick white volumes in her hands.

Her reading marked the beginning of a continuous public recitation of excerpts from the files – an attempt, organisers said, to ensure the documents are not quietly buried again.

Throughout the gallery, visitors have left flowers, handwritten notes, and messages of grief and anger.

Garrett recalled one woman who spent hours walking silently through the space before telling organisers she was herself a survivor of sexual abuse.

“She said this helped her realise that she felt seen,” Garrett said. “That meant a lot to us.”

For Blume McGee, that feeling of visibility carries both relief and frustration.

“For years we were told to be quiet, to accept settlements, to move on,” she told Al Jazeera. “Seeing our truths preserved in a public archive felt like a long-overdue acknowledgment of our pain, our abuse and our reality.”

But she warned that documentation alone is not justice.

“This exhibition gives real hope because the record is now undeniable,” Blume McGee said. “Finally, there is action: documentation, visibility, proof. But those same files map systemic failure — how many doors stayed shut, how many people escaped scrutiny.”

“Visibility without consequence only prolongs the wound,” she added. “We need both: the files on the table and the government to act — investigate, prosecute, reform — so that being ‘finally seen’ becomes finally safe.”