news

Ukraine officials say infrastructure damaged as Russia strikes Zaporizhzhia on the war’s fourth anniversary.

It’s apparently naming season for autonomous air combat drones. Earlier today, we reported that General Atomics had given the name Dark Merlin to its YFQ-42A Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) design. Now Northrop Grumman has stamped a new name on its YFQ-48A: Talon Blue.

Northrop Grumman first unveiled the drone this past December, at which time it was referred to simply as Project Talon, as you can read more about in our initial report here. Later that month, the U.S. Air Force gave it the formal designation YFQ-48A, and described it as “strong contender” to be part of its future CCA fleets. Currently, General Atomics’ YFQ-42A and Anduril’s YFQ-44A are the designs formally in development as part of the first phase, or Increment 1, of the Air Force’s CCA program. Northrop Grumman may now be under contract for the program’s Increment 2, but this remains unconfirmed.

The “YFQ-48A Talon Blue’s designation within the Air Force’s Collaborative Combat Aircraft program underscores the strategic alignment between Northrop Grumman’s manufacturing agility and the Air Force’s acquisition goals for low-cost, cutting-edge technology,” according to a press release the company put out today. “The aircraft’s design provides mission versatility through advanced modular manufacturing techniques that reduce part count and overall weight – shortening production timelines without sacrificing capability.”

The release does not offer a clear explanation of the significance of the new Talon Blue name. Northrop Grumman previously told TWZ and other outlets that the Project Talon moniker was a callback to the T-38 Talon jet trainer, as both had been designed with high performance, high maneuverability, and affordability in mind.

“And it’s got a cool sound to it, too,” Tom Jones, President of Northrop Grumman’s Aeronautics Systems sector, at the time of the drone’s official unveiling.

As for the new Blue addition to its name, this could be another callback, this time to Northrop’s hugely successful Tacit Blue demonstrator, aka the ‘Whale,’ which revolutionized America’s understanding of stealth technology at the dawn of the stealth age. Lockheed’s stealth demonstrator that led to the F-117 Nighthawk stealth combat jet was also called Have Blue. As TWZ has noted previously, the YFQ-48A is clearly optimized with low-observable (stealthy) characteristics. It also shares many similar features and a general layout with Tacit Blue. You can read more about what else is known about the Talon Blue design so far here.

Regardless, the Talon Blue name is welcome. As we noted with the announcement of the Dark Merlin name for General Atomics’ YFQ-42A, the nomenclatures and terms associated with the U.S. Air Force’s CCA program can often be obtuse to the general public. Being able to use specific names for the different drones helps. Anduril’s YFQ-44A has carried the nickname Fury from the very start, which traces back to its origins as a ‘red air’ training drone.

Beyond the YFQ-48A, Northrop Grumman is now also describing Project Talon as an entire “portfolio of modular, cost-effective and rapidly deployable aircraft that meet the customers’ autonomy needs.” That portfolio includes Talon IQ, formerly called Beacon, a “next-generation autonomous testbed ecosystem” that has been leveraging the Prism autonomy suite and Scaled Composite’s Model 437 Vanguard jet. Scaled Composites is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Northrop Grumman that was also involved in the development of Talon Blue.

Digital Ecosystem Takes Flight

Northrop Grumman has also now released a picture of the YFQ-48A flanked by the Model 437 and one of Scaled Composites’ earlier Model 401 jets, also known as the ‘Son of Ares,’ but it is not immediately clear if the latter is also part of the Project Talon portfolio. The Model 437 evolved from the Model 401. Concepts for uncrewed versions of the Model 401 and Model 437 have been shown in the past.

In December, Northrop Grumman said it was targeting a first flight for YFQ-48A about nine months down the road, or sometime in August of this year.

In terms of the Air Force’s CCA program, the service still has yet to make a decision about which Increment 1 CCA design, or both, it wants to buy in larger numbers. Nine companies are also now under contract to refine concepts under Increment 2. To date, the Air Force has not disclosed the names of any of the Increment 2 awardees, which, as noted, could include Northrop Grumman.

When it comes to the YFQ-48A, the company could also pitch it to prospective foreign customers. The marketspace for CCA-type drones, like what is now dubbed the Talon Blue, is steadily growing globally.

Contact the author: howard@thewarzone.com

Torrential downpours cause deadly mudslides in southern Peru, while more than 300 districts across the country declare states of emergency.

Peruvian authorities say they have recovered the bodies of a father and son who died in a mudslide triggered by heavy rains, which have battered the country’s southern regions of Ica and Arequipa, affecting an estimated 5,500 homes and forcing many people to evacuate.

Authorities in Arequipa have called on the country’s interim president to declare a state of emergency in the region as the governor announced that multiple shelters were being opened to house those fleeing the floods.

Peru’s Council of Ministers said on Monday that more than 700 districts nationwide have been declared in emergency status.

In Cayma, Arequipa, a vehicle was seen semi-buried under mud, and homes teetered on the verge of collapse after flash floods swept away the earth and destroyed roadways, the Reuters news agency reported.

According to the Associated Press news agency, the bodies of a father and son were recovered after being swept away by a landslide.

The recovery came a day after 15 people were killed when a military helicopter crashed while providing rescue services during the flooding.

Rescue teams found the wreckage of the helicopter in the Chala district, officials said. Seven children were among the 11 passengers and four crew members who died, according to the AFP news agency.

Torrential downpours have caused widespread damage across southern Peru, affecting about 5,500 homes and forcing many residents to evacuate.

Images shared by Peruvian media showed streets torn up in the affected areas and vehicles buried deep in the mud slides as rescue workers attempted to clear streets using mechanical earth movers.

The El Niño Costero (coastal) climate phenomenon has been the cause of the recent weeks of heavy rain in Peru, weather forecasters report, and is expected to strengthen slightly next month, threatening more heavy rain.

While El Niño is a natural cycle that has existed for millennia, scientists increasingly link its severity to climate change. Rising global temperatures provide a warmer “baseline” for the ocean, making it easier for these extreme heating events to reach record-breaking thresholds and increasing the atmosphere’s capacity to hold the moisture that fuels torrential rain and catastrophic flooding.

On 18 February 2026, reports emerged that Britain was withholding American permission to use Diego Garcia in any hypothetical strike against Iran. The following day, Trump posted “DO NOT GIVE AWAY DIEGO GARCIA” on Truth Social, linking the base directly to potential operations against Tehran in terms that left no room for diplomatic interpretation. The sequence lasted forty-eight hours and revealed what months of careful legal construction had obscured: that the architecture of conditional access Britain had built around a strategically significant military installation was worth precisely what the decisive power chose to make it worth. Whether the intervention also carried tactical signalling toward Tehran is a legitimate question, and intra-alliance friction of this kind sometimes functions as maximalist positioning before settlement. What matters analytically, however, is not the post itself but what the post revealed when operational pressure arrived. It was also, for anyone who had read Washington’s December 2025 National Security Strategy carefully, entirely predictable.

Power Does Not Ask

There are two ways to understand how military power operates in the international system, and the Chagos episode forces a choice between them. The first holds that great powers are meaningfully constrained by the frameworks they inhabit, alliance structures, legal agreements, and diplomatic settlements, and that these frameworks produce stable, predictable behavior even when the underlying interests they were designed to manage come under pressure. The second holds that frameworks are expressions of power relationships at a given moment rather than independent constraints upon them, so that when power shifts or decides to assert itself, the frameworks adjust to reflect the new reality rather than containing it. The first is the language of liberal internationalism. The second is the language of realism, and what February produced was an unambiguous realist moment.

The December 2025 National Security Strategy had already committed this diagnosis to paper. The document did not describe Europe as weak through circumstance. It described Europe as having chosen weakness, identifying a “loss of national identities and self-confidence” as the continent’s defining condition and stating openly that it is “far from obvious whether certain European countries will have economies and militaries strong enough to remain reliable allies.” The strategy framed European concerns about Russia as evidence of that same condition, noting that this lack of self-confidence was most evident in Europe’s relationship with Russia, despite the fact that European allies enjoy a significant hard power advantage over Russia by almost every measure save nuclear weapons. Washington’s reading of its European partners, formalized two months before the Diego Garcia friction became public, was of states that had systematically preferred institutional solutions over sovereign ones, legal arrangements over unconditional control, and managed conditionality over the exercise of will. Britain’s handling of Chagos was, in that context, not an anomaly. It was a confirmation.

What is analytically significant about Trump’s intervention is not simply that he rejected the deal but that he did not engage it at all, did not address the ICJ ruling that gave it legal foundation, did not contest the lease terms that were its operational expression, and did not enter the diplomatic logic that had produced it over months of negotiation. A decision of this kind does not derive its authority from the framework it overrides, because it precedes that framework, and the framework itself only ever existed on the sufferance of the power now choosing to move against it. When Trump asserted that leases are “no good when it comes to countries,” he was not making a legal argument that could be answered within the same register. He was stating a principle about the nature of sovereign will: that when it moves, it moves prior to and above whatever conditional arrangements were constructed in the period of its dormancy.

This is realism in its purest operational form, in which states pursue interests, great powers pursue interests with the capacity to enforce them, and legal architecture functions as an instrument of power when it serves those interests and an obstacle to be displaced when it does not. The Chagos deal did not alter the underlying power relationship between Washington and London, but it did create a layer of conditionality over an asset Washington considers operationally essential, and when operational pressure arrived, that conditionality became intolerable, not because Mauritius is hostile, not because Britain is an adversary, but because no great power conducting military projection at a global scale can accept that a weak state sits structurally inside the chain of its operational decisions, regardless of how that state arrived there or how benign its intentions are understood to be.

Beneath the realist logic sits a transactional one, and the two reinforce each other in ways that matter for how Britain should read what happened. Trump does not evaluate alliance relationships by their historical depth or their institutional architecture. He evaluates them by what they yield in the current moment, and every asset is a leverage point to be maximized. Diego Garcia represents unconditional American operational value. The Chagos deal reduced that value by inserting a condition. From a transactional perspective, that insertion was not a diplomatic nuance to be managed but a concession to be reversed, because Trump’s governing principle across every alliance relationship is maximum American gain, and conditionality is by definition a reduction of gain. The decisionism explains how he responded. The transactionalism explains why.

The Geography of Decision

Diego Garcia is not incidental to American power projection in the region, though its significance is that of an enabler rather than a prerequisite. The base sits at the center of the Indian Ocean, within operational reach of the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Malacca, and the East African littoral, and it has supported American military operations across that entire arc for half a century through bomber rotations, logistics chains, and a sustained forward presence that no other installation in the basin fully replicates at the same scale and permanence. It does not make American power projection possible in any absolute sense, but it makes it faster, cheaper, and more sustained, which in the context of time-sensitive operational planning against a target like Iran is not a marginal difference but a meaningful one.

The Iran dimension exposes the conditionality problem with particular clarity because the operational context in which Diego Garcia’s value is most acute is precisely the context in which conditional access is most dangerous. American military assets have accumulated across the Middle East, talks are active, and a base capable of projecting strategic airpower directly into the Persian Gulf theater is not a background consideration but a variable whose availability, or unavailability, shapes what options exist and on what timeline. Britain’s reported reluctance to grant operational clearance, under a deal still unratified and still contested in domestic courts, still legally dependent on Mauritius’s continued cooperation, revealed that the conditionality embedded in the arrangement had already entered the operational calculus before any of the stabilizing assumptions behind the deal had time to establish themselves. Strategic friction did not arrive at the end of a long maturation period. It arrived in weeks, because operational pressure does not wait for diplomatic frameworks to consolidate.

That compression of the timeline is itself the most realistic lesson. Power does not defer to the developmental logic of legal arrangements, and when the operational moment arrives, whatever sits between a great power’s will and its objective is reclassified from a framework to be respected into a problem to be solved.

The Structural Position of the Weak

The analytical core of the Chagos case is not about Mauritius’s intentions, which by all available evidence are not hostile, but about the structural position that the deal assigned to it within the architecture of American operational planning, because in the logic of great power competition, it is position rather than intention that determines strategic relevance. By inserting itself, or being inserted, into the chain of conditions governing a great power’s operational freedom, a weak state acquires a form of leverage it could never achieve through military means, and the Chagos deal gave Mauritius exactly that position, not through hostility but through legal standing, not through power but through presence within a conditional architecture that a great power now had reason to find constraining.

For Washington operating within a decisionist strategic logic, that presence is categorically unacceptable regardless of Mauritius’s intentions. The relevant question is not whether Mauritius would obstruct American operations but whether, under the terms of the arrangement, it structurally could, and the answer is yes in a way that no amount of diplomatic goodwill can fully neutralize. Sovereignty transferred to Mauritius is not sovereignty parked with a neutral party but sovereignty that now sits within reach of Chinese economic leverage, meaning the lease does not merely introduce conditionality but introduces conditionality whose future content Washington cannot determine or guarantee. A great power conducting global military projection cannot organize its operational planning around the sustained goodwill of a small state whose strategic orientation it cannot guarantee. That such goodwill is required at all is the problem the deal created.

Weak states do not constrain great powers through legal arrangements in any durable sense, because the constraint only holds when the great power chooses to honor it, and great powers choose to honor constraints only when the cost of non-compliance exceeds the cost of compliance, a calculation that shifts decisively once operational necessity enters the equation and the framework reveals itself to be dependent on tolerance rather than grounded in power.

Conclusion

Britain converted unconditional sovereign control over a strategically significant military installation into a conditional leasehold arrangement whose operationalization depended on a small state’s legal cooperation and presented that conversion as a resolution of vulnerability rather than the creation of a new one. Britain was not being naive. It was an attempt to preserve the base’s long-term legal viability against mounting international pressure, a calculation that the alliance relationship would absorb any friction that followed. What Britain did not account for was that its ally evaluates arrangements not by their legal durability but by whether they constrain American will, and a solution sophisticated enough to satisfy international law was simultaneously insufficiently decisive to satisfy Washington.

From the perspective of the December 2025 National Security Strategy, that conversion was not a surprise. It was the predictable output of a European strategic culture that Washington had already formally diagnosed: one that reaches instinctively for institutional solutions when strong states would resolve through will, that mistakes legal legitimacy for strategic security, and that has internalized the habits of the post-Cold War order to the point where it can no longer easily distinguish between a framework and the power that makes frameworks real.

Trump’s response was the most realistic verdict on that presentation, not an argument against the deal’s legal coherence, which was never in question, but a decision that the framework was insufficient for the operational reality it was meant to serve, delivered in terms that made the underlying logic unmistakable. The framework did not collapse under the pressure. It was revealed, under pressure, to have rested entirely on the assumption that the decisive power would continue to choose not to decide otherwise, an assumption that realism has always identified as the central fragility of arrangements built on consent rather than grounded in power.

The strong do not negotiate with the architecture of constraint, and for Europe, February was less a shock than a reminder that the rules it has built its strategic identity around have always depended on the continued willingness of a decisive power to operate within them.

New Zealand says it, too, will support the UK government if it decides to remove the disgraced prince from succession to the throne.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has announced that his government is writing to Commonwealth countries about its support to have the United Kingdom’s former prince, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, removed from the line of royal succession over his links to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Albanese’s announcement on Tuesday came as neighbouring Commonwealth member New Zealand declared that it would also support the UK government if it proposes the removal of Mountbatten-Windsor from the line of succession to the throne.

“Australia likes being first, and we have made sure that everyone knows what our position is, and we’ll be writing today to the other realm countries as well, informing them of our position,” Prime Minister Albanese told Australia’s ABC public broadcaster.

Australians were “disgusted” by revelations about late US sex offender Epstein’s relations with public figures, and they want the government to be clear about its position, Albanese told the ABC.

“King Charles has said that the law must now take its full course. There must be a full, fair and proper investigation. And that needs to occur,” he added.

The former 66-year-old prince was arrested last week, detained and questioned as part of an investigation into alleged misconduct in public office following revelations about his dealings with Epstein.

Albanese also said the UK would have to initiate any proposed change to the line of royal succession, and it would need the agreement of the 14 other Commonwealth nations that have King Charles III as head of state.

Albanese wrote to UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and informed him that, “in light of recent events”, the Australian government would “agree to any proposal to remove [Mountbatten-Windsor] from the line of royal succession”, according to Australian media.

“I agree with His Majesty that the law must now take its full course and there must be a full, fair and proper investigation,” Albanese wrote.

“These are grave allegations and Australians take them seriously,” he added.

New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said that if the UK government proposes to remove Mountbatten-Windsor from the order of succession, New Zealand would support it, the UK’s Press Association reports.

“The bottom line is, no one is above the law, and once that investigation is closed, should the UK government decide to remove him from the line of succession, that is something we would support,” Luxon told reporters.

Officials in the UK have told media outlets that any moves to change the line of succession would come after the police conclude their investigation into the former prince, who is eighth in line to the throne.

Starmer’s official spokesman said on Monday that the government was not ruling out any steps in relation to the disgraced prince, but it would not be appropriate to comment further during the police probe.

Mountbatten-Windsor, who was stripped of his royal title last year as news of links to Epstein emerged, has denied any wrongdoing over his relationship with Epstein, who was ruled to have taken his own life in prison in 2019. He has not directly responded to the latest allegations regarding misconduct in public office.

The U.S. Air Force has given us our first look at one of Anduril’s YFQ-44 Fury ‘fighter drone’ prototypes carrying an inert AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM).

“The Air Force has entered the next phase of developmental testing for its Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) program, initiating disciplined weapons integration and captive carry evaluations using inert test munitions to validate airworthiness, safety, and systems performance,” according to an Air Force press release put out this evening. “This milestone represents a deliberate step forward in integrating CCA into the Air Force’s future force design.”

“CCA program officials emphasized that this phase remains developmental and focused on safe systems integration — not operational employment,” the release also noted. “The use of inert test weapons allows engineers and test pilots to evaluate performance characteristics and separation safety in a controlled environment without live ordnance.”

“Throughout development and testing, a human retains authority over weapons release decisions,” the Air Force has also stressed. “CCA is designed to operate within established command structures and legal frameworks that govern all Air Force weapons systems.”

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Kenneth Wilsbach first announced this new development at the Air & Space Forces Association’s annual Warfare Symposium, at which TWZ is attendence. The YFQ-44 is one of two designs now under development as part of the first phase, or Increment 1, of the service’s CCA program. The other is General Atomics’ YFQ-42A Dark Merlin. No images have yet been released of the YFQ-42A carrying inert munitions.

Renderings have previously been shown of Fury carrying AIM-120s under its wings. The design, at least as it exists now, does not have an internal munitions bay. Anduril has also talked about weapons testing as part of its larger plans for the ongoing development of the YQ-44A in the past.

“We are following the same detailed approach used in every other aircraft developmental test program to validate structural performance, flight characteristics and safe separation,” Wilsbach said in a statement accompanying the release. “This ensures the CCA can safely integrate inert weapons before future employment.”

“CCA is a critical part of a larger, integrated system-of-systems that will give our warfighters the overwhelming advantage,” Wilsbach added. “This program is about delivering a network of effects that will sense, strike, and shield our forces in contested environments. We are empowering our teams to take smart risks and deliver this capability faster, ensuring we can deter, and if necessary, defeat any adversary.”

What other munitions beyond the AIM-120 may be included in the weapons integration and captive carry test plan remains to be seen. The Air Force has said in the past that future operational CCA drones are expected to be armed with AIM-260 Joint Advanced Tactical Missiles (JATM). JATM, which is still in development, is the planned successor to the AMRAAM.

The Air Force is not the first to fly a CCA-type drone with an AIM-120. Australian authorities, together with Boeing, announced the first live test shot of an AMRAAM from an MQ-28 Ghost Bat drone in December. You can read more about that milestone here.

Uncrewed MQ-28 Ghost Bat showcases its combat capability

In November, Turkish drone-maker Baykar had also announced a similar test involving its fighter-like Kizilelma. The drone fired a Turkish-made radar-guided Gökdoğan air-to-air missile in that instance.

Bayraktar #KIZILELMA | GÖKDOĞAN Füzesi Atış Testi

The beginning of weapons integration and captive carry testing is still an important development for the U.S. Air Force CCA program, and Increment 1 more specifically. Both the YFQ-42A and YFQ-44A only made their first flights in the second half of last year.

Carrying air-to-air missiles is exactly what these drones were intended to do, at least to start. CCAs will also help increase the sensor reach of crewed fighters they’re teamed with. Overall, the Air Force sees CCAs as providing critical combat mass while helping to reduce risk and providing new tactical possibilities, especially potential high-end fights against opponents such as China.

The Air Force has yet to decide which Increment 1 CCA, or both, it wants to buy in larger numbers. Whatever the Air Force chooses will be set to become its first operational ‘fighter drones’ intended to carry live munitions into real combat alongside crewed companions.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

Beirut, Lebanon – Anger in Lebanon is growing after the government of Prime Minister Nawaf Salam announced increases in petrol taxes and value-added taxes (VATs) last week.

The rises in what economists and analysts have called “regressive” taxes led to two protests on February 17 and an array of criticism against the government, including from media and voices that had previously been friendly to Salam’s reformist administration.

“The government lost its mind,” Megaphone News, an independent, progressive news outlet published on a social media account in response to Salam’s government announcing a 300,000 Lebanese pound ($3.35) price increase on 20 litres (about 5.3 gallons) of petrol or gasoline and a one percent increase from 11 to 12 percent on VAT – a consumption tax charged on goods and services at each stage of production.

On the morning of February 17, a handful of taxi drivers blocked the Ring Bridge in downtown Beirut to protest the rise in taxes. Later that evening, in Riad al-Solh Square, around 50 or so protesters gathered to express their discontent with the government’s decision.

“You have no housing, you have no loans, you have no safety, I mean, you live here in a prison, brother,” one angry protester told Lebanese television station Al Jadeed from the Ring Bridge protest.

His comments represent the frustration felt by many Lebanese – that the tax increases are yet another indignity the population must live through, including near-daily Israeli attacks and violations of the 2024 ceasefire, collapsing buildings in the north, and an ongoing economic crisis since 2019.

Salam doubles down

The last time a tax spike sent Lebanese people to the streets was in 2019. Anger in Lebanon had boiled after decades of economic and political mismanagement by the government. Then, as the country’s economy started collapsing, the government tried to implement a series of taxes, including on WhatsApp calls.

The response was widespread protests that collapsed the government, led at the time by then-Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri. But they failed to dislodge the wider sectarian system that many activists and experts say plagues Lebanon and prevents reform.

Last week’s protests were on a far smaller scale than 2019, however.

Then, protesters forced the government to walk back the taxes. But Salam, the prime minister, defended the tax hike on Friday. The government’s argument is that the taxes are necessary to pay salaries and pensions for state employees and retirees.

“We had to find a quick source to fund the raises,” he said. “These are exceptional measures… but the government wants to reform the tax system, not just impose new taxes.”

Salam also said that his government inherited a “very difficult” financial situation and promised that he would rebuild trust between the state and the people by working to establish a fair tax system.

Lebanon’s Finance Minister Yassine Jaber said the fuel price increase would take effect immediately, but that VAT increases would need parliament’s approval.

“More than 50 per cent of the budget today is allocated to salaries, and it was necessary to take steps to secure the funds,” he said.

VAT is a regressive tax

But not everyone agreed with the decision, including some ministers themselves. The right-wing Lebanese Forces bloc – which is part of the government coalition – voiced objection to the tax increase, calling for a study of the impacts.

Analysts, meanwhile, were heavily critical of the tax increase. They said that the rise of petrol prices and VAT would punish the country’s most vulnerable and would further widen the gap between rich and poor in Lebanon.

“The people who are most affected by value-added taxes are usually the poorest of the poor and the most vulnerable, given the type of their consumption, which is mostly filled of the goods and the services that are affected by taxation, and whereby the proportion of the taxation is significant,” Farah al-Shami, senior fellow and programme director for Social Protection at the Arab Reform Initiative, told Al Jazeera. “VAT is by nature the most regressive type of taxation. Studies have shown that it affects the full supply chain, meaning everything that goes into the production, for example, of a certain good is affected.”

A price increase at every step of the supply chain means that prices compound to end up being more expensive for consumers.

In 2019, decades of government mismanagement of the economy ended in the collapse of the banking sector and the depreciation of the Lebanese pound by over 90 percent. Before 2019, $1 was equivalent to 1,500 Lebanese pounds, whereas now $1 is valued at nearly 89,500 Lebanese pounds.

Many lost their life savings with the currency freefall. Banks quickly shut their doors and limited withdrawals. More than six years later, many Lebanese have not recovered, nor has the economy.

Scandalous undertaxing

The high cost of living is a regular talking point among Lebanese, particularly in the capital, Beirut. Many are struggling to make ends meet and rely on the $5.8bn in remittances from family or contacts abroad (these are 2024 figures).

With so many struggling, a tax increase that impacts the entire population is a recipe for anger. And analysts said that if the government is in need of tax revenue, there are plenty of undertaxed sources to draw from.

“Property in Lebanon remains scandalously undertaxed,” Dania Arayssi, a senior analyst at New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy Luxury, told Al Jazeera. “Real estate in Beirut — some of the most expensive per square metre in the region — generates a fraction of the public revenue it could and should. Capital gains on property are minimal. Wealth held in land and assets is effectively sheltered. Similarly, luxury goods face no meaningful additional burden.”

Fouad Debs, a lawyer and member of the Depositors Union, a group founded after the 2019 banking crisis to protect the rights of depositors, said the decision went against the government’s stated goals of reform.

“All of this is to keep the [current] system intact and save the banks, instead of having them also pay the taxes that they should pay,” Debs said.

The attack on alleged drug smugglers brings death toll of US military campaign against suspected drug boats to about 150.

The United States military has announced another strike in the Caribbean Sea that it said targeted drug smugglers, killing three people.

The Southern Command of the US military (SOUTHCOM) shared footage of the attack on Monday, showing a small boat exploding and going up in flames after the strike.

“Intelligence confirmed the vessel was transiting along known narco-trafficking routes in the Caribbean and was engaged in narco-trafficking operations,” SOUTHCOM said in a statement.

“Three male narco-terrorists were killed during this action. No US military forces were harmed.”

The attack brings the death toll from US boat strikes on boats allegedly smuggling drugs, which began last year, to about 150.

Rights advocates have said the US military campaign targeting alleged drug smugglers amounts to extrajudicial killings and risks violating international and domestic laws.

The administration of US President Donald Trump has argued that all the targeted boats were carrying drugs, but it has offered little evidence other than grainy footage of the strikes.

United Nations experts warned last year that the attacks “appear to be unlawful killings carried out by order of a Government, without judicial or legal process allowing due process of law”.

“Unprovoked attacks and killings on international waters also violate international maritime laws,” the experts added.

“We have condemned and raised concerns about these attacks at sea to the United States Government.”

The strikes started in September last year, as the US was building up its military assets in the Caribbean amid tensions with Venezuela. Since then, the attacks have expanded to also targeting boats in the eastern Pacific Ocean.

A separate US strike on an alleged drug-smuggling boat on Friday also killed three people.

The campaign has continued even after US forces abducted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro early in 2026.

Trump and other US officials have argued, without providing evidence, that each bombing saves thousands of lives from overdose deaths. But it is not clear whether the deadly campaign has significantly affected the drug trade in the region.

The latest attack comes as Mexican authorities push to curb violence by drug cartels after the killing of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel leader, Nemesio Ruben Oseguera Cervantes, also known as “El Mencho”.

Trump has been pushing to present himself as launching a literal war on drugs across the Western Hemisphere.

“Mexico must step up their effort on Cartels and Drugs!” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Monday.

The US has often accused its critics in Latin America, including Colombian President Gustavo Petro, of ties to the drug trade.

Meanwhile, in December, Trump pardoned former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez, who was serving a 45-year prison sentence in US jails after being convicted of drug trafficking.

European Union fails to approve further Russia sanctions and a $106bn loan to Ukraine after Hungary refuses to agree.

The European Union has imposed sanctions on a new group of eight Russian individuals suspected of serious human rights violations, as EU member state Hungary vetoed additional sanctions on Moscow and a crucial loan for Ukraine on the eve of the war’s fourth anniversary.

The European Council on Monday said the individuals were members of the judiciary responsible ⁠for sentencing prominent Russian activists on politically motivated charges, as well as heads of penal colonies where political prisoners were held in inhuman and degrading conditions.

Under the sanctions, the individuals are banned from ⁠travelling to or transiting through the EU, their ⁠assets are frozen, and EU citizens and companies are prohibited from making funds available to them.

So far, 72 individuals have been hit by similar measures, including members of the judiciary, Ministry ⁠of Justice officials, and senior figures within Russia’s prison ⁠network.

The announcement came as the bloc failed to agree on a 20th sanctions package targeting the ‌Russian authorities more broadly and ‌a $106bn loan for Ukraine.

Hungary, the friendliest EU state to the Kremlin, vetoed the measures – which required unanimous approval within the EU bloc – following claims that Kyiv is delaying restarting the flow of Russian oil via a Soviet-era pipeline.

Kyiv says the Druzhba pipeline, which still carries Russian oil over Ukrainian territory to Europe, was damaged a month ago by a Russian drone strike, and it is fixing it as fast as it can.

Hungary and Slovakia, which have the EU’s only ⁠two refineries that still rely on oil via Druzhba, blame Ukraine for the delay.

Tensions were further exacerbated on Monday as Ukrainian security officials claimed to have launched a drone attack that sparked a fire at a Russian pumping station serving the Druzhba oil ⁠pipeline.

‘Message we didn’t want to send’

Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto told reporters ahead of the EU meeting that Budapest would block the loan as Kyiv had taken the “political decision” to “endanger our energy security”.

“The Druzhba pipeline has not been hit by any Russian attack, the pipeline itself has not been harmed, and currently there is no physical reason and no physical obstacle to reinstall the deliveries,” he said.

EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas called the failure to approve the new package a “setback and message we didn’t want to send today, but the work continues”.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha said in a post on X that Hungary and Slovakia should not be allowed to “hold the entire EU hostage” and called on them to “engage in constructive cooperation and responsible behaviour”.

Maximilian Hess, an analyst at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, said the loan was “crucial for keeping Kyiv able to finance itself going forward in this conflict”.

Hess argued Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban is using the issue to his political advantage ahead of elections on April 12.

“Orban is trying to make this a political issue, and he’s trying to blame his own economic difficulties on Ukraine [to boost] his chances in this election,” the analyst told Al Jazeera.

Independent polls suggest the right-wing nationalist leader is facing the most serious challenge yet in his 16 years as prime minister.

As well as being a key component of Russia’s attack helicopter force in the war in Ukraine, the Mi-28 Havoc has been in the news recently on account of its apparent delivery to Iran. Meanwhile, one lesser-known aspect of the Mi-28 is its ability to transport two or three passengers in a cramped fuselage compartment, a feature that is seen clearly in a recently published video of the rotorcraft.

The footage in question originates with the state-owned Russia Television and Radio channel and shows a Russian Aerospace Forces Mi-28NM — the latest domestic version of the gunship — undergoing pre-flight checks at a forward airstrip somewhere in the Ukrainian conflict zone. The video reportedly dates from this month.

At the start of the video, a technician is seen handling hoses that run into the helicopter’s port-side rear fuselage via an open door. Typically, such hoses are attached to dehumidifier units, which then blow warm, dry air through the aircraft to keep everything dry. This is especially important for sensitive avionics in cold weather, as on this snowy airfield. Once the helicopter is fully powered up, it should keep itself warm enough for moisture not to be a problem.

What’s most interesting, however, is that the open door provides a rare look into this rear-fuselage compartment, which has the capacity to carry two or three people, or an equivalent load of cargo. Of course, this is in addition to the Mi-28’s two crew seated in tandem in the cockpit — the weapon system operator/navigator forward and the pilot to the rear.

The fuselage compartment, unique among in-service attack helicopters, was part of the Mi-28’s design when it was first schemed back in the second half of the 1970s. The Soviet Union had ordered Mil to design a new-generation combat helicopter, equivalent to the U.S. AH-64 Apache, but this feature was all its own.

The Mi-28’s configuration was broadly similar to the AH-64, but marked a significant move away from the philosophy enshrined in the previous Mi-24 Hind. As we have discussed in the past, the Mi-24 had been built around a passenger/cargo cabin — with space for a squad of infantry — although, as it was developed, it expanded its anti-armor capabilities, too.

A walkaround video of a privately owned Mi-24 in the United States. The passenger/cargo cabin is seen in detail from around the 11:30 mark:

Hind MI-24 Helicopter Walkaround Tour

In contrast, the Mi-28 was a tank-killer first and foremost, with no cabin, and better overall performance. However, there was internal space for a much smaller compartment and one that would be very useful for retrieving downed pilots from the battle area, especially for grabbing a pilot who went down within the same flight. Bearing in mind the expected aircraft losses on Europe’s Central Front — especially among low-flying helicopters — this made a lot of sense.

Other tasks could have included moving mechanics and tools to conduct limited repairs of other helicopters in an emergency. Potentially, it could even have been used for inserting and picking up infiltrators or saboteurs.

Having the option of using the Mi-28 as a kind of ad-hoc, or non-traditional combat search and rescue (CSAR) asset would also mean that the aircraft could operate on its own and on the fly if other air or ground assets were not available. Traditionally, CSAR helicopters have to operate with an armed escort. It’s unknown whether the passenger cabin has been used at all in the war in Ukraine, but the limited space, presence of avionics equipment, and complete lack of windows mean it’s only really suited to emergencies. For more typical CSAR missions in the Ukrainian theater, Mi-8 Hips and Mi-24s are typically used, with an escort of Mi-28 or Ka-52 Hokum attack helicopters.

As for other attack helicopter types attempting personnel recovery, the best-known incident is likely that involving two British Army Apache gunships in Afghanistan in January 2007. During that dramatic mission, four Royal Marines strapped themselves to the outside of two Apaches for an attempted combat rescue. Ultimately, they were only able to recover the body of their fallen comrade, Lance Cpl. Ford, who had already been killed.

The Italian Army, too, has explored the concept of using its A129 Mangusta attack helicopters for personnel rescue, strapping a pair of soldiers to the main landing gear struts. Meanwhile, the U.S. Army Special Operations Command operates MH-6M Little Birds with side-mounted planks to externally airlift special operators. A more elaborate modular system, used to transport small numbers of personnel, was schemed for the Bell 360 Invictus armed scout helicopter, as you can read about here.

It’s also worth pointing out another planned ‘survival’ feature of the Mi-28, namely its crew-escape system. Unlike the Ka-52, the Mi-28 doesn’t have ejection seats. Instead, the Zvezda/Tomilino Pamir-K crew seats have belts that tighten automatically when high-g loads are encountered. As originally envisaged, the crew escape system would work as follows: During any kind of catastrophic failure at altitude, the cockpit doors would be blown off, the stub wings would be jettisoned together with their loads, and an inflatable door-sill sleeve would be filled with air. This was to protect the crew from the protruding main landing gear and cannon and help them clear the helicopter, after which they would return to the ground by parachute. In theory, at least.

Ka-52 alligator and its unique K-37-800M ejection seats. Before the rocket in the ejection seat deploys, the rotor blades are blown away by explosive charges in the rotor disc and the canopy is jettisoned. pic.twitter.com/BzPP9SNXMZ

— Владимир З. (@VladZinen) December 11, 2020

In practice, it seems the crew escape system never reached operational status on the Mi-28, likely due to the very limited window in which it would be of practical use.

According to the Oryx open-source tracking group, Russia has lost 19 Mi-28s since launching its full-scale invasion of Ukraine four years ago. This figure could be higher because Oryx only tabulates losses it can confirm visually. Russia began the conflict with a force of around 110 Mi-28s of all versions.

⚡️Video of the destruction of the Mi-28 of the 🇷🇺Russian Air Force using an 🇺🇦FPV drone. The first recorded case pic.twitter.com/LWosDeX2Ah

— 🪖MilitaryNewsUA🇺🇦 (@front_ukrainian) August 7, 2024

The Mi-28 has had a notably protracted history since it was first flown in prototype form in 1982. The original Havoc was abandoned by the early 1990s, and Mil pressed ahead with the radar-equipped, night-capable Mi-28N version. Deliveries of production Mi-28N helicopters to Russia began in 2008, and export versions have since been sold to Algeria, Iraq, Uganda, and, apparently, now also Iran.

For Russia, the basic version remains the Mi-28N, which also undertook combat operations in Syria starting in 2016.

Less common is the Mi-28UB (only 24 of which were produced), which received a mast-mounted radar, lacking on the Mi-28N, and dual controls. As for the latest Mi-28NM version — as seen in the video above — this also has the mast-mounted radar and other changes, including new missiles. As well as having been ordered in quantity for Russia, there are also plans to bring older Mi-28N aircraft up to Mi-28NM standard.

Video of the radar-equipped Mi-28UB during a live-fire exercise in the Krasnodar region, March 2020:

Russian Mi-28UB live fire exercise

For all the changes that the Mi-28 has undergone since it first appeared, its highly compact passenger compartment remains one of its most unusual features.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

Part of award-winning filmmaker Akinola Davies Jr’s speech in which he says ‘Free Palestine’ was not aired.

The BBC is facing backlash for editing out a section of its coverage of the British Academy Film Awards (BAFTAs) in which prize-winning filmmaker Akinola Davies Jr says, “Free Palestine”, even while a racial slur remained audible in the same programme.

Davies Jr, who was awarded outstanding debut by a British writer, director or producer for his film My Father’s Shadow, ended his acceptance speech on Sunday with words of solidarity to “those under occupation, dictatorship, persecution and those experiencing genocide”.

“To those watching at home, archive your loved ones, archive your stories yesterday, today and forever. For Nigeria, for London, Congo, Sudan, Free Palestine,” he said.

The remarks were absent when the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) aired the event on a two-hour delay, prompting accusations of censorship from some viewers and advocacy groups.

Rights group Amnesty International’s United Kingdom chapter described the move to cut the speech as “shameful”.

“Thank you Akinola Davies Jr for using your platform to speak out for the rights of migrants and people facing and fleeing from persecution and mass atrocities – from the Congo to Sudan to Palestine,” said Amnesty UK.

The controversy was further amplified after a racial slur was heard during a separate segment of the broadcast. The offensive language was shouted by someone in the audience while Michael B Jordan and Delroy Lindo read out an award for best visual effects.

The event’s host Alan Cumming had earlier informed the audience that one attendee was John Davidson, who advocates for people with Tourette syndrome, a motor disorder that sometimes causes quick repetitive movements or sounds, including inappropriate language.

The broadcaster apologised for not omitting the outburst when airing the event. It said it would remove it from the version of the broadcast available on its streaming service

“Some viewers may have heard strong and offensive language during the Bafta Film Awards,” said the BBC statement. “This arose from involuntary verbal tics associated with Tourette syndrome, and as explained during the ceremony it was not intentional.”

When contacted by Al Jazeera English, the broadcaster declined to comment further on its editorial decisions regarding the BAFTA Awards, including the removal of Akinola Davies Jr’s “Free Palestine” remarks.

The BBC has previously faced criticism for coverage related to Israel and Gaza.

In June last year, the BBC opted not to broadcast a documentary it commissioned about medical workers in Gaza due to what it described as “partiality” issues, a decision more than 100 of the broadcaster’s own journalists petitioned against.

The BBC was also previously accused of editing out pro-Palestinian displays during its coverage of the 2023 BAFTA Awards, including several appeals for a ceasefire in war-battered Gaza.

The aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, six frigates, three light warships, and approximately thirty fighter jets and support aircraft have entered the Middle East by order of Donald Trump who, by repeatedly touting the slogan “I have ended six/seven/eight wars,” has considered (and continues to consider) himself deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize. What objective do all these tensions that the U.S. administration has generated in the region actually pursue? The weakening of Iran, or the overthrow of the incumbent government? Whatever his and his administration’s aim may be, it appears that—within the cost–benefit calculations of his trader’s mindset—he has yet to arrive at a definitive conclusion as to what kind of blow, and at what scale, could deliver the desired outcome. His recent military posturing around Iran and his increasingly threatening rhetoric against the Islamic Republic have placed him in a no-win situation whose end few can predict.

Why a no-win situation for Trump?

First Strike Doubt: Trump and the constellation of officials currently in the White House—who, notably, are far from unified or aligned on how to approach Iran—have reached no certainty regarding the effectiveness of a first strike against Iran or the likelihood of achieving their desired results. It is evident to all that the Islamic Republic of Iran is neither Venezuela, nor Libya, nor Syria, nor Afghanistan, nor Iraq, nor anything akin to the historical cases in which the United States has intervened militarily in the name of democracy verbally and in pursuit of its own interests operationally. This very reality has, thus far, prevented Trump from issuing the order to “open fire” on Iran up to now.

On the other side, there is no sign of the flexibility or concession sought by the United States in the behavior or rhetoric of Iranian officials—a fact acknowledged by American officials themselves. This indicates that pressure, intimidation, and threats have thus far yielded no results. The reason is clear: the Islamic Republic views any potential confrontation as an existential war and is unwilling to grant any concessions. Trump, however—who seeks to manufacture achievements out of even the smallest events and whose penchant for exaggeration is among his defining traits—perceives such circumstances as detrimental to his personal prestige and standing.

Iran’s Resilience: The experience of the Israeli attack and the hybrid war launched against Iran in June 2025, with direct assistance from the United States and indirect support from so many others, demonstrated that the instability they sought within the governing structure of the Islamic Republic and even the internal social fragmentation and rifts that had been cultivated for years through various media tools did not materialize. Despite the blows inflicted on Iran, none of the long-term strategic objectives of the United States and Israel were achieved. Likewise, the unrest and riots of January 8 and 9, despite the violence and damage they caused to the public and the state, were ultimately brought under control and culminated in a multi-million-person rally on January 12 condemning the unrest and supporting the central government of the Islamic Republic.

High costs and Persian Gulf Worries: Operationalizing a military threat would impose heavy costs on the United States and its allies. The Islamic Republic has explicitly declared that any military action against its territory, at any scale, would be regarded as all-out war, and that, consequently, the entire region—as well as U.S. interests wherever they may be—would fall within range of Iran’s retaliatory strikes. This serious warning has also prompted Persian Gulf states to mobilize their capacities to dissuade Trump from attacking Iran. The strikes on U.S. bases at Ayn al-Asad and Al-Udeid entrenched the perception that the Islamic Republic does not shy away from responding to foreign aggression, even if large segments of the world regard the attacking state as a “superpower.”

Global Energy Risks: The ignition of war in the Persian Gulf would amount to a grave threat to global energy supply routes. Roughly 30 percent of the world’s crude oil and 20 percent of liquefied natural gas are supplied by Persian Gulf countries, and 20–25 percent of global crude oil transits the Strait of Hormuz. Any aggressive action by the United States would jeopardize the security of one-fifth of the world’s fuel and profoundly affect the global economy.

Although the U.S. National Security Strategy does not place the Middle East among America’s top strategic priorities, the same document states that: “We (the United States) want to prevent an adversarial power from dominating the Middle East, its oil and gas supplies, and the chokepoints through which they pass while avoiding the forever wars”, which shows Persian Gulf oil is still of high importance for Washington.

Tilting Power Balance: In addition, heightened tensions in the Persian Gulf would endanger China’s economic interests, and any large-scale military confrontation would likely lead to a more pronounced military-security presence by Russia and China in the Gulf—tilting the balance in favor of America’s rivals.

And finally?

The embers beneath the region’s ashes today could be ignited by the slightest breeze, engulfing a vast area. Israel, while likely the first target of Iran’s retaliatory response in the event of a U.S. attack, is nevertheless eager to initiate confrontation based on the calculation that a war waged with the full might of the United States could ultimately erode the very existence of the Islamic Republic or weaken it to the point of capitulation. In this context, it is not far-fetched to suggest that the disclosure of new documents and details concerning Trump’s links to the notorious Epstein case and his mysterious island may have been driven by the Mossad, as such revelations could compel the U.S. president to undertake an irrational action to divert attention elsewhere.

Today, Trump is acting more than ever in contradiction to his own professed principles—from trampling on his signature MAGA slogan and morphing it into MIGA (Make Israel Great Again), to undermining his administration’s efforts to reduce unnecessary international expenditures; from his paradoxical pride in having ended “eight wars” to the strategy of off-shore balancing the Middle East. Should a war of this magnitude and consequence erupt, no country involved—whether through direct action or geographic proximity—would be spared its consequences. Regarding these circumstances, it appears that the only desirable scenario for Trump, the region, and the world at large is the opening of a genuine dialogue, free from the shadow of threats, intimidation, and American bullying.

Slovakia had issued a two-day ultimatum to Ukraine to reopen the Soviet-era Druzhba pipeline so that it could receive Russian oil deliveries.

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has said his country will halt emergency electricity supplies to Ukraine until Kyiv reopens a key pipeline transporting Russian oil to Slovakia, making good on an ultimatum he issued to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Fico’s announcement on Monday came two days after he warned Zelenskyy on social media that he would ask state-owned company SEPS to halt emergency supplies of electricity if flows of Russian crude oil via the Soviet-era Druzhba pipeline crossing Ukraine did not resume.

“As of today, if the Ukrainian side turns to Slovakia with a request for assistance in stabilising the Ukrainian energy grid, such assistance will not be provided,” Fico said in a video on his Facebook page.

Ukrainian grid operator Ukrenergo said in a statement that it had not been officially informed yet, but that it would “not affect the situation in the unified power system of Ukraine”.

“The last time Ukraine requested emergency assistance from Slovakia was over a month ago and in a very limited volume,” it said.

Fico said the stoppage would be lifted “as soon as the transit of oil to Slovakia is restored”.

“Otherwise, we will take further reciprocal steps,” he said, adding his country would also reconsider “its previously constructive positions on Ukraine’s EU membership”.

He said the stalled oil supply was a “purely political decision aimed at blackmailing Slovakia over its international positions on the war in Ukraine”.

Slovakia and neighbouring Hungary, which have both remained dependent on Russian oil since the Kremlin launched its invasion of Ukraine almost four years ago, have become increasingly vocal in demanding that Kyiv resume deliveries through the Druzhba pipeline, which was shut down after what Ukraine said was a Russian drone strike hit infrastructure in late January.

Ukraine says it is fixing the damage on the pipeline, which still carries Russian oil over Ukrainian territory to Europe, as fast as it can.

Slovakia and Hungary say Ukraine is to blame for the prolonged outage and have declared emergencies over the cut in oil deliveries.

The EU imposed a ban on most oil imports from Russia in 2022, but the Druzhba pipeline was exempted to give landlocked Central European countries time to find alternative oil supplies.

Meanwhile, the European Union failed to agree on new sanctions on Russia for the fourth anniversary of Europe’s biggest war since World War II, after Hungary vetoed the move.

Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban – the friendliest EU leader to the Kremlin – is stalling the sanctions and a 90-billion-euro ($106bn) EU loan to Ukraine until Kyiv reopens the oil pipeline.

Fico also said he has refused to “involve the Slovak Republic” in the latest EU loan due to Zelenskyy’s “unacceptable behaviour”, alluding to Ukraine’s earlier halting of Russian gas supplies after a five-year-old transit agreement expired on January 1, 2025, which Fico claimed is costing Slovakia “damages of 500 million [euros; $590m] per year”.

Hungary and Slovakia have accounted for 68 percent of Ukraine’s imported power this month, according to Kyiv-based consultancy ExPro. It was not immediately clear if emergency electricity supplies were included in that figure.

After some initial resistance, CBS News has cut ties with contributor Peter Attia, whose name appears more than 1,700 times in the files of pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

Attia, a physician who specializes in longevity medicine, was among the 19 contributors named last month by CBS News editor in chief Bari Weiss. A CBS News executive confirmed Attia’s departure Monday.

Attia’s resignation was agreed upon after discussions with Weiss, according to one of her associates. He had not appeared on the network since the announcement of his hiring in January.

Once Attia’s name showed up in the cache of Epstein files released by the Department of Justice earlier this month, it seemed as though cutting him loose would be a no-brainer for the news division.

But Weiss, who came to CBS News when parent company Paramount acquired her contrarian digital site the Free Press last fall, is highly skeptical of cancel culture and resisted immediate action, according to people familiar with her thinking.

A representative for Attia said he quit because “he wanted to ensure his involvement didn’t become a distraction from the important work being done at CBS.”

Any appearance on the network probably would have generated a spate of negative stories.

Attia’s email exchanges with Epstein included a crude discussion about female genitalia.

Another message showed Attia expressing dismay that he could not discuss Epstein’s activities. “You [know] the biggest problem with becoming friends with you? The life you lead is so outrageous, and yet I can’t tell a soul …,” Attia wrote.

In 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty to state charges of soliciting prostitution, including from a minor. He was found dead in his jail cell in 2019, about a month after being arrested on federal sex-trafficking charges

From a business standpoint, keeping Attia at CBS was untenable. Health-related segments are attractive to advertisers and it’s highly unlikely that any sponsor would want their commercials adjacent to him.

Attia had already been dropped by AGI, a company that makes powdered supplements,where he was a scientific advisor. He also stepped away from his role as chief science officer for David, a protein bar maker.

CBS News pulled an October “60 Minutes” profile of Attia that was scheduled to re-air this month.

Attia apologized for his interactions with Epstein. He said he had not been involved in any criminal activity and had never visited Epstein’s island.

“I apologize and regret putting myself in a position where emails, some of them embarrassing, tasteless, and indefensible, are now public, and that is on me,” Attia wrote. “I accept that reality and the humiliation that comes with it.”

Attia wrote the bestselling book “Outlive: The Science and Art of Longevity” and hosts a popular podcast. His company, Early Medical, offers a program that teaches people to live healthier as they age.

At the BAFTA Film Awards, a guest with Tourette syndrome involuntarily shouted a racial slur during the BBC’s tape-delayed broadcast, prompting apologies after it aired unedited. The BBC did cut filmmaker Akinola Davies Jr.’s “free Palestine” line, sparking criticism.

The White House is set to impose a 15 percent tariff through Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 after the US Supreme Court ruled against Donald Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.

United States President Donald Trump has ramped up tariff threats following last week’s US Supreme Court decision that ruled that Trump’s sweeping global tariffs, imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, were unlawful.

On Monday, Trump said that any countries that wanted to “play games” after the high court’s ruling would be hit “with a much higher tariff ” in a post on his social media platform Truth Social.

In a separate post on the platform, Trump claimed that he does not need the approval of the US Congress for tariffs.

“As President, I do not have to go back to Congress to get approval of Tariffs . It has already been gotten, in many forms, a long time ago! They were also just reaffirmed by the ridiculous and poorly crafted supreme court decision!” Trump said in the post.

Trump does have some authority to impose other tariffs, but they are much more limited.

Following the court’s 6–3 decision on Friday, the president said he would introduce a 10 percent tariff, raising it to 15 percent by Saturday under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, the maximum limit under the statute that enables the White House to impose tariffs for 150 days.

The statute only requires a presidential declaration and does not require further investigation. Section 122 is only temporary; the tariffs would then expire unless Congress extends them.

Trump’s tariffs are overwhelmingly unpopular. A new Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll found that 64 percent of Americans disapprove of the president’s handling of tariffs.

Looming uncertainty

Experts warn that Trump’s newly imposed tariffs will fuel further economic uncertainty.

“What we do know is that it would continue to require all those parties affected to continue to live in uncertainty and, as many have already pointed out, such uncertainty is not good for our economy and has negative impacts on American consumers,” Max Kulyk, partner and CEO of Chicory Wealth, a private wealth advisory firm, told Al Jazeera.

“It’s impossible to plan. You hear that tariffs are off, and you are considering how to get refunds. Then a few hours later, it’s 10 percent. Then it’s 15 percent the next day…. Not having that stable framework is hurtful for activity, hiring, investment,” Gregory Daco, chief economist at EY-Parthenon, told the Reuters news agency.

Gold, which is considered a safe investment in times of economic uncertainty, surged by 2 percent on Monday, hitting a three-week high as tariff pressures remain unclear.

US markets are also taking a hit. The tech-heavy Nasdaq is down 1.1 percent in midday trading. The S&P 500 is also down by 1 percent, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average slumped by 1.5 percent since the market opened on Monday.

Stalling trade deals

Trump’s erratic approach has also deterred movement on looming trade deals.

On Monday, the European Parliament opted to postpone voting on a trade deal with the US. It is the second time the bloc has pushed back the vote. The first was in protest against Trump’s unsolicited attempts to acquire Greenland.

The assembly had been considering removing several European Union import duties on US goods. Committee chair Bernd Lange said the new temporary US tariff could mean increased levies for some EU exports, and no one knew what would happen after they expire in 150 days. EU lawmakers will reconvene on March 4 to assess if the US has clarified the situation and confirmed its commitment to last year’s deal.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum says that calm is being restored and that improvised cartel roadblocks are being removed.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has sought to assuage fears following a government raid that killed one of the country’s most-wanted drug trafficking leaders, prompting a series of violent outbursts by cartels across the country.

Speaking alongside Sheinbaum during a press conference on Monday, Security Secretary Omar Garcia Harfuch said that 25 members of the National Guard had been killed in fighting with criminal groups in the state of Jalisco after the raid.

“What is important now is to guarantee peace and security of all the population, of all of Mexico,” Sheinbaum said, adding that conditions have improved and Mexico “is calm” after the Sunday raid that killed Nemesio Oseguera, also known as “El Mencho”, of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel.

The killing of Mencho comes as Mexico is under growing pressure from the United States to take a more aggressive stance towards drug-trafficking groups, although the killing of top-level cartel figures in the past has had little impact on the drug trade and has often created a leadership vacuum that others violently act to fill.

The raid also set off a wave of reprisal attacks and impromptu roadblocks that have spread fear and uncertainty through Mexico, where criminal groups violently jostle for control of territory.

Garcia Harfuch said that the 25 members of the National Guard were killed in six incidents across Jalisco, adding that 30 people he described as criminal suspects were also killed in the clashes, along with four in Michoacan.

“First there was a huge gun battle, and then another, and another,” an anonymous resident of the town of Aguililla in Michoacan told the news service AFP, saying that cartel gunmen attacked a local outpost of soldiers on Sunday. “But they couldn’t advance because the soldiers stopped them.”

Defence Secretary Ricardo Trevilla said that an additional 2,500 security force members would be sent to Jalisco to reinforce the armed forces already deployed there, and Sheinbaum said that all of the more than 250 roadblocks erected across 20 states in response to the raid have been removed.

Mexican officials have sought to downplay the prospect of long-term disruptions stemming from the raid, with Sheinbaum saying that flights to and from Puerto Vallarta, located in the state of Jalisco, are expected to resume on Monday or Tuesday.

“In Puerto Vallarta, flights continue to be disrupted due to availability of flight crews. The Embassy is in close contact with airlines to monitor their plans,” the US Department of State Consular Affairs said in a social media post on Monday. “All other airports in Mexico are open, and most airports are operating normally. If you are traveling via any airport other than Guadalajara or Puerto Vallarta, we have received no indication of any security-related flight disruptions.”

The Mexican embassy to the US has shared social media posts debunking online rumours of attacks on civilians at Guadalajara airport and US tourists being held hostage.

Attack on Nablus-area mosque is latest in surge of Israeli settler and military violence targeting Palestinians.

Israeli settlers have defaced and set fire to a mosque in the occupied West Bank during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, marking the latest incident in a wave of Israeli violence against Palestinians in the territory.

The Wafa news agency reported on Monday that settlers graffitied racist slogans on the walls of Abu Bakr as-Siddiq Mosque, located between the towns of Sarra and Tal, near Nablus in the north of the West Bank.

Worshippers arriving for the day’s first prayers found the damage and a smouldering fire that spewed black smoke across the mosque’s entrance and stained the ornate doorway, The Associated Press reported.

“I was shocked when I opened the door,” Munir Ramdan, who lives nearby, told the news agency. “The fire had been burning here in the area, the glass was broken here and the door was broken.”

Ramdan told AP that security camera footage showed two people walking towards the mosque carrying gasoline or petrol and a can of spray paint, and running away a few minutes later.

The attackers spray-painted graffiti denigrating the Prophet Muhammad, as well as the words “revenge” and “price tag” – a term used to describe attacks by Israeli settlers against Palestinians and their property.

The assault comes amid a wave of intensified Israeli settler and military violence across the West Bank in the shadow of Israel’s genocidal war against Palestinians in the nearby Gaza Strip.

At least 1,094 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli troops and settlers in the West Bank since the Gaza war began in October 2023, according to the latest United Nations figures.

Last week, the UN Human Rights Council warned in a new report (PDF) that Israeli policies in the West Bank – including “the systematic unlawful use of force by Israeli security forces” and unlawful demolitions of Palestinian homes – aim to uproot Palestinian communities.

“These violations, together with pervasive and growing settler violence committed with impunity, are fundamental to the coercive environment that induces forced displacement and forcible transfer, which is a war crime,” the report said.

It added that these policies are aimed at “altering the character, status and demographic composition of the occupied West Bank, raising serious concerns of ethnic cleansing”.

Back in the West Bank village of Tal on Monday, resident Salem Ishtayeh told AP that the Israeli settlers’ assault on the local mosque was “directed especially” at Palestinians who are fasting during Ramadan.

“So they like to provoke you with words. It’s not that they are attacking you personally, they are attacking your religion, the Islamic faith,” Ishtayeh said.

According to the Palestinian Authority’s Ministry of Religious Affairs, settlers vandalised or attacked 45 mosques in the West Bank last year.

The Israeli military and police said they responded to the latest incident and were searching for suspects.

But human rights groups say the Israeli authorities have allowed the settlers to operate with total impunity in their attacks against Palestinians.

Israeli organisation B’Tselem has accused Israel of actively aiding the settlers’ violence “as part of a strategy to cement the takeover of Palestinian land”.

The UN also warned last year that settler attacks were being carried out “with the acquiescence, support, and in some cases participation, of Israeli security forces”.

Amid the steady drumbeat of reports pointing to the growing likelihood of strikes on Iran, there are indications that officials from Washington and Tehran will meet this week for another round of talks centered on the Iranian nuclear program. While the two sides remain generally at loggerheads, Iranian officials are now openly talking about possible concessions on their nuclear program in return for sanctions relief and the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.

The Iranian foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, told CBS over the weekend that U.S. and Iranian negotiators would likely hold more discussions in Geneva on Thursday, with the aim of making “a fast deal.” Iran and the United States resumed negotiations earlier this month.

Now, Araghchi says that he thinks there is still a good chance of finding a diplomatic solution in planned talks with U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff. However, he added that “If the United States attacks us, then we have every right to defend ourselves.” Iran has repeatedly threatened to strike U.S. bases in the region if it is attacked.

On Sunday, Mexican security forces killed 59-year-old Nemesio Ruben Oseguera Cervantes, alias “El Mencho”, the leader of the notorious Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG), based in western Mexico’s Jalisco state.

The Mexican defence ministry acknowledged that the lethal operation had been conducted with “complementary information” from the United States, whose “peacemaker” president, Donald Trump, has repeatedly threatened to attack Mexico to combat the drug cartels.

Mind you, these are organisations that owe their very existence to US policy and drug consumption in the first place.

US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau greeted the news of El Mencho’s death with glee, taking to X to proclaim: “This is a great development for Mexico, the US, Latin America, and the world.”

And yet things aren’t looking quite so “great” thus far.

As anyone who has ever paid remote attention to global affairs might have predicted, violence has broken out across several Mexican states in the aftermath of the killing – which is generally what happens when you take out a cartel kingpin.

Gunmen have torched vehicles and blocked highways in various locales while various US media have reported sensationally on the plight of American tourists “stranded” in Mexican resort cities on account of the upheaval.

Shortly after his initial enthusiastic post, Landau returned to X with a “PS, I’m watching the scenes of violence from Mexico with great sadness and concern.” But no matter: “We must never lose our nerve.”

The deputy secretary of state ended his “PS” with some words of encouragement in Spanish for the Mexican nation: “¡Animo Mexico!” (Cheer up, Mexico!)

But again, there is hardly room for cheer given that there is not a single example in pretty much the entire history of the world in which the killing of one cartel boss has resolved the narcotrafficking problem – or anything else, for that matter.

Recall the case of Pablo Escobar of the Medellin Cartel, killed in 1993 by Colombian police with a whole lot of help from the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA).

Despite Escobar’s absence, the international drug trade proceeded apace, and ensuing decades played host to spectacular levels of violence in Colombia – much of it coincidentally perpetrated by heavily US-backed state security forces.

In one particularly memorable episode, members of the Colombian army slaughtered an estimated 10,000 civilians and passed the cadavers off as left-wing “terrorists”.

To this day, Colombia remains the world’s top producer of cocaine.

In other words, to hail El Mencho’s demise as a “great development” for Mexico or anyone else is at best preposterously delusional.

On Sunday I phoned a Mexican friend in the southern state of Oaxaca, a supporter of Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, for our requisite argument over the day’s events. In his view, Mexico’s government had simply been “doing its job” in the “war on drugs” by eliminating El Mencho, and the US had nothing substantial to do with it.

Indeed, much like her predecessor and mentor Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, Sheinbaum has perfected the art of doing the gringos’ dirty work while purporting to act in a “sovereign” fashion – and even to defy the imperial overlords to the north.

Granted, she does not have a whole lot of room to manoeuvre given the recent kidnapping by the US of Venezuelan head of state Nicolas Maduro – and the fact that Trump has made it known that he is beholden to no law, whether domestic or international.

But while Sheinbaum may have seen no choice but to temporarily placate the Americans and satisfy Trump’s need for blood, Mexicans will pay a heavy price.

A brief review of contemporary Mexican history confirms as much. No sooner did then-Mexican President Felipe Calderon launch his “drug war” under US guidance in 2006 than homicides and enforced disappearances skyrocketed in the country.

Well over half a million people have since been killed and disappeared, many of them victims of militarised agents of the state who often operate in cahoots with organised crime.

Nary a dent has been put in the northward flow of drugs while the southward flow of US-manufactured weapons continues unabated.

The state of Jalisco itself happens to have the highest number of enforced disappearances in all of Mexico and made headlines last year with the discovery of a clandestine crematorium on a ranch outside Guadalajara, one of the host cities of the upcoming World Cup.

The ranch was reportedly used by the CJNG as a recruitment and training centre as well as an extermination site.

And the removal of El Mencho from the equation will do precisely nothing in terms of pacifying the landscape – just as the respective extraditions to the US of Sinaloa cartel leaders Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman and Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada merely set off an ongoing violent battle for power.

Contrary to lofty soundbites from US officials, the empire is not at all interested in getting rid of either drug trafficking or violence south of the border as both phenomena provide a perennial excuse for US interference in Mexico and beyond.

Were the gringos actually serious about ridding “Mexico, the US, Latin America, and the world” of the whole cartel problem, a decriminalisation of drugs would do much to nip the business in the bud by rendering the movement of drugs far less fantastically lucrative.

A moratorium on the US’s obsessive manufacture of weapons would also help.

Obviously, nothing so much as resembling those potential solutions is even on the horizon. If it were, that would be one hell of a “great development” indeed.

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

Who: Pakistan vs England
What: 2026 ICC Men’s T20 World Cup Super Eight
When: Tuesday, February 24, at 7pm (13:30 GMT)
Where: Pallekele International Cricket Stadium, Kandy, Sri Lanka
How to follow: We’ll have all the build-up on Al Jazeera Sport from 10:30 GMT in advance of our text commentary stream.

Click here to follow our live coverage.

The second Super Eight ties of the 2026 ICC Men’s T20 World Cup starts on Tuesday with an intriguing contest between former champions who both consider themselves legit title contenders: Pakistan and England.

Pakistan, despite being humiliated by India in the group phase, possess a stacked roster who, on their day, can compete with any cricket team in the world.

England, listed as the pre-tournament joint-second favorite to raise the T20 world crown, are slowly building momentum in the competition, as exhibited by their dismantling of host nation Sri Lanka in their Super Eight opener on Sunday.

Al Jazeera Sport takes a look at the matchup, which may turn out to be a pivotal outcome affecting both nations’ semifinal qualification hopes.

What’s at stake in the Pakistan-England Super Eight tie?

Pakistan desperately need a win after their first match against New Zealand was washed out on Saturday.

A defeat would put England, who skittled Sri Lanka out for just 95 runs, through to the semifinals with a game to spare.

Pakistan would then need to beat Sri Lanka in their final Super Eight match and hope other results go their way to reach the last four.

History will be against Pakistan as they have never beaten England in three previous Twenty20 (T20) World Cup clashes.

“We are confident and our morale is high,” said Pakistan batsman Sahibzada Farhan, who scored an unbeaten 100 against Namibia in Pakistan’s final group match.

“We are focused on this match to win and progress.”

Weather watch for Pakistan in Pallekele

Persistent rain in the Sri Lankan capital Colombo forced the abandonment of Pakistan’s opening Super Eight game with New Zealand without a single ball being bowled, forcing the sides to split the points at R Premadasa Stadium.

Pakistan will be hoping that the weather does not play a factor in their crucial second tie as another split result would all but end their semifinal aspirations.

Thankfully, the forecast looks good for Tuesday’s match against England at the Pallekele International Stadium in Kandy, with 33 degrees Celsius (91F) predicted with only a 25 percent possibility of rain. In short, there should be a result and a full match is a strong possibility.

England rounding into form

England kicked off their Super Eight campaign with a 51-run victory over Sri Lanka, a statistically dominant result that vaulted them to the top of the Group 2 standings on net run rate.

The two-time champions have now won their last three matches at the tournament.

Will Jacks has been the breakout star with the bat at the tournament, averaging 65 on a scintillating 195 strike rate.

Pakistan to put England in a spin

Pakistan on Monday warned England’s inconsistent batting lineup to expect a trial by spin when the teams clash.

Farhan told reporters that England struggled to 146-9 against Sri Lanka’s spinners on Sunday.

The in-form opener said that England can expect more of the same from Pakistan’s spinners when they meet on the same Pallekele ground on Tuesday night.

“What we saw in the Sri Lanka-England game was that the ball was gripping and England struggled against spin,” said Farhan on Monday.

“Sri Lanka have one or two spinners, but we have five in all, so we will give England a tough time on a pitch that looks good and will grip,” he added.

Pakistan’s spinners have taken 26 wickets in the four matches so far. Their seamers have dismissed only seven batsmen.

‘Will not be difficult’: Farhan on Archer express

Farhan, who tops the T20 World Cup run-scoring chart with 220, said he was ready for the threat of England’s express pace bowler Jofra Archer.

“Facing Archer will not be difficult because I have faced similar bowlers in Pakistan,” said Farhan.

“So if he has plans against me, I also have plans against him.”

Pakistan team news

Pakistan are likely to bring in spinner Abrar Ahmed in place of seaming all-rounder Faheem Ashraf.

Shaheen Shah Afridi’s omission from the final group stage match against Namibia and the Super Eight opener against New Zealand was a huge shock.

The bowling superstar was expensive in the group phase, with his side pivoting to a spin-dominant strategy.

With Pakistan desperately needing a win against England, the left-arm quick is expected to return to the starting XI.

England team news

England may name an unchanged side for the fifth match in succession with Liam Dawson, Will Jacks, Adil Rashid and Jacob Bethell providing their spin options.

Form Guide:

Pakistan

W-W-L-W-NR (most recent result last)

England

W-L-W-W-W (most recent result last)

What is England’s T20 World Cup record?

England has won the T20 World Cup title twice, in 2010 (defeated Australia) and in 2022 (defeated Pakistan).

They jointly hold the record for the most T20 World Cup titles alongside India (2007, 2024) and the West Indies (2012, 2016).

What is Pakistan’s T20 World Cup record?

Pakistan are three-time finalists, but have only lifted the trophy once.

The first appearance in the final came in the inaugural competition in 2007, when India claimed a five-run win.

The second edition, in 2009, saw Pakistan beat Sri Lanka in the final, but a 13-year wait ensued for the next appearance in the showpiece finale – only for England to sweep to a five-wicket victory.

What happened the last time England played Pakistan in a T20 match?

England and Pakistan have not played each other in a Twenty20 fixture since before the last T20 World Cup in 2024.

The sides competed in a four-game series in England with the home side winning 2-0, capping off their triumph in the last fixture with a seven-wicket victory at The Oval on May 30, 2024.

Head-to-head

This will be the 32nd meeting between the countries in cricket’s shortest format.

England has won more than two-thirds of matches with 21 victories, while Pakistan has nine wins. There has been one “no result”.

Possible Pakistan playing XI

Sahibzada Farhan, Saim Ayub, Salman Ali Agha (c), Babar Azam, Usman Khan (wk), Khawaja Nafay, Shadab Khan, Mohammad Nawaz, Shaheen Shah Afridi, Abrar Ahmed, Usman Tariq

Possible England playing XI

Jos Buttler (wk), Phil Salt, Jacob Bethell, Harry Brook (c), Tom Banton, Sam Curran, Will Jacks, Jamie Overton, Liam Dawson, Jofra Archer, Adil Rashid

UEFA announces suspension of Gianluca Prestianni after accusations he racially abused Real Madrid’s Vinicius Junior.

The Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) said on Monday it has provisionally suspended Benfica player Gianluca Prestianni for one match following accusations he racially abused Real Madrid star Vinicius Junior.

The decision means that Prestianni will miss Wednesday’s second leg of the Champions League playoff between Real and Benfica at the Bernabeu. Madrid won the first match in Lisbon last Tuesday with Vinicius scoring a second-half winner for a 1-0 victory.

The game was halted for nearly 10 minutes after the Brazil forward scored and celebrated by the Benfica corner flag, upsetting local fans and players. After being confronted by Prestianni, Vinicius accused the Argentine player of calling him “monkey.”

Prestianni has denied racially insulting Vinicius.

The anti-racism protocol was activated but no further action was taken during the match as there was no evidence against Prestianni, who covered his mouth with his shirt while talking to Vinicius. The Madrid forward was shown a yellow card after his celebration.

UEFA said the decision from its control, ethics and disciplinary Body (CEDB) is related to a discriminatory behavior.

“This is without prejudice to any ruling that the UEFA disciplinary bodies may subsequently make following the conclusion of the ongoing investigation and its respective submission to the UEFA disciplinary bodies,” it said in a statement.

FIFA President Gianni Infantino said after the match he was “shocked and saddened to see the incident of alleged racism” and praised the referee for activating the anti-racism protocol.

Benfica showed support for Prestianni, with the Portuguese club claiming that Madrid players who said they heard the insult were too far away. Benfica later released a statement saying it welcomed UEFA’s investigation and that it “fully supports and believes the version presented” by Prestianni, “whose conduct while with the club has always been guided by respect” toward everyone.

Benfica fans had reacted angrily to Vinicius celebrating his 50th-minute goal by dancing at the corner flag, throwing bottles and other objects toward the Madrid players. Prestianni then confronted Vinicius and said something while covering his mouth with his jersey.

Prestianni insisted that Vinicius misunderstood what was said, while Benfica players after the match reportedly said the Argentine provoked the Brazil forward but never racially insulted him.

Kylian Mbappe was among the Madrid players who strongly defended Vinicius and posted on X: “Dance, Vini, and please never stop. They will never tell us what we have to do or not.”

The France star also said Prestianni should never play in the Champions League again.