news

A wave of overnight Russian missile strikes has killed at least five people in the capital Kyiv and the surrounding region, Ukrainian authorities say.

Apartment blocks and warehouses were targeted in the “massive attack” on Thursday, according to the State Emergency Service of Ukraine (DSNS). At least least 23 people were injured in the strikes.

Authorities are scrambling to rescue anyone trapped underneath the rubble of demolished buildings, with crews already pulling one survivor from debris.

Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko said a children’s hospital had been damaged in the overnight strikes, where windows were broken and cars set ablaze nearby.

An industrial centre in the Solomyanskyi district, south-west Kyiv, was also hit by missiles, the mayor said.

An attack in Brovary district of the broader Kyiv region killed one man and wounded another, Kyiv regional governor Tymur Tkachenko said.

The regional administration issued an alert earlier in the night warning residents to take shelter. It continued: “Air defense operations are possible in the area”.

More missile alerts were issued from regional authorities, citing warnings from the Ukrainian air force.

The Russian airstrikes cut power to thousands of properties overnight, plunging parts of the Kyiv region into darkness, with technicians racing to repair the damaged energy grids.

The longtime publisher of Stars and Stripes, a newspaper focused on the United States military, has resigned amid what he described as disagreements with the Defense Department‘s leadership.

Max D Lederer Jr announced his retirement in a memo to staff on Tuesday, as well as in an interview with Stars and Stripes.

The memo suggested that Lederer clashed with the administration of President Donald Trump over government efforts to seek greater editorial control over the publication, The Associated Press reported.

In the memo, Lederer wrote that it has “become clear that my philosophy of leadership, and my understanding of the value and mission of Stars and Stripes, differ in fundamental ways from the direction the leadership of the Department of Defence has for the organization”.

The announcement comes after Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth accused the publication of promoting “woke distractions”.

The Trump administration has also slammed the outlet for bringing attention to poor conditions and declining morale on the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier, involved in the war on Iran.

Founded in 1861, Stars and Stripes has been an institution in the US military for well over a century.

While the newspaper receives a significant portion of its funding from the US government, it has sought to maintain editorial independence from the various administrations in power.

Critics, however, say the threats to the news outlet have increased in recent years.

During the first Trump presidency, from 2017 to 2021, the Pentagon sought to eliminate funding for the newspaper, though Trump pledged not to cut its budget “under my watch”.

“It will continue to be a wonderful source of information to our Great Military,” he said at the time.

In January, though, Trump’s second-term Defense Department announced that it would seek to bring the paper into greater alignment with the government’s priorities.

Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell framed the move as “returning Stars and Stripes to its original mission: reporting for our warfighters”.

The Pentagon also fired Jacqueline Smith, the newspaper’s ombudsman, who was charged with protecting its reporting from political interference. The move prompted outcry about eroding press freedoms, including from Smith herself.

“No one should be surprised that they’re kicking out the one person charged by Congress with protecting Stars and Stripes’ editorial independence,” Smith wrote in a column responding to her termination.

Hegseth has overseen efforts to restrict access to the Pentagon for journalists across the board.

In June, for instance, reporters were banned from the Defense Department’s press office, which was abruptly designated as a classified area.

That same month, a judge paused a policy requiring journalists to have escorts to access the Pentagon, a rule that news agencies warned could violate their First Amendment freedoms.

Other policies have been struck down in the courts, including a set of rules that would have barred journalists from engaging with materials not explicitly authorised by the Pentagon.

Hegseth has also cracked down on policies he considers part of the “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” movement, or DEI.

Dismissing them as evidence of “wokeness” – a vaguely defined concept – Hegseth has argued that DEI hinders military effectiveness.

The Pentagon is currently embroiled in an ongoing war on Iran, which the US launched with Israel on February 28.

The war remains deeply unpopular in the US, and reports have emerged that the military offensive has strained US forces and munition supplies.

Stars and Stripes was one of two military publications to report on flagging morale and suicide attempts by US service members on board the USS Abraham Lincoln, one of the aircraft carriers participating in the war.

The USS Lincoln has broken the US Navy record for the length of its deployment without a port stop. It left port in November and was sent off the coast of Venezuela before being redirected to the region near Iran.

Trump and his allies have lashed out at critical reporting about the war, with the president suggesting that journalists who highlight the troubles faced by the military are traitors who want to see their country fail.

The transfer is the first from Lebanon involving a Syrian military officer who fled after al-Assad’s government was toppled in 2024.

Lebanon has handed over a former senior Syrian army officer to Damascus to face charges related to murder and torture, the first such transfer since former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was toppled in 2024.

The transfer involved Major-General Adel Issa, a former commander of the Syrian army’s 17th Division who later led ground forces in the eastern province of Deir ez-Zur.

Syria’s Ministry of Interior confirmed his delivery into Syrian custody in a statement on Wednesday.

“Today, Syrian authorities received from the Lebanese authorities the former officer in the defunct regime army, Major-General Adel Issa,” the ministry said.

It added that a Syrian arrest warrant had accused Issa of charges including intentional homicide, facilitating a felony, killing more than two people, torture leading to death, and crimes aimed at inciting civil war and sectarian strife.

A Damascus referral judge will hear his case, which could then be sent to a criminal court for trial, the ministry added.

Issa, 67, has denied the accusations, the Reuters news agency reported, citing two people familiar with his arrest and extradition.

He was detained on August 8 after going to the Syrian embassy in Beirut to complete paperwork.

Embassy officials alerted the prosecutor’s office in Lebanon that he was wanted in Syria, and Lebanese investigators took him into custody, Reuters reported.

His transfer follows months of pressure by Damascus for Lebanon to act against former government officers, as well as security and military officials, who sought refuge in Lebanon after the Assad regime collapsed in December 2024.

President Ahmed al-Sharaa, a former rebel leader, has led the country since.

In January, Syrian authorities gave Lebanese security officials a list of more than 200 former senior officers wanted by Damascus.

Earlier this month, a Damascus court sentenced al-Assad to death in absentia on charges including murder, arbitrary detention and torture. Al-Assad lives in exile in Moscow.

Social media giant Meta is facing a landmark trial that could impact its future.

Opening statements began on Tuesday in a US federal court case brought by 29 state attorneys general, who have accused Facebook and Instagram’s parent company of designing platforms to encourage infinite scrolling and keep their youngest users hooked, despite allegedly knowing they could fuel addictive behaviour. The company is also accused of collecting data on minors.

The case is expected to last as long as six weeks. If the attorneys general get their way, the Silicon Valley-based tech company might have to make structural changes to its platform and pay as much as $1.4 trillion in fines.

While Meta denies the allegations, the potential consequences of this case could be significant for the company, which is already facing low employee morale, waves of layoffs and a series of lagging investments.

Significant financial impact

The potential exposure to Meta is significant. State penalties could reach as high as $1.4 trillion, Meta has said, although that is unlikely, as the coalition of states said it is seeking $200bn in damages.

To put that in context, the amount is roughly the equivalent of Meta’s revenue last year. In 2025, the tech giant generated nearly $201bn in revenue, and it had $83.2bn in operating income.

The $200bn ask is significantly higher than any penalty the company has had to face so far. In March, a jury in a separate New Mexico lawsuit ordered Meta to pay $375m in civil penalties, and another $567m was ordered by a judge earlier this month.

At the time of the March penalty, financial services firm Morningstar said it was not overly concerned about the impact of the looming court cases on Meta’s valuation, even if governments around the world use these cases as a reason to push for structural changes to the business.

“We think that any algorithmic changes imposed on the firm via legislation are also a manageable risk, given the firm’s monetizable user base, which is overwhelmingly adult, thereby insulating the firm against such legislation,” a Morningstar analyst note said.

While no one can predict which way the coalition case will go, Meta’s problems extend to concerns about significant financial exposure in some of its investments and business units.

For instance, Reality Labs, the division responsible for Meta’s virtual and augmented reality tools and software like the metaverse, has lost $70bn since 2020.

Meta has also ramped up spending to build out AI infrastructure as growing concerns about an AI bubble loom over the sector.

Cash flow for the business fell significantly, from $12bn in the first quarter to $784m in the second quarter, although it did not go into negative territory as some analysts had expected.

“I think it’s [Meta] in an unenviable spot, because it’s facing pressure from multiple fronts,” Aleksandar Tomic, associate dean for strategy, innovation, and technology at Boston College, told Al Jazeera.

“These verdicts are going to put pressure on their advertising business. The AI development seems to have stalled, and the virtual reality thing seems to be dead on arrival, at least for now. So the only bright spot is that they might be able to get into the AI infrastructure game, but that is no guarantee.”

Meta itself is worried about the financial strain. “There can be no assurances that a favorable final outcome will be obtained in all our cases, and defending any lawsuit is costly and can impose a significant burden on management and employees,” the company said in a January Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing.

Can the lawsuit impact its core product?

While financial penalties might be a strain, a legal requirement to fundamentally alter the machinery that makes Instagram and Facebook so valuable to advertisers would be much harder for Meta to absorb.

The lawsuit calls for changes to its business model, including eliminating the infinite scroll that allows users to continually look at new posts. Meta’s advertising business is dependent on impressions, or the number of times a content appears on a user’s screen. The longer someone is on the app, the more impressions they can see.

“Our financial performance has been and will continue to be significantly determined by our success in adding, retaining, and engaging active users of our products that deliver ad impressions, particularly for Facebook and Instagram,” the company said in an SEC filing.

“User growth and engagement are also impacted by a number of other factors, including competitive products and services, such as TikTok, that have reduced some users’ engagement with our products and services,” the filing added.

In 2025, Meta reported 12 percent more advertisement impressions than in 2024, while the average price per advertisement jumped by 9 percent.

The plaintiff states want the company to make other changes, including getting rid of algorithms and AI models made from data compiled from minors. The states are also asking the court to compel the company to promote the wellbeing of its users and set time restrictions for its youngest consumers.

Meta has introduced features that have reminded teens of their time use on their platforms. In January 2023, it gave teens ways to manage the kinds of advertisements they could see on Instagram and Facebook. In June 2023, it introduced a feature to notify teen users that they have spent more than 20 minutes on the platform and to set daily time limits.

“We stand by our record of creating strong protections for teens, and look forward to making our case in court,” Stephanie Otway, a Meta spokesperson, told Al Jazeera.

But the lawsuit says that is not enough, alleging that teens could easily dismiss the notification and continue scrolling.

How will this impact future lawsuits?

Meta is currently facing lawsuits from more than 100,000 different parties, according to its SEC filings, including individuals, cities, states, and school districts around the US.

“These first few cases going out are really going to set the standard,” Tre Lovell, a Los Angeles-based media law and entertainment lawyer, told Al Jazeera.

Lovell predicted that, ultimately, there will be a combined settlement.

“We’re going to get close to some type of global settlement, a global resolution. I think, ultimately, that’s where this is going to end.”

Snap, TikTok, and Google’s YouTube have also faced litigation amid allegations that their products are built to encourage compulsive use by young people, Tomic told Al Jazeera. The claims could open the floodgates to the type of litigation that challenged the tobacco industry in the late 1990s, he said.

“This is the tobacco litigation of the information age. They [the plaintiffs in the Meta lawsuit] have identified this addiction component of social networks. Now that there is a judgement against Meta, I would be shocked if we don’t see everybody else getting sued, and once they get sued, it will be pretty much the same,” Tomic said.

In 1998, 46 states settled lawsuits with major cigarette makers over health costs and forced the companies to impose restrictions on advertising, especially targeting younger audiences.

An Israeli attack on a Syrian airbase has been widely condemned.

The United States envoy warns the incident could have caused a direct confrontation with Turkish forces.

So why did Israel attack the base? And what are the implications?

Presenter: Anna Burns-Francis

Guests:

Murat Yesiltas – Director of Foreign Policy Studies at the Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research (SETA) think tank

Haid Haid – Consulting fellow with the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Chatham House

Michael Mulroy – Former US deputy assistant secretary of defence for the Middle East

The U.S. Navy’s Ford class aircraft carriers have been very much in the news in the past week, with huge changes to the core design now potentially on the horizon. Whether or not radical changes to the catapults, weapons elevators, and island superstructure on future ships in the class actually materialize remains to be seen. However, the design has already been changing in various other ways. This includes adding back in a feature that had been found on all Nimitz class carriers and other Cold War-era flattops before it – dedicated radar illuminators to guide surface-to-air missiles.

The illuminators are used to guide the RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles (ESSMs). The need to add this feature is intertwined with a decision to integrate a replacement for the complex and troublesome Dual Band Radar (DBR) on all forthcoming carriers in the class after the USS Gerald R. Ford. The future USS John F. Kennedy is the first of those ships.

The Mk 95 radar illuminators on John F. Kennedy were particularly visible in pictures released last week of the ship leaving port in Newport News, Virginia, to begin acceptance sea trials. The carrier, also known by its hull number CVN 79, made its maiden voyage in January, and the Navy hopes to take formal delivery of the ship before the end of the year.

The Mk 95 traces back to the 1970s and was originally designed to support the employment of surface-launched RIM-7 variants of the Sparrow missile. All versions of the RIM-7 use semi-active radar guidance, which requires the launch platform to ‘illuminate’ the target.

As an example of the mode of operation for the RIM-7, if a ship were to detect an incoming cruise missile or some other kind of aerial threat, it would cue the missile in the right direction, fire it, and then use illuminators like the Mk 95 to ‘paint’ the target in radar energy. The missile’s seeker would then passively home in on the reflected radar energy through the terminal phase of flight.

When it was first introduced, the Mk 95 was part of a larger fire control suite that also brought an important new level of automation compared to previously available capabilities. Some earlier illuminators on Navy ships even had to be manually operated by sailors on deck.

Today, Mk 95s are found on a variety of U.S. and foreign naval vessels, including the Navy’s Nimitz class carriers. Some versions of the illuminators have camera systems to further help spot and track incoming threats, which have also been upgraded over the years. Improvements in associated combat systems also mean they have become better able to manage available illuminators to allow for as many engagements simultaneously as possible.

The RIM-7 family has since been supplanted in U.S. Navy service with the improved RIM-162 ESSM. Block 1 variants of the ESSM also use semi-active radar guidance and have the same general mode of operation as their predecessors. New Block 2 versions, which began entering service in the early 2020s, have semi-active and active modes, the latter of which does not require any illumination in the terminal phase. In addition, the new missiles feature a data link, allowing them to receive targeting updates after launch, helping cue them to the target area, which further reduces the need for an illuminator in the initial phases of flight. It is also very valuable for longer-range engagements beyond the horizon, especially against low-flying cruise missiles.

At present, the defensive armament suite on Ford class aircraft carriers includes two 21-round launchers for RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missiles (RAM), three Mk 15 Phalanx Close-In Weapon Systems (CIWS) armed with 20mm Vulcan cannons, four 25mm cannons on Mk 38 mounts, and various small arms. There are also two eight-cell Mk 29 launchers, a design that also dates back to the 1970s and was originally designed to fire RIM-7 Sparrows. The Mk 29 has since been adapted to fire Block 1 ESSMs, but there were issues in integrating Block 2 versions owing to the increased weight of those missiles, at least in the past.

“CVN 79 and follow-on Ford class ships will be upgraded to a mix of new RAM variants Block 2A and 2B, plus a mix of ESSM Block 1 and Block 2,” according to an annual report from the Pentagon’s Office of the Director of Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) covering work on the program during the 2025 Fiscal Year.

The Navy’s most recent annual budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2026 does note work to modify the Mk 29 launchers to support Block 2 ESSM capability, but the current state of those efforts is unclear. The service is also pursuing an entirely new launcher to replace the aging and increasingly unsupportable Mk 29, as well as a follow-on to the Block 2 ESSM.

Mk-29 Sea Sparrow Missile Launcher – RIM-162 ESSM & RIM-7P During Sea Trials

Even with integration of the Block 2 ESSM, Ford class carriers will still have to provide ‘illumination’ in order to employ Block 1 versions of the missile, which remain in active Navy inventory. As noted, Block 2 variants can be employed in a semi-active radar homing mode, as well.

This all brings us to the matter of the DBR, which was intended to be the main radar on all members of the Ford class. The DBR consists of two distinct radar systems, the AN/SPY-3, an X-band active electronically scanned array (AESA) type, and the AN/SPY-4, an S-band phased array. On paper, this was set to be a powerful combination. In a defensive scenario, the SPY-3 would be used for horizon search, generating high-fidelity target tracks, and otherwise helping direct interceptors like the ESSM to their targets. The volume search SPY-4 would provide additional long-range search and tracking functionality. Being able to fuse all that data for the dual arrays together, while also leveraging the specific capabilities of the quick-scanning AESA SPY-3, would only offer even greater benefits.

As part of the original Ford design, DBR also serves as host of other functions, including helping to provide air traffic control in support of flight operations. This also allowed the Navy to pare down the total number of distinct radars on the ship compared to the Nimitz class. This, in turn, directly factored into the design of a smaller and more angular flight deck island on the Ford class. Just this week, TWZ published a separate detailed piece on the island, and the reasons for its location so far back on the flight deck. This followed reports this past weekend that President Donald Trump is pushing the Navy to reposition the structure on future ships in this class on aesthetic grounds.

Despite the promised benefits, and its deep integration into the Ford class design, the DBR has proved to be extremely complicated and unreliable.

“Here’s the one thing that I think I screwed up. I think I’m responsible for at least a billion-dollar cost of overrun because I wanted to reduce the number of radars,” retired Navy Capt. Tal Manvel, who served for a time as Program Manager for Future Carriers, said during a presentation at the U.S. Naval Academy Museum in 2015. “I did not appreciate that the complexity of that is not just increasing scale like with a mechanical system, like in the propulsion plant, but the complexity of the software-hardware interface.

“That’s my fault. I screwed up on that because I thought that this would be significant,” Manvel continued. “It turns out to be a big cost driver up front, and that’s one of the reasons why the Ford has this challenge of cost.”

You can watch Tal Manvel’s full 2015 presentation below.

Shifley Lecture: USS Ford-class carrier design

The Navy has since made the decision to replace the DBR on Ford class carriers primarily with the AN/SPY-6(V)3, also known as the fixed-face version of Raytheon’s Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR). The AN/SPY-6(V)3 has three antenna arrays compared to the DBR’s six. John F. Kennedy and future ships in the class will also feature an AN/SPQ-9B horizon search radar and the Mk 9 Tracker Illuminator System – which includes the Mk 95 illuminators – to provide additional functionality that was originally supposed to come from the DBR.

As an aside, the DBR was originally a core component of the Zumwalt class stealthy destroyer design, and was to be deeply integrated with the ship’s unique combat system, but suffered from similar technical and reliability issues in that setting, as well. The Navy subsequently decided to eliminate the S-band arrays on those ships as a cost-cutting measure. As it stands now, the USS Gerald R. Ford is the only ship the service expects to operate with the full DBR. The Navy has plans to eventually replace the DBR on that carrier with the EASR and other radars, too. Several variants of the AN/SPY-6 are also increasingly being integrated onto a host of different Navy ships, as seen in the graphic below.

The need for the Mk 95 illuminators on the Ford class could evolve further over time, including as the Block 2 ESSM enters more widespread service and with the development of the planned follow-on missile. TWZ has previously noted that the total number of Mk 95s has been reduced on at least some Nimitz class carriers for reasons that are still not entirely clear.

John F. Kennedy is also expected to bring along other important, but less visible improvements, which are set to be carried over to future ships in the class. This includes upgrades to the ship’s combat management system and a Block II version of the Navy’s Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) networked sensor architecture.

The Ford class program, overall, continues to face major delays and cost growth due to a host of technical issues and other factors that go well beyond problems with the DBR. The Navy had originally hoped to receive John F. Kennedy in 2022. Work on the next two ships in the class, the future USS Enterprise and USS Doris Miller, is also running behind schedule.

The Navy has said it is working to mitigate these ongoing issues and incorporate lessons learned in the construction of future ships in the class. The USS Gerald R. Ford has also now supported real combat operations, mostly recently as part of the conflict with Iran.

As highlighted in John F. Kennedy‘s recent sea trials, the Ford class design is already evolving in notable ways, particularly when it comes to the radar suite.

Special thanks to user @lfx160219 on X for bringing the Mk 95 radar illuminators on the future John F. Kennedy to our attention.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

Canada official condemns Israel’s ‘invasion’ of Lebanon, calls for sovereignty as aid pledged to the crisis-hit nation.

Canada’s secretary of state for international development, Randeep Sarai, visited Lebanon to announce new humanitarian aid, condemning what he called Israel’s “unlawful invasion” of Lebanon.

During his visit, Sarai stated that Beirut should govern its own space. He also announced new programmes Canada is launching to support Lebanese families affected by the conflict, raising its total assistance to Lebanon this year to more than $50m.

“Our commitment is long-term, and we’re there for Lebanon,” said Sarai, who visited shelters housing people displaced by the war and Syrian refugees during his visit.

Amid the escalation between Israel and Lebanon in March, Canada warned on March 25 that Lebanese sovereignty and territorial integrity “must not be violated” and strongly condemned plans by Israeli forces to occupy southern Lebanon.

As part of the US-mediated framework agreement signed in late June, “pilot zones” were designed to return small areas in southern Lebanon from Israeli forces to the Lebanese army.

In late July, the Lebanese Armed Forces accused Israel of obstructing its efforts to take over control of security in southern Lebanon.

The war has killed more than 4,000 people and has caused widespread destruction across Lebanon. The United Nations says that about 360,000 people are displaced as a result of the latest conflict.

Home to a large Lebanese diaspora, Canada has given Lebanon about $575m in assistance in the past 10 years, Sarai said.

Sarai also met Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, who promised to reinstate state authority across Lebanon and to implement reforms to fight corruption.

Israeli officials said they will not pull out of Lebanon until Hezbollah is disarmed.

A day after a suspected Israeli attack on the Abu al-Duhur airbase near Idlib, northwest Syria, US Ambassador to Turkiye Tom Barrack has suggested creating a “deconfliction mechanism” between Turkiye, Syria and Israel. Barrack called the original attack – which he, along with the Syrian government, blamed on Israel – an “unnecessary escalation”.

But despite the intervention from the US official, analysts believe the proposal may not be able to stop Israel, which has conducted regular attacks on Syria for years, and continues to occupy Syrian territory.

“It is difficult to have a deconfliction mechanism [when] only one party [is] causing conflict in the first place,” Samy Akil, a senior adviser with The Syria Report, told Al Jazeera.

Analysts and diplomatic sources say that Israel is the party holding back progress on talks and the easing of tensions with Syria, which is under a new government since the overthrow of former President Bashar al-Assad in December 2024. At the end of a more than decade-long war, Syria is now seeking better relations with the West.

“Israeli-Syrian talks are stagnating because the ball is in Israel’s court and they don’t see a need to prioritise talks with Damascus currently,” Akil said.

Turkiye and Israel trade verbal shots

Under the former al-Assad regime, Israel often attacked Iranian-aligned targets or interests in Syria – including the Iranian consulate in Damascus in April 2024 – but avoided directly attacking Syrian state targets.

That changed when al-Assad fled in the early hours of December 8, 2024. Israel attacked Syria’s military infrastructure around the country, aiming to cripple the new government’s military forces. It also threatened the post-Assad military with deploying forces south of Damascus.

And since the fall of al-Assad, Israel has also shifted focus from Iranian influence in Syria to Turkish influence in the country. The Turks backed a number of anti-Assad rebel groups, many Syrians in exile spent considerable time in Turkiye, and Ankara has sought to build strong ties with Damascus and Syria’s new President Ahmed al-Sharaa.

Analysts told Al Jazeera that Tuesday’s attack was in fact a message from Tel Aviv directed at the halls of power in Ankara.

On Tuesday evening, the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office issued a statement that seemed to confirm that suspicion, while it stopped short of claiming responsibility for the actual attack.

“Israel and Syria agreed to a status quo in security matters, which Syria was on the verge of breaching by permitting Turkish troops to deploy at an airbase near Aleppo,” the statement said.

“Israel repeatedly warned Syria that such a deployment would pose a threat to Israel’s security. Syria chose to ignore these warnings.”

Turkiye has slammed the Israeli account of events.

“The untenable allegations put forward by the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office are intended to legitimise Israel’s unlawful airstrikes targeting Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity,” the Republic of Turkiye’s Directorate of Communications said.

It also accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of pursuing “expansionist and destabilising policies in the region ahead of the elections in Israel”.

Israeli provocations in Syria

Enter US Ambassador Barrack and the idea of a deconfliction mechanism. This would act as a channel of communication between the concerned actors – Syria, Turkiye and Israel. It would be facilitated by the US, and would aim to prevent military escalations.

The strategy appears to be similar to what the US is trying to build in Lebanon between Beirut and Tel Aviv. That deal is aimed at stopping Israeli attacks on Lebanon, disarming Hezbollah, and convincing Israel to withdraw troops from southern Lebanon. However, experts say these processes have yet to show results, largely because of Israel’s military superiority and the Netanyahu government’s willingness to undermine negotiations through unilateral military actions.

For its part, the Syrian government has shown a strong willingness to find a solution with Israel, even if it has emphasised that it is not willing to agree to full normalisation.

That is despite the Israeli landgrab of Syrian territory in the Golan Heights and Jabal al-Sheikh in December 2024, and the continued deployment of checkpoints that harass and at times kidnap Syrian citizens.

Early on Wednesday morning, Israeli troops reportedly conducted a raid on Quneitra in southwestern Syria and abducted two people.

Analysts say that for any deconfliction mechanism to work, all parties must be committed to working towards the goal.

“In other words, at what point does a deconfliction mechanism provide added value when any sort of Syrian military buildup 300 kilometres [186 miles] away from Israeli borders is perceived as a threat?” Akil said, adding that Syria’s small Soviet-era air force would not “seriously pose a threat to Israel”.

Netanyahu’s re-election escalation

Galip Dalay, a senior research fellow at Chatham House, told Al Jazeera that for any mechanism to work, the US would need to apply pressure on Netanyahu’s government.

Dalay said Netanyahu, who is running for re-election in October, is likely looking for an escalation with either Lebanon or Syria – or in Palestine – after US President Donald Trump pressured Israel to back down in the war on Iran.

But earlier in August, Netanyahu explicitly rejected the Gaza disarmament plan announced by Trump, forcing it to be altered – and did not receive any public pushback from the US.

“If the US puts proper pressure on Israel, they would listen,” Dalay said. “We saw this with Iran. It was the US who made the decision, and even though Netanyahu didn’t like it, they had to go along with the decision.”

Dalay added: “The question is not only about if there is a need for a deconfliction mechanism in Syria; it is to what extent the US is willing to make it credible and functional, and if the US is willing to put pressure on Israel.”

Israeli air strikes on Gaza kill 10 Palestinians, targeting police headquarters and a refugee camp in separate attacks.

Israeli strikes have killed at least 10 Palestinians in two separate attacks targeting a Gaza City police post and Nuseirat refugee camp in central Gaza.

Hamas, which governs the Gaza Strip, condemned what it called “a new war crime”.

On Wednesday, medical sources at al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City said they received nine Palestinian bodies following an attack on the municipal police headquarters in the centre of Gaza City. Another 15 people were wounded.

Al Jazeera’s Hani Mahmoud, reporting from Gaza City, said the bombardment occurred at a busy time near a park crowded with civilians, including children.

Victims of the Gaza City strike included a newly-appointed Gaza City police chief, the director of a women’s police force, and several officers.

Earlier in the day, a strike on Nuseirat refugee camp killed one Palestinian, medics said, increasing Wednesday’s death toll to at least 10.

The Israeli army claimed its air force struck two Hamas commanders in Nuseirat, and that it later struck a Hamas commander in the Tuffah area of Gaza City, without providing evidence of their affiliation.

In a statement, Hamas rejected Israel’s justification that the strike targeted “resistance leaders”, calling the claim “baseless and false allegations used to justify its aggression and cover up its deliberate targeting of civilian police and unarmed civilians”.

Hamas accused the Israeli government of “deliberately undermining these efforts and dangerously pushing towards reigniting the war of extermination against our people in the Gaza Strip”.

On Tuesday, Israeli strikes killed seven people – including a child – and wounded 14 others at a crowded cafe on Gaza City’s harbour. The city’s port has been turned into a displacement camp, according to Wafa news agency.

The Israeli military again claimed, without providing evidence, that it had targeted Hamas commanders in the enclave.

Diplomatic deadlock

Wednesday’s attacks occurred two days after US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and Middle East envoy Jared Kushner visited the region to push for a Trump-backed deal to end to Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.

Kushner’s meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu failed to break a diplomatic deadlock after Netanyahu rejected an agreement for Israel to withdraw from the Strip in exchange for Hamas disarming.

Following the meeting, Kushner reiterated “Israel’s right to defend itself”. He threatened that Hamas must disarm or the US would support Israel to “finish the job in the appropriate way”.

New imagery provides what appears to be the first visual confirmation that Singapore has begun installing the Blue Spear surface-to-surface missile, also known as the 5G SSM, on its Formidable class frigates. The appearance of Blue Spear aboard RSS Steadfast offers a first glimpse of a key element of Singapore’s broader naval modernization effort. The installation also gives the Israel-Singapore missile joint venture a high-profile reference point as it seeks to market Blue Spear to other operators looking to replace their aging Harpoon fleets.

In photos shared with TWZ by Koji Inoue (@kojiinet on X), a container for the missile is clearly visible aboard Steadfast, the third ship of Singapore’s six Formidable class frigates, offering what is believed to be the first publicly available photographic evidence of the weapon actually fitted to one of the ships.

The appearance of Blue Spear on Steadfast comes as the frigate prepares to open its doors to the public during guided tours at the Tokyo International Cruise Terminal on August 21-22.

Singapore had previously disclosed that Blue Spear would replace the class’s legacy Harpoon anti-ship missile as part of a mid-life upgrade (MLU). However, until now, confirmation of the weapon’s installation has largely come through official statements and industry reporting.

The Republic of Singapore Navy (RSN) first introduced the RGM-84 Harpoon for its Sea Wolf class missile gun boats (MGB), when they were upgraded in the late 1980s. The Victory class multi-purpose corvettes continued using the Harpoon when they were introduced in the 1990s, and the same missile was then installed on the Formidable class when it came online from 2005 onwards.

Each of the Formidable class could carry as many as 24 Harpoons, if required, with capacity for six quad packs on the missile deck. The likelihood is that the same 24-mille capacity will be retained for Blue Spear, although as configured for its Japan visit, Steadfast has the mimimum fit, with one quad launcher.

Singapore first revealed plans to equip the frigates with Blue Spear in 2023, when a senior Republic of Singapore Navy officer outlined the intended missile upgrade during an interview with Janes ahead of the IMDEX exhibition. Then-Commander of the RSN’s First Flotilla, Colonel Ng Kok Yeng Daniel, outlined the plans during the exhibition preview.

The MLU is considerably broader than the missile replacement. Singapore’s Ministry of Defense has said the programme will also introduce upgrades to the frigates’ combat management, communications, and engineering systems.

Blue Spear is produced by Proteus Advanced Systems, a joint venture between Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) and Singapore’s ST Engineering. The weapon traces its development lineage to the Israeli Gabriel family of anti-ship missiles, but is intended to provide a modern, multi-role precision-strike capability.

The missile was publicly displayed for the first time at the Singapore Airshow 2022, soon after a contract had been signed with the Estonian Defense Forces to meet its coastal anti-ship missile requirement. In this form, the missile is fired from a truck-based launcher.

Blue Spear was also proposed to the U.K. Royal Navy as a Harpoon successor, under the name Sea Serpent. However, the Interim Surface-to-Surface Guided Weapon (I-SSGW) requirement was ultimately won by the Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile (NSM), a weapon also used by the U.S. Navy, among others.

According to specifications released by Proteus, Blue Spear is a subsonic missile with a range of around 180 miles. It is designed for beyond-line-of-sight engagements and can be employed against both maritime and land targets.

The turbojet-powered weapon incorporates a radio-frequency seeker and guidance system designed to operate in complex electromagnetic environments, including scenarios in which an adversary is employing electronic countermeasures. The missile uses ‘advanced algorithms’ for target discrimination and can be launched in fire-and-forget or fire-and-update modes. Proteus has said in the past that is has considered installing an imaging infrared seeker, if required.

Blue Spear is designed to engage moving targets and can dynamically modify its flight path during an engagement. Its low-level, sea-skimming approach is intended to make detection and interception more difficult for defending forces.

For the Republic of Singapore Navy, the transition from Harpoon to Blue Spear brings a substantially longer-range strike capability to a class of ships that remains a central component of the country’s surface fleet. The Harpoon has a range of around 130 miles and, in the RGM-84C form used by the RSN, lacked a land-attack capability. In the anti-ship role, the missile provides a critical capability for Singapore, considering the dense littoral region and the strategic strait that it sits on.

As well as the pacing maritime threat posed by China, there other potential adversaries in the region are also investing in new ship-launched surface-to-surface missiles, as Roy Choo, a defense journalist and TWZ contributor explained:

“The introduction of the Blue Spear will help the Singapore Navy keep pace with the growing lethality and range of new and upgraded anti-ship missiles being introduced across the region. Indonesia has the Russian-made Yakhont on the Ahmad Yani class frigates and will get the Turkish-made ATMACA missile soon, among the many types it operates. Malaysia was supposed to introduce the Naval Strike Missile on its littoral combat vessels but is now searching for a replacement.”

Meanwhile, Singapore is building a new class of drone motherships, or Multi-Role Combat Vessels (MRCV), the largest and most complex ships the RSN has ever operated. Blue Spear is provided an an option for these hulls, with at least four mounting points, exploiting their modular design.

The MRCVs will form the cornerstone of the navy’s fleet modernization effort, alongside two additional Type 218SG submarines in addition to the previous four, and the Boeing P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, which will also provide a significant capability boost.

The Blue Spear program also underscores a decades-old, largely low-profile defense-industrial relationship between Israel and Singapore, one that has produced cooperation across some of the city-state’s most sensitive and advanced military capabilities.

Among the very advanced arms acquired by Singapore from Israel is the Gulfstream G550 Conformal Airborne Early Warning (CAEW) aircraft, four of which were bought from IAI. Singapore’s Block 52 F-16s are equipped with Israeli-supplied equipment, including avionics, electronic warfare kit, and air-to-air missiles. There have long been rumors that Singapore acquired Merkava main battle tanks from Israel, but these vehicles have never been publicly seen.

Now, after sales to Estonia and Singapore, Proteus is pitching Blue Spear as a Harpoon replacement for other nations, with the company eyeing potential customers across Southeast Asia, Europe, and Latin America.

Estimates for the number of Harpoon missiles built range from 6,400 to around 8,000, depending on source. The missile has been ordered by 30 countries, so there is potentially a very significant market for a new weapon in this class.

For the time being, the arrival of Blue Spear aboard Steadfast underscores the scale of Singapore’s ongoing naval modernization, extending the reach and flexibility of one of the RSN’s core surface combatants. As the service introduces new frigate weapons alongside MRCVs, submarines, and maritime patrol aircraft, the missile also offers a glimpse of the increasingly long-range and networked force Singapore is building.

With thanks to Roy Choo.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

A girl is taken to hospital in critical condition in what PM Burnham calls a ‘terrible family tragedy’.

Three members of a Palestinian British family have drowned after entering the sea off England’s Sussex coast, the Palestinian embassy in London says.

The embassy announced their deaths on Wednesday, a day after the family went for a swim near Shoreham Fort in Shoreham-by-Sea, West Sussex.

The father, Hossam al-Khawas, was a Palestinian refugee from the Rashidieh Camp in southern Lebanon near Tyre, the Press Association news agency reported.

Police, paramedics, coastguard crews and a lifeboat were deployed at the scene where four people were pulled from the water.

Al-Khawas, a woman and a teenage girl were pronounced dead. A younger girl was taken to hospital in a critical condition.

“The Embassy is closely monitoring the incident and is making the necessary contacts with the relevant British authorities to ascertain its circumstances and to check on the condition of the injured girl,” the Palestinian mission in the United Kingdom said in a statement.

UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham on Wednesday warned of the dangers of open water swimming after the incident, which he described as “a terrible family tragedy”, the BBC reported.

He said he sends his “best wishes and love” to the family and friends of those who died as well as the girl who remains in critical condition.

Drownings have surged across Europe as people seek relief from the heatwave on the continent with incidents reported in France, Germany and the UK. Experts warned that open-water swimming can carry hidden risks, including cold water shock, strong currents and sudden changes in depth.

Police added that officers have trawled hours of public and private CCTV footage as part of the investigation, while door-to-door enquiries are also continuing.

The last sighting of either man had been on Friday morning.

Police also said the Chancellor Street property where the bodies were found was the home of one of the victims, and that the two men knew each other.

Det Supt Kelly said: “I am appealing directly to anyone with any information, no matter how small or insignificant they feel it may be, to come forward and speak to us.

“Please do not assume that the police already know the information you have.

“We are keen to hear from anyone who knew Paul and Gary or who was in the Partick area near to Chancellor Street from Friday morning from 09:00, who saw Paul or Gary, or saw or heard anything suspicious.”

Supt Craig Brady said: “I would like to extend my sympathies to the family and friends of Paul and Gary as they try to come to terms with their loss.

“We understand the significant impact this will have on the local community and I would like to thank everyone for their help so far.”

Post-mortem examinations took place on Monday and Tuesday and confirmed the causes of death as being murder.

A major incident public portal has been launched, external as part of the investigation.

Japan has issued an unusually direct criticism of its U.S. ally after Washington imposed sanctions on International Criminal Court President Tomoko Akane and senior trial lawyer Abdoulaye Seye.

Japan’s foreign ministry described the sanctions as “very unfortunate” and reaffirmed Tokyo’s support for the ICC and its role in prosecuting serious international crimes. The statement marks a rare public disagreement between Tokyo and Washington over an issue of international law.

The dispute comes as the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump intensifies its campaign against the Hague based court. Washington has increasingly challenged the ICC over its investigations and arrest warrants involving Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, as well as its earlier investigation into U.S. personnel in Afghanistan.

For Japan, however, the issue is particularly sensitive. Tokyo depends heavily on the United States for its national defence, yet it has consistently supported the ICC and the broader international legal framework surrounding it.

Why Did the U.S. Sanction ICC Officials?

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the sanctions targeted individuals involved in ICC efforts to investigate, arrest, detain or prosecute officials from governments that have not consented to the court’s jurisdiction.

Among those sanctioned was Tomoko Akane, a Japanese judge who serves as ICC president. Abdoulaye Seye, a Senegalese senior trial lawyer, was also targeted. Seye was part of the prosecution team that sought an arrest warrant for Netanyahu and has been nominated for election as an ICC judge.

Washington argues that the ICC has exceeded its authority by pursuing officials from countries that have not accepted its jurisdiction.

The United States is not a member of the ICC and has repeatedly objected to the court’s actions involving American personnel and Israeli officials.

The latest sanctions therefore represent another escalation in Washington’s confrontation with the institution.

Why Is Japan Supporting the ICC?

Japan joined the ICC in 2007 and has consistently supported its role in prosecuting war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.

Tokyo’s foreign ministry said Japan remains committed to strengthening the rule of law internationally while maintaining communication with countries involved in the dispute.

Japan’s position reflects its broader commitment to international institutions and rules based governance.

For Tokyo, the ICC is not simply a legal institution. It is part of a wider international order in which disputes and allegations of serious crimes are addressed through established legal mechanisms.

That creates an obvious tension with Washington’s increasingly confrontational approach.

Why Is This Significant for U.S. Japan Relations?

Japan rarely criticises the United States publicly, particularly on issues involving national security.

The two countries maintain a close military alliance, with U.S. forces playing a central role in Japan’s defence and regional deterrence.

Japan’s decision to openly describe the sanctions as “very unfortunate” therefore carries diplomatic significance.

It does not indicate that Tokyo is abandoning Washington or challenging the broader alliance. Instead, it demonstrates that the two countries can maintain close security cooperation while disagreeing sharply over international law.

That distinction is becoming increasingly important as U.S. foreign policy under Trump diverges from the positions of several traditional allies.

The ICC Dispute Is Also Creating Friction in Europe

Japan is not the only U.S. ally to object to the latest sanctions.

The Netherlands, which hosts the ICC, has also criticised Washington’s action. Dutch Foreign Minister Tom Berendsen said the Netherlands opposed the sanctions and invited Akane to discuss continued support for the court.

The development places Washington increasingly at odds with European partners as well as Japan.

The disagreement therefore extends beyond the U.S. relationship with a single international institution. It raises broader questions about how far America’s allies are willing to follow Washington when its policies conflict with international institutions they continue to support.

What Do the Sanctions Actually Do?

The sanctions have significant practical consequences.

They freeze any U.S. assets held by the targeted individuals and largely cut them off from the American financial system. Because most internationally active banks maintain close connections with the U.S. financial system, the effects can extend beyond American jurisdiction.

The U.S. Treasury Department has also authorized a temporary wind down of transactions involving Akane and Seye through September 17.

The measures therefore do more than express political disagreement. They can directly affect the ability of sanctioned individuals to conduct international financial activities.

Washington’s Wider Campaign Against the ICC

The sanctions against Akane and Seye are part of a broader U.S. campaign against the court.

Washington previously imposed sanctions on several ICC prosecutors and judges after the court issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant and pursued an earlier investigation involving U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Rubio has also indicated that the administration intends to intensify efforts against the ICC through diplomatic pressure on other countries.

According to Reuters, Washington has sought to encourage countries to leave the institution, with at least five countries already responding to the call.

The strategy therefore goes beyond individual sanctions. It represents an attempt to challenge the ICC’s legitimacy and reduce its international reach.

Why Does Japan’s Position Matter?

Japan’s response is significant because Tokyo has generally been closely aligned with Washington on major strategic questions.

Japan faces a challenging regional security environment involving China, North Korea and wider tensions in the Indo Pacific. Maintaining a strong U.S. alliance remains central to Japanese security policy.

Yet Tokyo has also invested heavily in supporting international institutions and the rule of law.

The ICC dispute highlights the possibility that these two pillars of Japanese foreign policy can sometimes pull in different directions.

Japan may need American military power for its security while simultaneously disagreeing with Washington on how international law should operate.

That is not necessarily a crisis in the alliance, but it illustrates its increasingly complicated political foundations.

Could the Dispute Deepen Divisions Among U.S. Allies?

The ICC controversy could contribute to a wider pattern of disagreement between Washington and its traditional partners.

The United States is increasingly willing to use economic and diplomatic pressure against international institutions it considers hostile to American interests. Several European governments, by contrast, continue to view those institutions as essential components of the rules based international order.

Japan’s criticism adds an important Asian voice to that disagreement.

If more U.S. allies openly defend the ICC, Washington could face growing diplomatic isolation on the issue even while maintaining strong bilateral security relationships.

That could make the dispute increasingly difficult to contain as a narrow disagreement between the United States and an international court.

How Far Can Japan Disagree With Washington?

Japan’s criticism of the ICC sanctions should not be interpreted as a fundamental rupture in the U.S. Japan alliance.

Tokyo remains heavily dependent on Washington for defence and security, and there is little indication that the ICC dispute will fundamentally alter that relationship.

Its importance lies elsewhere.

Japan is signalling that alliance solidarity does not necessarily require complete alignment on international law.

For Tokyo, supporting the ICC is consistent with a broader foreign policy objective: maintaining an international system governed by rules and institutions rather than purely by the power of individual states.

Washington’s position is increasingly different. The Trump administration views the ICC as a potential threat to American sovereignty and to officials from the United States and allied governments who could face prosecution by the court.

This creates an unusual strategic contradiction.

The United States and Japan remain closely aligned against major security challenges in the Indo Pacific, yet they are increasingly capable of finding themselves on opposite sides of debates over the international legal order.

The consequences could extend beyond the ICC itself.

If Washington continues using sanctions and diplomatic pressure against international institutions while its allies continue defending them, the United States may find that its strategic partnerships remain strong militarily but become more divided politically.

For Japan, the challenge will be maintaining its essential alliance with Washington without abandoning its support for the international legal institutions it considers important.

The ICC dispute therefore reveals a broader tension within the U.S. alliance system: strategic partners may remain united on security while increasingly disagreeing over the rules and institutions that are supposed to govern international politics.

With information from Reuters.

Iceland will hold a referendum on August 29 on whether to reopen negotiations over joining the European Union, in a closely contested vote that could reshape the country’s economic and strategic direction.

The referendum, however, is not a vote on EU membership itself. Icelanders will only decide whether their government should begin accession negotiations with Brussels.

If voters approve the proposal, negotiations could last two or more years before Iceland holds a second referendum, potentially in 2028, on whether to actually join the bloc.

With opinion polls showing a near-dead heat between supporters and opponents, the vote has become an important test of Iceland’s relationship with Europe at a time of economic uncertainty and growing geopolitical competition in the Arctic.

Is Iceland Voting to Join the EU?

No.

The August 29 referendum only asks whether Iceland should begin negotiations with the European Union.

A “yes” vote would open a potentially lengthy accession process. Iceland would then negotiate the terms of membership with Brussels before citizens have another opportunity to accept or reject the final agreement.

That means the upcoming referendum is essentially a decision about whether to explore EU membership, rather than a final decision to join.

Prime Minister Kristrun Frostadottir’s government has nevertheless presented the vote as a potentially decisive moment.

What Happens If Iceland Votes No?

The government has described the referendum as a “now or never” opportunity.

Frostadottir has warned that rejecting negotiations would effectively put the EU question aside.

This makes the vote particularly important because Iceland has already attempted the accession process once.

Reykjavik applied to join the EU in 2009, but negotiations were abandoned in 2013 after a Eurosceptic government came to power.

A second rejection could therefore close the issue again for the foreseeable future.

Why Does Iceland Want to Reconsider EU Membership?

Economic concerns are among the strongest arguments for reopening negotiations.

Iceland has faced high living costs and economic volatility, while the country’s relatively small economy remains vulnerable to external shocks.

Supporters argue that closer integration with the EU could provide greater economic stability and strengthen Iceland’s position when dealing with larger trading partners.

EU membership could also eventually allow Iceland to adopt the euro, replacing the Icelandic krona.

Supporters say the euro could reduce currency volatility, help address inflation and potentially lower interest rates.

The country’s strategic environment has also changed since Iceland abandoned its previous accession negotiations.

The war in Ukraine and growing competition in the Arctic have encouraged Iceland to reconsider how closely it should align with European institutions.

What Would Iceland Gain From Joining the EU?

EU membership would provide Iceland with access to the bloc’s customs union and its wider internal market.

The customs union eliminates internal tariffs between member states while applying common external tariffs to goods entering the bloc.

Iceland would also gain a formal role in EU decision-making.

Its representatives would participate in institutions including the European Parliament, European Commission and European Council.

For supporters, this is important because Iceland would move from being closely connected to the EU economically to having a direct role in shaping policies that affect it.

The argument is particularly relevant for a small country dealing with much larger economic powers.

Why Do Icelanders Oppose EU Membership?

Opponents argue that membership would transfer too much political authority from Reykjavik to Brussels.

They also question whether joining the EU would substantially improve Iceland’s security.

The most sensitive issue, however, is fisheries.

Why Are Fisheries Central to the Debate?

Fishing is one of the pillars of Iceland’s economy and a major part of the country’s national identity.

Opponents fear that joining the EU would subject Iceland to the bloc’s Common Fisheries Policy and potentially weaken its control over fishing resources.

They worry that common European resource-management rules could eventually increase access for foreign vessels to Icelandic waters.

For a country surrounded by some of the world’s most important fishing grounds, that is not simply an economic concern. It is also a question of national sovereignty.

The fisheries debate therefore gives the opposition one of its strongest arguments against membership.

Why Does Iceland Want to Keep the Krona?

Iceland’s currency is another major dividing line.

Supporters of the euro argue that replacing the krona could reduce exchange-rate volatility and improve economic stability.

Opponents see the krona differently.

They argue that an independent currency provides Iceland with an important economic adjustment mechanism.

During a downturn, the krona can weaken against major currencies, potentially helping Iceland’s economy adjust. During periods of stronger growth, it can appreciate.

Giving up that flexibility in favour of the euro, opponents argue, could leave Iceland with fewer tools to respond to economic shocks.

Who Supports EU Membership?

The country’s centre-left government coalition has backed putting the issue to a referendum.

Vidreisn, Iceland’s most explicitly pro-EU political party, pushed for the vote.

Prime Minister Frostadottir’s Social Democrats also support EU membership, although they have taken a more cautious approach to campaigning.

The coalition’s third party, the People’s Party, opposes membership.

The political divide therefore does not fit neatly along government versus opposition lines.

Who Opposes EU Membership?

The opposition Independence Party, led by Gudrun Hafsteinsdottir, is campaigning against reopening accession talks.

Its argument centres on sovereignty, fisheries and economic independence.

Opponents believe Iceland can maintain its existing relationship with Europe without accepting the political obligations of EU membership.

The close polling suggests neither side has yet secured a decisive advantage.

Why Is the Arctic Important to the Vote?

The referendum is taking place against a backdrop of growing geopolitical competition in the Arctic.

Iceland occupies a strategically important position between North America and Europe.

It sits along the Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom gap, commonly known as the GIUK gap, a critical North Atlantic maritime corridor.

The area has long been important for monitoring Russian naval movements between the Arctic and the North Atlantic.

Iceland is also a NATO member despite having no standing army of its own.

That makes its strategic location particularly important to the security architecture of the North Atlantic.

What Would Iceland Mean for the EU?

For the European Union, Iceland’s potential membership would have significance beyond economics.

It would expand the EU’s presence in the Arctic at a time when the region is becoming increasingly important to major powers.

Russia, the United States and other countries are paying greater attention to Arctic shipping routes, natural resources and military positioning.

Iceland could therefore give the EU a stronger institutional and geopolitical foothold in the North Atlantic and Arctic region.

Its accession could also be relatively straightforward compared with some other countries seeking EU membership.

Unlike Ukraine and several Western Balkan states, Iceland already has close economic and institutional links with Europe and would require fewer major reforms to align with EU rules.

Could Iceland Join the EU Quickly?

Potentially, but the process would still take years.

A “yes” vote would only begin negotiations.

Iceland would then have to negotiate the terms of membership before citizens could vote again on the final agreement.

The second referendum could potentially take place in 2028.

This means that even if Icelanders vote in favour of talks on August 29, actual EU membership would remain uncertain.

The referendum is therefore the beginning of a political process rather than its conclusion.

Analysis: Why Does Iceland’s EU Vote Matter?

Iceland’s referendum is ultimately about more than whether a small North Atlantic country should join a political and economic bloc.

It reflects a wider debate over sovereignty, economic resilience and strategic alignment in an increasingly contested Arctic.

For supporters, EU membership offers economic stability, greater influence over European decisions and closer integration with a bloc that could provide Iceland with additional leverage against larger powers.

For opponents, the same process represents a potential loss of national control over fisheries, monetary policy and important economic decisions.

The strategic dimension is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.

Iceland’s location makes it disproportionately important to North Atlantic security despite its small population and lack of a conventional military. As competition involving Russia, the United States and European countries intensifies in the Arctic, Iceland’s relationship with the EU could acquire greater geopolitical significance.

The vote also highlights a fundamental dilemma facing smaller states: whether greater integration with a larger political bloc provides more security and economic strength than the sovereignty it requires them to surrender.

The August referendum will not answer that question definitively.

It will determine whether Icelanders are willing to begin the conversation.

If voters choose “yes,” Iceland could move toward its most significant geopolitical realignment in more than a decade. If they choose “no,” the country may once again put EU membership aside and preserve its distinctive position outside the bloc while remaining closely connected to Europe.

With information from Reuters.

New Delhi, India – In a crowded ward of New Delhi’s All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), India’s premier public hospital, a mother sits quietly beside her 29-year-old son, Piyush Singh*.

Diagnosed with stomach cancer a year ago, Singh has already undergone five rounds of chemotherapy. He now lies in the hospital’s palliative care unit, where the goal is no longer to cure the disease but to relieve pain and preserve his dignity.

“The world comes to AIIMS when they are not well. But where shall we go?” asks his mother. “My son has already received five doses of chemotherapy, but his condition has not improved. The doctors are not telling us anything. I don’t know what to do next.”

Piyush’s family is not asking for his life to end. They simply don’t know what comes when treatment fails.

A few floors away, Aryan* has come to AIIMS from Auraiya, a small town in Uttar Pradesh state, to accompany his 40-year-old brother Amit (name changed), who has been battling mouth cancer for four years. Two surgeries, radiation and two rounds of chemotherapy later, doctors say there is little hope of him surviving. The final checkup has been done. There is nothing more left to try.

“There is no duvidha [dilemma in Hindi],” says Aryan. “The doctors have said no. So it is clear now.”

He plans to take Amit to his rented flat in Gurgaon and give him whatever painkillers he has been prescribed. Beyond that, he has no plan, because no one has given him one.

“I don’t know about palliative care. I don’t know how to ease his pain. I have nothing apart from the medicines I got today,” he said.

Piyush and Amit are no exceptions. They represent a reality that many Indians are coming to terms with – with little institutional help.

India recorded an estimated 1.56 million new cancer cases in 2024, according to an Indian Council of Medical Research study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. But cancer patients are not alone. Families of patients with traumatic brain injuries and degenerative neurological conditions also hit the same wall.

According to a 2025 analysis by ecancermedicalscience, an open-access medical journal, an estimated seven to 10 million people require palliative care in India, but only about 4 percent receive it.

Such families find themselves with little or no awareness or preparedness for what comes next. Many have never heard of palliative care, or that the law gives them the right to document their treatment preferences before a crisis arrives.

The problem is also rooted in how many Indians confront death – a phenomenon that is one of the least-discussed subjects within families or societies. In many households, conversations about dying are considered inauspicious.

In such a worldview, to think of interventions in how or when someone dies carries a moral weight that goes beyond medicine or law. Families often avoid discussing medical wishes until a loved one is critically ill, leaving relatives to make deeply personal decisions during moments of grief and uncertainty.

From caregiving to court

The answers are increasingly being shaped not just by medicine, but also by the law.

In 2018, India’s Supreme Court recognised that the “right to die with dignity” was part of the fundamental right to life, enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The court also allowed such patients to record their wishes about life-sustaining treatment if they lose the capacity to decide in an advanced stage of their ailment.

The top court’s ruling was in response to a petition filed by Common Cause, an NGO, which called for legal procedures allowing terminally ill individuals to execute Advance Medical Directives, commonly known as “living wills”, to refuse life-prolonging medical treatment.

A living will is a legal document that highlights an individual’s preferences for medical treatment when they cannot voice their choices. The provision allows them to nominate a loved one to decide for them.

“It [judgement] broadens the scope of Article 21. It now affirms, kind of completely, that the right to life includes the right to die with dignity. That is the bottom line for us,” Vipul Mudgal, director of Common Cause, the organisation behind the 2005 petition, told Al Jazeera.

Yet, for most Indians, that right largely existed on paper – until six years later.

In 2024, a family in Ghaziabad, an industrial district on the outskirts of New Delhi, filed a petition in the Delhi High Court and later in the Supreme Court, asking for a decision on the fate of a 32-year-old patient who was in a vegetative state for nearly 13 years.

Harish Rana’s case was a first in India where passive euthanasia, or withdrawal of life support, was permitted by the top court. On March 11, the Supreme Court directed the withdrawal of his life support at AIIMS, New Delhi. He passed away two weeks later.

But the journey from caregiving to courtroom was not easy.

Rana’s family managed his feeding tube, tracheostomy and urine bag every day for 13 years, and it had drained them.

“A family reaches such a decision when it sees no scope for improvement. Harish Rana could not speak, we were his voice,” Rana’s father Ashok told Al Jazeera. “He was not in that state for 13 days or 13 months, but for 13 years.”

All those years, said Ashok, he watched his son breathe but not recover, with only one question on his mind: “I am around 63 years old, and my wife is 58 years old. If something happens to either of us, who would take care of him?”

That is when they decided to approach the court.

While the Rana case is a landmark, experts say it is unlikely to set an immediate precedent in a country where death is an uncomfortable topic. That is why, despite being legalised in 2018, living wills remain uncommon and largely unheard of.

As a result, terminally ill patients do not discuss their wishes while they still can, and families end up making decisions for them without preparation or guidance.

A 2019 survey across seven cities, including New Delhi, Mumbai and Kolkata, by Healthcare at Home (HCAH), a health advocacy group, found that 73 percent of urban Indians were unaware of their right to a living will. Even among people aware of their right, only 6 percent had actually drafted such a will.

“The Harish Rana case was made more complex because there was no living will,” said Manish Jain, the lawyer who represented the family in court. “Living will clinics are absent across India.”

There are only two such clinics in India. The first opened in Mumbai last year, followed by one in New Delhi – both operated by private hospitals, which are beyond the reach of most Indians.

Fears of misuse of living wills

Concerned over a likely misuse of living wills, the Supreme Court made its guidelines complex. However, in the process, the court ended up making it difficult to navigate for most people.

To make a living will legally valid, an individual would sign it before two witnesses and get it countersigned by a magistrate. If the patient later became terminally ill, the treating doctor would be required to form a board of specialists with at least 20 years of experience each, whose findings then had to go to a district magistrate, who would form a second medical board. Only after both boards agreed could the process move forward, and any disagreement meant the matter went to the regional High Court.

In 2019, the Indian Society for Critical Care Medicine, a nonprofit group of physicians, approached the Supreme Court, arguing its guidelines were unworkable. In 2023, a five-judge top court bench simplified the process, removing the requirement of a magistrate’s countersignature, reducing the minimum medical experience requirement for review boards from 20 years to five, and allowing multiple nominees instead of one.

“Decisions are being made every day, sometimes by the family members, sometimes by the doctors, sometimes because of paucity of money,” said Mudgal.

He said if the families, doctors and courts can make end-of-life decisions for an individual, why cannot the individuals make those decisions for themselves? This recognition, while respecting individual autonomy, also relieves family members from the guilt of deciding for their loved one, he added.

“If there is no meaning left in life, somebody is kept alive artificially, just beating the heart with some mechanical device, that life has no meaning,” he said.

Yet, such questions remain unanswered by law. Living wills and the right to die exist entirely through judicial interpretation. There is no parliamentary law governing the same.

“There is no framework [of parliamentary law] passed by the parliament,” Jain said. “The Supreme Court of India itself requested the government to pass legislation regarding this issue,” he added, first in 2018 and again in 2023.

But lack of a law is only one part of the challenge.

For families, the absence of palliative care means little or no guidance on what comes after treatment options run out. Even families like Piyush’s, who have access to palliative care, don’t know what comes next.

“There are many patients like this who don’t have legal awareness of passive euthanasia. Not only patients, but their doctors also do not have full awareness about palliative care,” Dr Saipriya Tewari, principal consultant and unit head of pain management and palliative care at Max Super Speciality Hospital in New Delhi, told Al Jazeera.

She said families often look confused when told there is no treatment left, and that they should take the patient home.

“What will they do after taking the patient home? Nobody tells them. It is only discussed if the palliative care doctor is involved in the treatment,” Tewari said. “And even if the end is coming, then how do we maintain dignity in time? That is the question.”

Piyush’s mother has a different question.

“If he is sick, then we have to get treatment. We have to do something to keep him alive. What should we do? We are not able to think of a way out of this. Nobody is giving us any suggestions about where to go.”

*Names changed to protect the identity of the patients and their families.

Russia’s Defence Ministry says 453 Ukrainian drones were downed overnight in various regions.

At least five people have been killed and 11 others injured in Russian attacks on Ukraine, authorities said.

A Russian drone attack on a bus in the front-line city of Kherson killed at least four people and wounded four others on Wednesday, Kherson regional Governor Oleksandr Prokudin said.

The attack took place at about 8:50am local time (05:50 GMT), and all the casualties were bus passengers.

In a post on the Telegram app, Prokudin said the wounded had been taken to hospital.

He posted blurred photos of a yellow bus with bloodied steps and shattered windows.

Russian forces regularly strike Kherson, which was under Moscow’s control from March to November 2022 – the initial months of the war – with drones, in what Ukraine says is the deliberate targeting of civilians.

Earlier this month, Ukraine accused Russia of chasing a man in a street market in Kherson with a remotely piloted FPV drone, calling it a “safari” targeting civilians.

The city had a population of about 280,000 before the war began with Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Russian forces, repelled from the city by a Ukrainian counteroffensive in the last quarter of 2022, are now positioned on the opposite bank of the Dnipro River, which flows past Kherson.

There has been an uptick in civilian deaths in the conflict throughout this year, the United Nations has reported, with 437 civilians killed in Ukraine last month alone, the highest monthly toll since May 2022.

Russian authorities reported 79 civilians killed in Ukrainian attacks in July, up from the previous month.

The four-and-a-half-year war continues to grind on, as United States-backed talks aimed at ending the conflict remain stalled.

In a separate Russian attack, one person was killed and seven others injured in Ukraine’s southeastern city of Zaporizhzhia, according to regional Governor Ivan Fedorov.

Russian drones struck the regional capital, damaging both residential and nonresidential buildings and causing a fire.

Meanwhile, Russian forces struck a cargo vessel in the Black Sea near the Ukrainian port of Odesa, Russian news agency Interfax reported, citing the Ministry of Defence.

The vessel was carrying military cargo, the ministry said.

It said Russia’s air defence brought down 453 Ukrainian drones overnight in various regions.

At the same time, Russian authorities were rushing to put out a small fire after a drone fell in an industrial area in the city of Ufa in the Russian republic of Bashkortostan, the republic’s head Radiy Khabirov said on Telegram.

Khabirov added that a drone hit an apartment building and a few cars in Ufa, an oil refining hub, injuring one person.

India take a 1-0 lead with a 165-run win against the hosts in Galle to begin the two-Test series.

Left-arm spinner Manav Suthar finished with a haul of 10 wickets as India thrashed Sri Lanka by 165 runs in the first Test in Galle to take a 1-0 lead in the two-match series.

Suthar, playing only his second Test, impressed with his line and length to ensure India a memorable win on Wednesday in their 600th Test match.

He took four wickets in the first innings and kept up the fine show to take 6-55, helping bowl out the hosts for 206 shortly after lunch on the final day.

Set a target of 372 runs, Sri Lanka’s batters failed to apply themselves, other than Sonal Dinusha, who top-scored in both innings.

Indian captain Shubman Gill called the victory “very satisfying”.

“We were in a comfortable position but were not sure if the match would go on [because of the weather], but the team responded well,” he said.

Gill also praised Suthar and the batsmen for their effort on a wicket that was not easy to score runs on.

“He has been bowling magnificently. Looks like a very promising guy and someone who can play for India for a long time,” he said.

India claimed two wickets in the morning session after Sri Lanka resumed from their overnight score of 84-4 and then quickly ran through the tail.

Captain Dhananjaya de Silva (59) and first-innings centurion Dinusha tried to fight back, batting for more than two hours to add 95 runs for the fifth wicket.

De Silva, who had been dismissed off a no-ball early in his innings, looked set to make the most of the reprieve, posting his 20th half-century.

But his knock ended after he attempted a sweep shot off Ravindra Jadeja and was caught at short fine leg by Suthar.

“It was not easy [batting fourth in Galle],” said de Silva.

“They won the toss, got the runs on the board, and with our batting, we lost wickets, and it went downhill from there.”

Wicketkeeper Niroshan Dickwella posted a half-century in the first innings but could not make an impact in the second.

Dickwella fell for 10 when he attempted to hit Prasidh Krishna over the slips but ended up edging one to the wicketkeeper.

Suthar triggered a late-order collapse with a triple-wicket maiden after lunch and then, in his next over, claimed the last wicket of Keshara Nuwantha as Sri Lanka folded 36 minutes after lunch.

The last four wickets fell for seven runs, with Suthar claiming them all.

The 25-year-old Dinusha (84) put up a solid effort despite little support from his teammates.

Playing his fourth Test, he showcased maturity beyond his age, taking on India’s spinners with nimble footwork.

He was dismissed when Dhruv Jurel at leg slip took a bat-pad catch. He faced 128 deliveries during his defiant knock and hit eight fours and one six.

Apart from Suthar, the other standout performer for India was top-order batter Devdutt Padikkal, who posted 167 and 44 in the game, having come in as a late injury replacement.

“The wicket had its natural wear and tear [but] it was a good Test wicket,” Padikkal said.

“Turned a lot more from the third day onwards. In the end, it was all about who came out on top with their skill-set.”

The teams now head to Colombo for the second Test match, starting on Sunday.

Footballers Toby Alderweireld, Robbie Keane, Ashley Young, and former Tottenham manager Thomas Frank will join Match of the Day as pundits and BBC Sport will launch four new YouTube formats for the new men’s football season.

The BBC Football YouTube channel will house the quartet of new shows including FANS², The Truth About Football, Golden Goal and Football Hub.

There will be a focus on fan experience with the addition of the BBC Sport Fan Collective, which will bring together supporters representing all 20 Premier League clubs.

“Football means something different to every fan, and this season BBC Sport is putting those fans even more firmly at the heart of the game,” said BBC director of Sport Alex Kay-Jelski.

“We’re bringing together the unrivalled expertise of former players and managers with the passion, personality and perspectives of supporters to create a richer football experience wherever and however audiences follow the game.”

BBC Radio 5 Live will broadcast live commentary of 209 Premier League matches this season, as well as coverage from the Champions League, Scottish Premiership, FA Cup, men’s League Cup and international matches.

As well as Match of the Day’s Premier League coverage, BBC will broadcast two matches from each round of the FA Cup as well as one Bundesliga match every week on BBC iPlayer and the BBC Sport website and app.

Highlights and clips will also be available from La Liga, Serie A, the Europa League and Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland’s international games.

Kelly Somer’s The Football Interview will continue on BBC iPlayer, BBC Football YouTube and the BBC Sport website and app, as well as on BBC One every Saturday from 12:45 BST.