news

Millions of Ethiopians are heading to the polls for general elections on June 1.

The governing party of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, who has consolidated power since he took office in 2018, says it is confident of victory.

Abiy’s government has faced years of turmoil and conflict. Despite that, it is portraying the vote as the next step on the path towards what it calls genuine democracy.

Critics and the opposition, however, argue that is unlikely because of Ethiopia’s ethnic and regional divisions. Some opposition parties have been excluded and violence is preventing voting in dozens of constituencies.

So, will the vote hold any significance?

Presenter: Mohammed Jamjoom

Guests:

Samuel Getachew – Journalist and commentator specialising in Ethiopian politics and security

Martin Plaut – Senior research fellow at King’s College London

Bizuneh Yimenu – Lecturer in comparative politics at Queen’s University Belfast who specialises in federalism.

Lawmakers in the United States are quietly advancing a proposal that could deepen military ties between the US and Israel in unprecedented ways, at a time when public support for Israel among Americans is increasingly fractured.

Among the provisions included in the 2027 National Defence Authorisation Act (NDAA) released this week is Section 224, the “United States-Israel Defence Technology Cooperation Initiative”.

The NDAA, which Congress passes annually to set military policy and authorise defence spending, will undergo further debate and amendments before becoming law. Some legislators have already signalled opposition, with Representative Thomas Massie saying he would seek to remove the provision if it reaches the House floor.

The measure remains at an early stage, but analysts say if passed, it would limit political oversight over the defence relationship.

Analysts added that it could mark a significant shift in the US-Israel relationship, moving beyond a model centred on American military aid towards deeper institutional integration between the two countries’ defence industries and militaries.

Critics argue that such a move would make support for Israel less a matter of political choice and more a structural feature of US national security policy, embedding the relationship within joint military and industrial programmes that would be difficult to unwind.

What does the proposal include?

Section 224 incorporates elements of the US-Israel Future of Warfare Act legislation introduced by Representative Ronny Jackson, according to Track AIPAC. While the legislation did not advance as a standalone bill, key elements of it were instead folded into the NDAA.

The provision would require the US defence secretary to designate an official responsible for coordinating military cooperation between the two countries. According to the text, that official would be tasked with “synchronising cooperative efforts between the United States and Israel”, including “bilateral defence technology research, development, testing, evaluation, integration and industrial cooperation”.

The legislation envisages cooperation across a wide range of military technologies. It specifically identifies as priority areas; “counter-unmanned systems including aerial, maritime and ground platforms”, “anti-tunnelling and subterranean threats”, and “missile and air defence technologies”.

The proposal also seeks to deepen collaboration on emerging technologies, including “artificial intelligence, quantum machine learning and autonomous systems”, as well as “directed energy and advanced sensing”, “cyber defence, electronic warfare and digital resilience”, and “biotechnology, biomanufacturing, and medical defence”.

The inclusion of “network integration” and “data fusion” has drawn particular attention because it suggests significantly closer integration of military information systems between the two countries.

The United States and Israel already cooperate on defence projects, including missile defence systems such as Iron Dome. However, analysts say that Section 224 would expand cooperation into nearly every major area of emerging military technology, and could create a “lock-in” between the two countries military infrastructure.

Mark Hilborne, a senior lecturer, the School of Security Studies at King’s College London, told Al Jazeera the proposal goes well beyond the traditional foundations of the US-Israel defence relationship.

“While historically, the US-Israel defence relationship has included US military aid and weapons transfers, joint missile defence programmes such as Iron Dome, David’s Sling and Arrow, and intelligence and operational cooperation, the proposed agreement increases cooperation to include a wider set of emerging technologies,” he said.

“So this all suggests a much tighter integration – less about provision and perhaps sharing technologies and capabilities, and more about jointly developing these.

“It would point to a more institutionalised relationship, and perhaps one that might survive changing administrations in the US, as some of the development cycles could be very long and would become entrenched,” he said.

Why is it controversial?

The proposal comes amid growing debate in the US over military support for Israel, particularly as Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza continues, and concerns mount over the use of US-made weapons.

Human rights organisations and United Nations experts have repeatedly raised concerns about Israeli military actions in Gaza, where despite a so-called ceasefire in place since last October, at least 850 Palestinians have been killed. Israel is also advancing into southern Lebanon, where it has killed more than 3,000 people since the beginning of March.

These wars have led to increasing scepticism among Americans towards unconditional support for Israel, recent opinion polls suggest.

A New York Times poll in May found that only 30 percent of respondents believed Donald Trump made the right decision in ordering military strikes against Iran, while 64 percent said it was the wrong decision.

An Institute for Global Affairs poll released last week found that only 16 percent of Americans support continuing weapons transfers to Israel without additional restrictions. Thirty-eight percent said the US should stop supplying weapons entirely, while 24 percent said military aid should be conditioned on how the weapons are used.

Opposition has also emerged from parts of the Republican Party, which traditionally has always been aligned with Israel.

Former Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene criticised the proposal on social media, writing: “This is what complete capture to a foreign government looks like, and there hasn’t been a single shot fired.”

Massie, who has opposed military aid to Israel, likewise pledged to introduce an amendment removing the provision from the NDAA. The Republican senator was defeated in the primary elections last month, highlighting the financial and political influence of pro-Israel lobby groups in the US.

Influential conservative commentator, Tucker Carlson, has increasingly criticised US support for Israel, reflecting divisions within the broader MAGA movement. Criticism has also intensified among left-wing Democrats, with many calling for restrictions on military aid to Israel.

What could it mean in practice?

Critics of the measures warn that the proposal could create a form of institutional “lock-in” that makes both countries simultaneously reliant on each other for military development and procurement.

Some analysts say such integration would move key aspects of the US-Israel relationship away from highly visible aid votes or commercial contracting, and into the less transparent world of defence procurement and industrial partnerships at a state-to-state level.

Hilborne from the King’s College said the initiative could also have direct implications for Palestinians. “If joint R&D produces more effective technology, then systems related to surveillance, autonomous vehicles, AI and targeting, and various counter-drone or counter-missile technology would be improved, providing a capability boost to Israeli forces operating in Gaza or the West Bank,” he said.

“This enhanced integration would further embed US technology into Israeli forces. These would all be concerns from a Palestinian perspective.”

Critics also point to the economic implications, where expanded co-production agreements could lead to new manufacturing facilities and defence jobs in the United States, creating a further reliance on Israel.

Hilborne also argued that deeper integration could reduce Washington’s leverage over Israel. “The deeper integration may also mean that the US loses some degree of leverage over Israel, as it would be less able to withhold certain capabilities from Israel,” he said.

“As a consequence, Israel might be emboldened in its policies.”

The proposal could also have implications beyond the US-Israel relationship, according to Imad Salamey, an international relations professor at the Lebanese American University. “The proposed US-Israeli defence integration can be seen as the next phase of the Abraham Accords: moving from normalisation toward a US-backed regional security regime centred on Israel as the dominant military and technological hub,” he told Al Jazeera.

Such a framework would strengthen efforts to contain Iran, limit Turkiye’s independent regional influence and deepen security cooperation with Arab partners, he said.

“For Lebanon and Gaza, it may translate into greater pressure to accommodate Israeli-led security arrangements as part of a broader emerging Middle Eastern order.”

Whether Section 224 survives the legislative process is uncertain.

But its inclusion in the NDAA shows how some politicians, many backed by the pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC, are attempting to bind the two countries’ militaries closer together, creating long-term industrial links that future administrations may find difficult to reverse.

Nine people have reportedly been rescued from the rubble of a collapsed five-storey building in New Delhi, India.

Some victims’ families are still awaiting news of their relatives as rescuers continue searching.

U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) is about to kick off the search for what it is calling a Flyweight Assault Machine Gun (FAMG). This will be a new 5.56x45mm caliber belt-fed machine gun to succeed the Mk 46, a lightweight special operations-specific cousin of the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW).

Lt. Col. Alan Wood, SOCOM’s Program Manager for Special Operations Forces (SOF) Lethality, touched on the FAMG briefly in an exclusive interview with TWZ‘s Howard Altman during the annual SOF Week conference last week. Readers can find the bulk of the interview here.

There are “three separate machine gun programs within SOCOM: Lightweight Machine Gun-Medium, Light Machine Gun-Assault, and soon to be FAMG, which is the Flyweight Assault Machine Gun,” Wood explained. “The Medium is your .338 [Norma Magnum], the Assault is your 7.62 NATO [7.62x51mm], and then the FAMG is a 5.56[mm]. All belt-fed machine guns.”

We subsequently reached out to SOCOM for more information about the FAMG, an effort that does not appear to have been previously disclosed.

“The Flyweight Assault Machine Gun (FAMG) will be a 5.56mm belt fed weapon that will replace the MK46 Light Machine Gun,” a spokesperson for the command told us. “Details on the requirement will be published on SAM.gov in the near future.”

While we do not know yet what SOCOM is looking for specifically in the FAMG, beyond its caliber, we do know what the command wants to replace. The Mk 46 traces back to the early years of the Global War on Terror. It is based on the M249 SAW, which is itself a version of the Minimi light machine gun from Belgian gunmaker FN (and later its American subsidiaries).

FN had initially developed what it called the Special Purpose Weapon (SPW), a significantly lightened version of the Minimi with a shortened barrel that also had a thinner profile. The gun, which was marketed heavily toward special operations forces, featured the collapsing stock that had already been used on short-barreled ‘paratrooper’ versions of the Minimi and the M249, as well.

The standard Minimi design also has a secondary magazine well that allows it to fire ammunition from NATO-standard box magazines like the ones used with AR-15/M16-series rifles, as well as belts. This feature was carried over to the M249. It was omitted on the SPW to further cut weight.

The baseline Mk 46 Mod 0 was a direct evolution of the SPW concept. It most notably used the polymer buttstock found on standard Minimi and M249 light machine guns, which is fixed in length, but also lighter than the collapsing paratrooper type. It also came with a new handguard with rails on four sides for optics, laser aiming devices, lights, and other accessories. The handguard design is very tall on the top side to bring it in line with an additional rail on the gun’s top cover.

An improved Mk 46 Mod 1 variant was subsequently developed, which “incorporates improved receiver pins, a feed tray with retention pawls and a vented hand guard with improved heat shield and three MIL-STD-1913 rails,” according to the entry on FN America’s website at the time of writing. “The MK 46 MOD 1’s cold hammer-forged MIL-SPEC barrel has a hard-chromed bore for longer life and improved accuracy, and serves as the mounting point for the carry handle.”

To make a more direct comparison, the Mk 46 Mod 1, with its 16.3-inch barrel, weighs just under 15-and-a-half pounds empty with no accessories, per FN America. The version it shows on its website currently does also has a more traditional handguard configuration. A current-generation M249 with a full-length 20-and-a-half-inch barrel tips the scales at 17 pounds without any ammunition, optics, or other attachments.

After years of the U.S. military, including SOCOM, increasingly moving away from 5.56x45mm in favor of calibers that offer longer reach, for rifles and machine guns, there is something of a question as to why the command is now pursuing the FAMG. It had already been relatively rare to see variants of the Mk 46 in actual operational use. For decades now, U.S. special operators have also been using a succession of lightweight 7.62x51mm machine guns, as well, including compact versions of the M60 and a derivative of the Minimi/M249 designated the Mk 48. The aforementioned Light Machine Gun-Assault is a replacement for the Mk 48.

The U.S. Army is also moving to replace at least a substantial portion of its standard M249s with new 6.8x51mm caliber M250 machine guns, which might also make their way into service elsewhere across the U.S. military. The 5.56x45mm M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle (IAR) has also largely supplanted the M249 in the U.S. Marine Corps.

All this being said, U.S. special operators routinely conduct missions in close-quarters environments where the added firepower of a belt-fed machine gun can be beneficial, but the added range offered by a heavier design is not necessary. A design that cuts as much weight as possible is very attractive to fast-moving special operations teams that typically use belt-fed machine guns for brief periods of suppressing fire, as well.

SOCOM is now separately pursuing new hypervelocity 5.56x45mm ammunition that could significantly extend the reach of weapons chambered in that caliber as part of an effort called the Hypervelocity Improved Carbine (HICAR).

In addition, there is value in having commonality in ammunition with other existing rifles and machine guns, as well as those in use with allies and partners. The latter point is especially relevant for special operations forces, which are often forward-deployed alongside their foreign counterparts in locales where access to traditional supply chains is not guaranteed. There are training benefits to being able to use more readily available, less specialized, and often less expensive ammunition, as well.

SOCOM’s Lt. Col. Wood highlighted all of this while speaking more generally during his interview with us last week:

“So, HICAR’s got me excited. Back in the late teens, the Army went down this higher velocity [route], and I’m intentionally using the word velocity and not pressure in what they’ve done with the M7 and M8 rifles. They’ve been able to increase the velocity and therefore create a flatter shooting rifle as well as a rifle that has greater energy on target, and that does incredible things for barrier defeat in a lot of situations. Now we’ve had 10 years, almost, for that technology to mature, people have learned things, and the question then becomes, what could we do for special operators in calibers that are not new?”

“The advantage for SOF [special operations forces] operators is I’ve got, say, the Green Berets who do a lot of partnering with foreign SOF operators, but there’s no [6.8mm] ammo running around central Africa, or you know, pick your favorite spot where we like to do partnering operations around the world. But there’s a lot of 5.56mm and other common cartridges of that nature, and so what we want to…achieve is maybe not the same effect as what the Army’s done with the M7 and the M8 and that high-velocity ammunition that they have, but where could we get close to that in 5.56 and potentially other calibers in the future.”

5.56x45mm could turn out to be just the baseline caliber for FAMG, too. SOCOM has long had a fondness for guns with interchangeable calibers, allowing for different cartridges to be used as appropriate for specific missions. As a tangential example, the command just recently confirmed to TWZ‘s sister site Task & Purpose that its new Mid-Range Gas Gun-Assault (MRGG-A) rifles, now also designated the Mk 24, will be able to be configured to fire either 6.5mm Creedmoor or 7.62x51mm.

It is also worth noting that the U.S. Army’s elite 75th Ranger Regiment has already begun using the 5.56x45mm Light Assault Machine Gun (LAMG) from Knights Armament Company (KAC), at least on a limited level in recent years, alongside current-generation versions of the M249. KAC’s website presents a typical LAMG configuration featuring a 15-inch barrel and weighing 11.4 pounds empty, which is more compact and lightweight than the Mk 46.

The LAMG also has what is known as a “constant recoil system,” which is designed to significantly reduce felt recoil and, by extension, improve accuracy during sustained autonomous fire. KAC says this makes the gun “more controllable than other similar machine guns that weigh nearly twice as much.”

There are other 5.56x45mm machine guns on the market today, which could be adaptable to meet the FAMG requirements, as well. This includes FN’s own newer EVOLYS design, which is available in 5.56x45mm, as well as a variety of other calibers.

As SOCOM has said, more details about its requirements and plans for the FAMG are set to come soon.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia – Ethiopians vote on Monday in a general election to choose members of parliament, who will in turn select the next prime minister. The National Election Board of Ethiopia (NEBE) said 47 political parties and more than 10,900 candidates are in the race, including 2,198 for the federal parliament, 8,736 for regional and city councils and 73 independents.

More than 50 million voters are registered, with official voter registration figures showing women account for around half of the electorate. Young Ethiopians make up a large share of the population, with a median age of about 19 years, according to United Nations population estimates, giving them a substantial presence in the country’s electorate.

The contest brings together ruling, opposition, regional and independent politicians under Ethiopia’s federal parliamentary system, where the government is formed through a parliamentary majority and MPs select the prime minister.

Here is a closer look at the main political parties, coalitions and independent candidates.

Prosperity Party (PP)

The Prosperity Party is the ruling political party in Ethiopia, led by Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed. It was formed in 2019 following the merger of several regional parties that previously made up the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF). The party holds a majority in the House of Peoples’ Representatives following the 2021 general election.

According to the Prosperity Party programme and public statements, it emphasises national unity, economic reform and state-led development within Ethiopia’s federal system.

The party is fielding candidates for seats in the House of Peoples’ Representatives and regional councils across almost all federal and regional constituencies under Ethiopia’s parliamentary system.

National Movement of Amhara (NAMA)

The National Movement of Amhara is a regional political party operating mainly in Ethiopia’s Amhara region. It is led by Belete Molla and participates in Ethiopia’s federal parliamentary elections through constituency-based contests.

According to party statements, NAMA focuses on political representation, security concerns and cultural and regional rights of the Amhara population within Ethiopia’s federal system.

The party is fielding candidates primarily within the Amhara region for federal and regional council seats under Ethiopia’s electoral framework.

Ethiopian Citizens for Social Justice (EZEMA)

The Ethiopian Citizens for Social Justice is a national political party led by Berhanu Nega. Formed in 2019, it has participated in national elections since 2021 and operates across multiple regions.

According to party statements and its leadership, EZEMA promotes liberal democratic governance, the rule of law, market-oriented reforms and broader national unity.

For this vote, the party is contesting seats in both the House of Peoples’ Representatives and regional councils across multiple federal and regional constituencies.

Peace for Ethiopia coalition

The Peace for Ethiopia coalition is an alliance of smaller regional parties, including the Agew National Council, Gamo Democratic Party, Gambella Peoples’ Freedom Movement, Kaffa Green Party, and Tigray Democratic Cooperation.

According to coalition statements, the alliance brings together member parties to improve coordination and representation of diverse regional interests within Ethiopia’s federal system.

The coalition coordinates candidate lists across its member parties while allowing each to retain separate regional identities. Members are contesting seats in both federal and regional councils.

Regional and ethnic-based parties

Regional parties contest seats across Ethiopia’s federal system, including in Oromia, Somali, Tigray and southern regions. They operate within their respective states and are registered with NEBE to field candidates in federal and regional constituencies.

According to their public positions, these parties generally focus on regional governance, local autonomy, and development priorities specific to their constituencies.

They participate in the House of Peoples’ Representatives and regional councils under Ethiopia’s parliamentary electoral system.

Independent candidates

A total of 73 independent candidates are registered to contest seats in the 2026 elections.

According to political observers, independent candidates tend to focus on local governance issues and constituency-level concerns rather than formal party platforms or national ideological positions.

They are running for both federal and regional council positions under Ethiopia’s constituency-based parliamentary system.

Electoral stakes

The election will determine the composition of Ethiopia’s federal government and which party or coalition controls parliament. Elected MPs will select the prime minister, who then forms the federal government.

The results will shape the distribution of power between federal and regional authorities under Ethiopia’s constitutional system. The vote is part of the country’s regular parliamentary electoral cycle under the 1995 constitution.

The allocation of seats in the House of Peoples’ Representatives will determine legislative authority at the federal level.

The election is being held under Ethiopia’s federal parliamentary system, in which executive power is derived from a parliamentary majority.

Political environment

The National Election Board of Ethiopia oversees the administration of voting and candidate registration across all regions. Polling arrangements have been established nationwide under Ethiopia’s electoral framework.

Voting will take place in constituencies across urban and rural areas in all federal member states.

Electoral procedures are implemented under national electoral law, which defines the responsibilities of federal and regional election authorities.

NEBE is responsible for coordinating polling operations, voter registration, and ballot administration across constituencies.

Youth and voter engagement

NEBE reports that more than 50 million people are registered to vote in the election.

Young people make up a large share of the population, with a median age of about 19 years, according to UN population estimates.

Registered voters include both first-time and returning voters participating in federal and regional elections across the country.

Voting is conducted under Ethiopia’s legal framework for universal adult suffrage, which grants citizens aged 18 and above the right to vote.

Women voters and participation

According to NEBE voter registration figures, women account for around half of registered voters.

They are eligible to vote and contest seats at both federal and regional levels under Ethiopia’s electoral law, and female candidates are participating across multiple regions.

Both sexes are subject to the same voter registration and candidacy requirements under Ethiopia’s electoral framework.

Female candidates are contesting seats in both federal and regional races across the country.

Rescuers face heavy rains, equipment failures in search for two people trapped in central Laos cave by flash floods.

Heavy rains have threatened to delay the search for two people who remain missing in a flooded cave in Laos, after five others were rescued after being trapped underground for more than a week.

Finnish diver Mikko Paasi, one of the first international rescuers to arrive at the site, told The Associated Press news agency that rains on Sunday had filled the cave up to the second chamber, preventing divers from entering until pumps can lower the water level.

A drainage pump also broke, making the situation even more difficult, said fellow diver Yoshitaka Isaji of Japan.

Rescue teams from Laos and neighbouring Thailand have been working together over the past week to rescue the trapped villagers, alongside divers from countries including Finland, Malaysia, Japan, Indonesia, France and Australia.

Seven people entered the cave in a remote mountainous area of central Xaysomboun province last week to look for valuable minerals such as gold, before being trapped by a flash flood that blocked their way out, according to local media reports.

One other person escaped and alerted the authorities.

A Laotian rescue group said on Sunday it had received “substantial” information on the cave system from the five men who were rescued earlier this week. “The hope is that today’s mission will locate both remaining victims,” the group wrote on social media.

The rescued men were being treated at a local hospital and were doing well, Malaysian diver Lee Kian Lie, who is taking part in the operation, told AP.

“We interviewed them about how the deeper part of the cave looks like. We will continue to search based on the information we have, and perhaps we will be able to get to the other two,” he said.

Rescuers said they navigated more than 200m (650 feet) into the cave and discovered five chambers in the system. The five people rescued so far were found in the fifth chamber.

Paasi, the Finnish diver, told AP that the survivors reported a narrow crack in the fifth chamber that could be a passage leading to a deeper part of the cave system.

“This was the only place that we haven’t checked in the mine, where the two lost miners could still be,” he said in a video interview.

The five men who were rescued – identified by their first names as Khamla, Mued, Ee, Ing and Laen – were first found last Wednesday.

The first man was safely extracted on Friday, guided through a narrow flooded passage by an expert diver. The remaining four left the cave on Saturday, after the water receded enough for them to walk out on their own, rescuers said.

Videos posted online on Saturday showed emotional moments as the men emerged one by one from the cave. Some collapsed on the ground at the cave’s entrance, and were hugged by a group of workers who cried with joy.

Later moments showed them lying on stretchers, wrapped in foil blankets and fitted with oxygen masks before being transported out.

The government of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has vowed not to shut down schools in Ituri province, despite the ongoing Ebola outbreak, which has already killed five schoolchildren since the epidemic began. The government announced the decision on Thursday, May 28, during a press briefing by the Minister of Public Health, Roger Kamba. 

Roger noted at the press briefing that the government’s focus is on enhancing preventive measures in schools rather than shutting them down. 

“We are not going to close schools. Our priority is to implement preventive measures to avoid further hardships for the children,” the Minister insisted. He expressed concern over the five schoolchildren who lost their lives, noting that many of these fatalities were related to self-medication and delays in accessing medical care.

Meanwhile, Congolese health officials had urged families to refrain from treating suspected cases at home and to seek medical help promptly. The officials warned amid heightened health monitoring in Ituri, where local authorities and partners are ramping up awareness campaigns to curb the spread of the virus.

The current outbreak spans three provinces: Ituri, South Kivu, and North Kivu, affecting 13 health zones. As of May 26, Ituri province reported 16 new confirmed cases, bringing the total to 121 confirmed cases and 17 deaths. “We know the outbreak in the DR Congo is more extensive, with over 900 suspected cases and 220 suspected deaths,” stated WHO Director General Tedros Ghebreyesus.

Tedros had earlier warned that the current Ebola epidemic affecting parts of the DRC  is attributed to the Bundibugyo strain of the virus, stressing that there is currently no approved vaccine or treatment available. While discussing the troubling elements contributing to the Ebola outbreak in the DRC, Tedros said that, unlike earlier strains such as Zaire Ebola, which have effective medical solutions, the Bundibugyo strain poses a significant challenge due to the absence of preventive vaccines and effective treatments. 

The lack of medical options raises serious epidemiological concerns, with the WHO director reporting around 600 suspected cases and 139 fatalities. The numbers are likely to increase, as the virus may have been spreading undetected for some time. 

The virus has infiltrated multiple urban areas, and healthcare workers have also been impacted, increasing the risk of transmission nationwide. The situation is further complicated by regional security issues, particularly in Ituri province, which has faced significant violence since late 2025, displacing thousands of people. This area is a resource-rich mining zone with a highly mobile population, contributing to a heightened risk of virus spread.

Given the lack of validated treatments, however,  the WHO is investigating potential vaccines and therapeutics for widespread use. Tedros has called upon the international community to take action, stressing that the five identified risk factors, including population movement, transmission within health facilities, and urban expansion, could collectively worsen the epidemic’s impact on public health. 

Environmental activists in Rome built a mock rocket with caricatures of Giorgia Meloni and Donald Trump, calling for ‘fascists’ to be launched to another planet. The protest condemned government inaction on climate change and the global rise of authoritarian politics.

Defence Minister Shinjiro Koizumi accuses China of lacking military transparency and stresses the importance of dialogue for regional stability.

Japanese Defence Minister Shinjiro Koizumi has dismissed claims that Tokyo is pursuing “new militarism” and accused China of rapidly expanding its military with limited transparency.

China continues to increase its defence spending at a high level, Koizumi said on Sunday at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore.

“China’s external approach and military activities are matters of serious concern for ⁠Japan and the international community at the same time,” he added.

“Think about it. There’s a country that has a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons and strategic bombers. Japan has neither of such weapons, and yet Japan is labelled ‘new militarism’?”

Koizumi said Japan’s record since World War II “speaks for itself”, citing its adherence ‌to international law and commitment to the United Nations Charter alongside efforts to uphold a “free and open international order”.

In May, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs called on Asia Pacific countries to be vigilant and “jointly resist the reckless actions of Japan’s neo-militarism”.

At the Singapore forum, Chinese delegate Major General Meng Xiangqing criticised Japan.

“I deeply doubt whether a country that has not thoroughly eradicated the toxic legacy of militarism is qualified to talk extensively about defence cooperation on international occasions and whether it can win the trust of the international community, especially ⁠the Asian countries it once invaded,” he said.

Ties between Japan and China sank to ⁠their worst level in years after Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi warned in November that a hypothetical Chinese attack on Taiwan could draw a Japanese military response.

China claims Taiwan as its own territory over the objections of the island’s government.

Koizumi said transparency comes from “discussion and dialogue” and lamented that China had not sent its defence minister to the conference, but he insisted Japan remains open to engagement.

“We keep the door open,” he said, reaffirming Japan’s ⁠commitment to dialogue with China and other regional players to foster stability.

As China has been rapidly expanding and modernising its military, Japan has been reshaping its own defence policy. Last month, Takaichi’s cabinet scrapped a ban on lethal weapons exports, a major change in its post-war pacifist policy.

Japan pushes for unity

Separately on Sunday, Koizumi praised US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth for his commitment to the Asia Pacific but at the same time stressed the continued need for strong coalitions globally.

“Division weakens deterrence. Unity strengthens deterrence,” he told the conference in Singapore.

“If gaps emerge among the United States, Europe and allies and like-minded countries, forces which take it as an opportunity will surely come in,” he said.

“We must prevent such a situation. We must keep our cooperation going on. Now is the time to make our cooperation even stronger.”

US President Donald Trump has been harsh about fellow members in NATO, and the comments at the Shangri-La conference came the day after Hegseth again chided Western European allies at the forum for not devoting enough resources to defence.

Just over the Litani river line, the IDF has confirmed it has captured one of the key strategic prizes in the area – Beaufort Castle. It was built as a fortress commanding views from high on the cliffs above the Litani river by the Crusaders some 900 years ago, and has been fought over many times since.

Weekly protests in Dublin are growing as people demand justice and accountability for Yves Sakila, a Congolese man who died after being restrained by security guards outside a shopping centre.

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

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

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

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

Strait of Hormuz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sanctions relief and release of frozen Iranian assets

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

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

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

Nuclear file

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

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

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

Extent of ceasefire

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

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

Context

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strait of Hormuz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sanctions relief and release of frozen Iranian assets

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

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

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

Nuclear file

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

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

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

Extent of ceasefire

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

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

Context

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

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

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

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

US officials indicate Tehran may take days to respond to Trump’s tougher terms on a potential agreement to end the nearly three-month war.

President Donald Trump sought to change several terms of a proposal to end the US-Israel war on Iran, according to media reports in the United States, as a finalised deal remains elusive.

The New York Times reported on Saturday that Trump’s changes involved toughening the deal terms, and the US has sent the new framework back to be considered by Iran, according to officials familiar with the proceedings.

The report said it was not immediately clear what the changes entailed. However, Axios reported Trump wanted to reinforce multiple points of the deal that he felt were important, such as what to do with Iran’s nuclear material.

A senior US official told Axios that Trump was informed it could take three days for Iran to respond.

“They’re literally in caves, and they’re not using email,” the official told Axios.

“There will be a deal. The imminence of it, we’ll see. We’re willing to wait so the president gets what he asks for. It could be a week. It could be less. It could be more. At the turn of the week, we hope to have something,” the official added.

The new tweaks could prolong negotiations between the parties for days before a decision is reached on whether the deal would end the war, which began after the US and Israel attacked Iran on February 28.

US sources told the AFP news agency that the proposal had been waiting on Trump’s sign-off, but he made no decision after a White House Situation Room meeting on Friday.

Trump has said his priorities for any deal included Iran agreeing to never develop nuclear weapons and the reopening of the blockaded Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly 20 percent of the world’s oil supply transits.

On Saturday, the Iranian military’s Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters reasserted the country’s control over the strait, warning that foreign commercial and military vessels would be targeted if they did not comply with regulations governing passage through the strategic waterway.

Tehran has also said repeatedly that it does not intend to build nuclear weapons. In March 2025, Tulsi Gabbard, the former US director of national intelligence, testified to Congress that Washington “continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon”.

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

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

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

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

Strait of Hormuz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sanctions relief and release of frozen Iranian assets

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

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

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

Nuclear file

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

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

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

Extent of ceasefire

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

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

Context

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

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

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

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

French Ministry of Interior says 416 people detained nationwide, including 283 in Paris, after PSG’s win over Arsenal.

Police in France have detained more than 280 people in Paris after violent clashes erupted when thousands poured onto the streets after Paris Saint-Germain’s victory in the Champions League final.

About 22,000 police were deployed across France for the game on Saturday, including 8,000 in Paris, after unrest marred PSG’s win in the competition last year. Paris tram lines were halted, several metro stations shut and bus traffic halted in places in a bid to minimise disturbances.

According to the French Ministry of the Interior, 416 people were detained nationwide, including 283 who were apprehended in Paris. It was not immediately clear how many of these individuals were remanded in custody to face further investigation.

Interior Minister Laurent Nunez said seven officers were wounded and called the unrest “absolutely unacceptable”.

Six vehicles and two businesses were damaged.

A group of supporters also stormed the Paris ring road, the Boulevard Peripherique, bringing traffic to a halt for a time and setting off flares.

As fans celebrated the dramatic penalty shootout victory in the Hungarian capital, Budapest, about 20,000 people converged on Paris’s Champs-Elysees avenue, police said.

Shops boarded up their windows before the match to avoid a repeat of disturbances last year when youths ransacked shops on the Champs-Elysees and other streets. Hundreds of people were arrested.

Two dozen flares and about 100 fireworks were seized on Saturday while a bus shelter was destroyed near the Champs-Elysees.

The match was played on a hectic evening in Paris with singer Aya Nakamura performing at the Stade de France national stadium, rapper Damso at the La Defense Arena and the French Open tennis tournament in full swing.

Police said a bakery and a restaurant were damaged near PSG’s Parc des Princes stadium, where tens of thousands of people had gathered inside to watch the match. Another 4,000 to 5,000 people loitered outside with projectiles that were thrown at officers.

About 150 people “attempted to enter through one of the gates” at the stadium, but police pushed them back, a police spokesperson said.

Some also tried to erect a barricade with rental bikes, which was cleared by police.

Clashes broke out between police and supporters near the stadium, and officers responded with tear gas when fireworks were thrown at them.

‘Only in France’

The scenes angered the French far right. Three-time presidential candidate Marine Le Pen wrote on X that “only in France does a football club’s victory spark riots.”

“Only in France does everyone feel compelled to lock themselves in their homes on the evening of a victory to avoid being confronted with violence,” she added.

Nunez said there was a “very robust, very solid system in place” to curb violence.

“Our responsibility is to guarantee everyone a festive celebration that is calm and fully secure,” a police spokesperson said.

PSG’s players will take part in a parade on Sunday afternoon on the Champ de Mars in front of the Eiffel Tower in front of an expected crowd of 100,000 people before they are received by President Emmanuel Macron at the Elysee Palace.

Syrian commission confirms the deaths of Rania al-Abbasi’s six children, missing since 2013 under Bashar al-Assad’s rule.

Syria’s National Commission for Missing Persons (NCMP) says the children of dentist and former chess champion Rania al‑Abbasi, who disappeared with their parents more than a decade ago under then-President Bashar al-Assad, are likely dead.

“We have reached reliable and corroborating results that allow us to conclude with a high degree of professional certainty that Dr Rania al-Abbasi’s children are deceased,” the NCMP said in a statement on Saturday.

The fate of the children, unknown for years, became a symbol of the plight of other missing children of detainees and those forcibly disappeared during al-Assad’s rule, which ended with his ouster in 2024.

Al-Abbasi went missing along with her husband, Abdul Rahman Yasin, and their six children, aged three to 15, in March 2013 after government forces raided their home in Damascus, according to rights groups.

The commission, set up by the country’s new rulers in May 2025 to investigate missing and forcibly disappeared people, said its findings were “based on multiple verification and analysis procedures” conducted in coordination with national authorities.

“Efforts to find the remains … are still ongoing,” it added.

Hassan al-Abbasi, Rania’s brother, confirmed the children’s deaths in a video posted on Facebook.

He said the family had been able to view video recordings linked to the main suspect in a 2013 massacre in a Damascus district, including one showing him accusing children in a dark room of being “major financiers of terrorism”.

“They turned out to be our children,” Hassan al-Abbasi said. “We finally saw them … but they were martyred.”

The fate of Rania and her husband remains officially unknown after all contact with them was lost following their arrest on accusations linked to opposition to the Assad government.

Rights groups and media reports suggest they may have died, though their bodies were never found.

The issue of missing people remains one of the most pressing in Syria. They include detainees who vanished in government prisons as well as people who went missing during fighting, at checkpoints or while fleeing their homes over the years of civil war.

Tens of thousands of people were detained or disappeared during the war, which erupted in 2011 after a brutal crackdown on antigovernment protests by al-Assad.

The NCMP said last year that the number of people who went missing over decades of al-Assad family rule may exceed 300,000.

Notorious al-Assad regime figure linked to killings

Separately on Saturday, the Syrian Ministry of Interior said its investigation into the disappearance of al-Abbasi’s children had uncovered evidence linking Amjad Youssef – a notorious figure during al-Assad’s rule and the perpetrator of the 2013 Tadamon massacre – to their killing.

In a statement, it said interrogations of detainees, together with videos and information shared by the NCMP, had helped strengthen the case.

Youssef was arrested in April, prompting many Syrians to demand “just punishment” for a man they say carried out the massacre in cold blood.

The Tadamon case drew international attention after footage surfaced documenting the killings.

In 2022, The Guardian newspaper in the United Kingdom published footage it said had been leaked by a conscript in a pro-government militia showing members of the Assad-era Military Intelligence Branch 227 killing at least 41 people and burning their bodies.

The video showed an intelligence officer, identified as Youssef, shooting blindfolded and bound detainees.

Members of Congress are moving to push the U.S. Navy to develop a containerized version of its High-Energy Laser with Integrated Optical Dazzler and Surveillance (HELIOS) system. Containerized designs could help accelerate the service’s fielding of laser directed energy weapons on a wider array of ships, providing added layers of close-in defense. The Navy has already been experimenting with palletized designs as part of its larger laser development efforts, which have faced continued hurdles in recent years.

An early draft of the annual defense policy bill, or National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), for the 2027 Fiscal Year, would authorize the addition of $5 million to the Navy’s budget for work on a containerized HELIOS. It would also add $2.5 million for a “Containerized Maritime High Energy Laser Weapon System,” which does not otherwise appear to be mentioned, at least by that name, in the service’s proposed budget for the 2027 Fiscal Year. The House Armed Services Committee released this draft NDAA earlier this week.

The Navy’s proposed budget for the next fiscal cycle does already include a request for $75.6 million for a separate Joint Laser Weapon System (JLWS) effort. The development of a containerized 150-kilowatt-class laser directed energy weapon, along with work toward 300 and 500-kilowatt-class designs, are part of the stated plans for JLWS. It’s unclear whether the Maritime High Energy Laser Weapon System mentioned in the draft NDAA is related to JLWS.

HELIOS, which the Navy has also designated Mk 5 Mod 0, is a 60-kilowatt-class laser directed energy weapon. At that power level, it is able to destroy or at least damage certain targets, such as drones or small boats, a capability that has now been demonstrated in multiple tests. There has been talk in the past about scaling HELIOS’s power rating up to 150 kilowatts.

Currently, the Navy only has one HELIOS laser, installed on the Arleigh Burke class destroyer USS Preble. Despite integration on an operational warship, the service describes this system as a “Non-Program of Record (POR) Research & Development (R&D) asset” in its most recent budget request.

As an aside, another laser system, the Optical Dazzling Interdictor, Navy (ODIN), is currently found on seven other Arleigh Burke class destroyers. An eighth example was integrated on the USS Kidd, but has been temporarily removed while that ship is completing a two-year maintenance availability. That ODIN system is currently being used for land-based training at the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Port Hueneme Division, in California. Designed as a “dazzler,” ODIN is lower-powered than HELIOS, and is intended to blind or confuse electro-optical and/or imaging infrared systems, including seekers on incoming munitions, sending them off course rather than shooting them down.

As noted, HELIOS offers demonstrated capability now, and a containerized version is something the Navy might be able to field more widely in the near-term. This, in turn, could help provide a bridge to future developments under JLWS. Containerized systems, as well as palletized ones, inherently offer valuable flexibility, especially in a maritime context. Integration can be more readily achieved on a broad array of ships – including carriers, amphibious warfare ships, sea base-type vessels, and sealift ships, as well as certain surface combatants – as long as there is sufficient deck space and available power.

In April, the Navy disclosed a test of a palletized version of AeroVironment LOCUST laser counter-drone system on the Nimitz class aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush, underscoring exactly this kind of flexibility. For that test, AeroVironment leveraged a palletized configuration of LOCUST it had already developed for the U.S. Army. However, various changes were made to adapt it to shipboard use, including “hardened electronics for salt fog, humidity, vibration, and long deployments” and the addition of “stabilization hardware to manage ship motion,” according to a company press release.

Counter-drone defense has emerged as a critical priority for the Navy, both at sea and on land. This has only been underscored by experience gained during the latest conflict with Iran, as well as operations in and around the Red Sea in recent years. The service has already been adding counter-drone systems that use physical interceptors as their effectors to an ever larger number of ships, something TWZ has been closely tracking.

When it comes to a containerized version of HELIOS, which could also be used to bolster defenses ashore, would benefit from having been developed for maritime use from the start. It might still be less hardened against environmental conditions, as well as battle damage, than its more deeply integrated counterpart on the USS Preble. There are also questions about how the system might be integrated onto the host ship and its combat system, if it has one at all.

In general, as long as there is sufficient power and cooling capacity, laser directed energy weapons like HELIOS offer essentially unlimited magazine depth. This offers cost benefits, especially when compared to employing traditional surface-to-air interceptors. As one comparative example, the latest versions of the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM), which many Navy ships are armed for point defense, have unit costs in the $1 million range. All of this could also help in addressing long-standing concerns about the sufficiency of stockpiles of critical anti-air interceptors (as well as other munitions), and the ability to readily replenish those inventories, which have only been reinforced by the latest conflict with Iran.

USS Porter Conducts SeaRAM Test Fire

Laser directed energy weapons do also have limitations, especially when employed in the maritime domain, as TWZ has highlighted in the past:

“A single laser can only engage one target at once. As the beam gets further away from the source, its power also drops, just as a result of it having to propagate through the atmosphere. This can be further compounded by the weather and other environmental factors like smoke and dust. More power is then needed to produce suitable effects at appreciable distances. Adaptive optics are used to help overcome atmospheric distortion to a degree. Altogether, laser directed energy weapons generally remain relatively short-range systems.”

“In addition, laser directed energy weapons, especially sensitive optics, present inherent reliability challenges for use in real-world military operations. Shipboard use adds rough sea states and saltwater exposure to the equation. There is also the matter of needing to keep everything properly cooled, which creates additional power generation and other demands.”

Overall, the Navy’s current top leadership is already very supportive of containerized systems and directed energy weapons, including both lasers and high-power microwave types. In March, Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Daryl Caudle, the service’s top officer, unveiled a formal Containerized Capability Campaign.

“From towed-array-systems, to drone swarms, to electronic attack systems, to high-powered lasers … I want to containerize everything,” Caudle said at the annual McAleese Defense Programs Conference in March. “Tailored capabilities give our combatant commanders something they value above all else: options.”

Containerized systems are particularly central to the Navy’s current vision for future fleets of USVs, as well as its new FF(X) frigates.

Laser directed energy weapons are also central to the current plan for the Navy’s future Trump class battleships, but they are expected to be deeply integrated into that design rather than containerized. Adm. Caudle has been outspoken more broadly in his view that laser-directed energy weapons are key to bolstering close-in defenses on his service’s warships going forward, including against the growing threat posed by drones.

“My thesis research at [the] Naval Post Graduate School was on directed energy and nuclear weapons,” the CNO told TWZ and other outlets at a roundtable at the Surface Navy Association’s (SNA) annual symposium in January. “This is my goal, if it’s in line of sight of a ship, that the first solution that we’re using is directed energy.”

In particular, “point defense needs to shift to directed energy,” Caudle added at that time. “It has an infinite magazine.”

Even before assuming his current role as CNO, Caudle has been a vocal supporter of Navy directed energy weapon developments. At the same time, as mentioned, the service has faced continued stumbling blocks to more widespread fielding of these capabilities. This is, in many ways, reflected just in HELIOS, which remains a largely experimental effort despite years of testing and previous talk about expanding it into a broader operational capability. The Navy has integrated other one-off lasers onto other ships in the past. This includes the Laser Weapon System Demonstrator Mk 2 Mod 0 installed for a time on the San Antonio class amphibous warfare ship USS Portland, which is seen being tested in this video below.

USS Portland (LPD 27) tests LWSD laser system

Several U.S. Air Force and Army laser directed energy programs have also been realigned, curtailed, or outright cancelled in recent years due to technical hurdles and other factors.

Despite it adding funding for containerized system development, the draft NDAA that the House Armed Services Committee also proposes to cut $5 million from the Navy’s Directed Energy and Electric Weapon Systems line item due to what it simply describes as “unjustified growth.” The bill is also very likely to change in substantial ways in the coming weeks and months before it is ever put to a full vote, let alone sent to President Trump’s desk.

Whether or not the extra funding for a containerized version of HELIOS, or the Maritime High Energy Laser Weapon System, comes across in the end, the Navy is already heavily committed to new developments in this arena despite the continued challenges.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The San Antonio Spurs, sparked by superstar Victor Wembanyama, have advanced to the NBA Finals for the first time since 2014 by dethroning the defending champions, the Oklahoma City Thunder, 111-103, to book a championship showdown against the New York Knicks.

The Spurs captured the best-of-seven Western Conference finals 4-3 on Saturday and reached the NBA Finals, which begin on Wednesday against the Knicks in San Antonio.

“Though we’re still hungry for one more, this feeling is, I can’t explain it, it’s so powerful,” Wembanyama said. “We want four more. We’re not done. Go Spurs go.”

French 7-foot-4-inch (224cm) centre Wembanyama scored 22 points and grabbed seven rebounds, Julian Champagnie added 20 points, including six three-pointers, and Stephon Castle had 16 points for the Spurs, who led the winner-take-all contest almost the entire way.

“We had a good team, a great team,” Champagnie said. “We had to stay the course and play a good game.

“We were passing the ball. We were playing as a team. We come out here and play together.

“We never knew if we were going to get this far, but when you’ve got the greatest player in the world, things happen.”

That was a nod to Wembanyama, the Most Valuable Player of the Western Conference finals and the NBA Defensive Player of the Year.

“It doesn’t mean anything for me other than the fact we are a team,” Wembanyama said of his series MVP award. “I got this for all of us and all the fans right here.”

Of his teammates, Wembanyama added, “They don’t even know how much I love them. They are just incredible. Everybody stepped up tonight.”

“Wemby” dominated in his first playoff game seven and was emotional at the finish, laughing, crying and hugging teammates over reaching his first NBA Finals.

“Realising that some part of the childhood dream was going to come true,” the 22-year-old Frenchman said of his reaction.

The win sets up an NBA Finals repeat of this season’s NBA Cup final, which the Knicks won with a 124-113 defeat of San Antonio last December in Las Vegas.

“A lot of physicality, hit first, and rebounding,” Champagnie said of the Knicks. “It will be a nice challenge for us.”

NBA Most Valuable Player Shai Gilgeous-Alexander led Oklahoma City with 35 points.

“He was brilliant. He had a great game,” Thunder coach Mark Daigneault said. “He delivered. It was a really big-time game for him.

“That would have been one of the stories of the game if we had been able to figure out a way to win it.”

Daigneault said the challenge to repeat was not among the things that led to the defeat.

“You can be proud of effort and progress and the level we played … and we can also be really disappointed,” he said.

“Felt like we could have won the series. We were right there. There’s nobody we don’t think we can’t beat.

“I thought we had enough to win, but credit San Antonio – they’re the ones who did.”

A Spurs squad with only one player who had been in a game seven before overcame a more experienced Thunder squad that won the title in a game seven last year.

“Back in October, we knew we had a chance to be pretty good,” Spurs coach Mitch Johnson said.

“There’s a lot being talked about, words like competitiveness, resolve, togetherness, execution – who gives a damn about the word experience?

“They had to go out and execute, and they did.”

Wembanyama hit two three-pointers in a 17-9 run to start the fourth quarter that lifted the Spurs ahead 97-86 with eight minutes remaining.

“Wemby” was whistled for his fifth foul seconds later and went to the bench, boosting Thunder hopes in the dying minutes while Gilgeous-Alexander tried to rally the reigning champions, only to fall short at the finish.

Elías Jaua is a Venezuelan intellectual, university professor, and politician who served as vice president under Hugo Chávez in addition to several ministerial roles in the  Chávez and Maduro administrations. He currently heads the Center for the Study of Socialist Democracy (CEDES). In this exclusive interview, Jaua discusses Venezuela’s post-January 3 conjuncture, the anti-imperialist struggle to reclaim sovereignty, and the role to be played by Chavismo.

Venezuela’s reality changed on January 3 with the US strikes and kidnapping of President Maduro. How would you describe the current situation? And regarding the US, there is talk of “conditional sovereignty” and “tutelage,” while officials speak of a “cooperation agenda.” What is your take on this?

Sovereignty is a comprehensive concept. You either have it or you don’t. Sovereignty means not depending on anyone. It is the foundation of a republic. A republic means independence from others, something distinct from liberal, individual freedom. Venezuela today is a state under tutelage, overseen by the Donald Trump administration. This was officially declared by Trump and White House officials such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

This is also clearly reflected in oil production, which must be sold primarily to the US, and the proceeds from those exports do not enter directly into Venezuela’s coffers but instead into a US Treasury account. From there, the Venezuelan government will make requests and have certain amounts necessary for the country’s basic functioning disbursed. That is a complete loss of economic sovereignty. We have also seen how reforms to strategic laws, such as those governing hydrocarbons and mining, have been rushed through. Today, there is immense pressure on labor legislation, both from the Venezuelan business community and from transnational capital, which views labor laws as yet another obstacle to attracting investment.

And finally, we have seen that Venezuela’s foreign policy – which was openly supportive of Palestine, Iran, and Cuba – has been significantly toned down. This is another clear sign that Venezuela is no longer an independent state. Its status as a republic is entirely relative.

In light of all this, how do you feel the government and other national political groups should respond?

I view the decision made on January 3 not to respond to the US military attack as a responsible one, because the enemy clearly had military superiority and the capability to control the entire airspace using high-tech means. A response would have resulted in significant destruction of the country’s infrastructure and armed forces, as well as the killing of thousands of civilians. 

Now, four months later, the Venezuelan government and all political forces should clearly denounce to the international community the coercion to which we are being subjected. On the one hand, as a public denunciation, but also to have it formally recorded before international bodies such as the International Commission on Human Rights. What occurred in January were war crimes, a fact supported by United Nations rapporteurs. Next, a complaint should be filed with the International Court of Justice to restore control over national revenues to the Venezuelan state. 

One might argue that this is ineffective at the moment, that international law is irrelevant and international organizations are incapable of acting – and that is true. But the country must establish a legal precedent because these institutions still exist, and as a result they are a source of rights. These complaints set precedents so that the country can, in the future, claim the rights that have been damaged by the occupying power. 

Finally, it is important to reach out to the international community, and above all to the peoples of the world, so that they know there is a nation that refuses to be placed under tutelage and subjected to these conditions, in order to build international solidarity. An internal political stance must also be established, because this attempt to conceal the gravity of the coercion to which the country is being subjected numbs popular consciousness, undermines patriotic morale, and that is contrary to what is expected of the leadership – not only of the government, but of the entire political leadership of the nation.

But what if that triggers another US military attack?

I don’t think a repeat of the January 3 incident is imminent because it would have repercussions in the US domestic political landscape. The political cost for the Trump administration would no longer be zero, as it practically was on January 3, but there would be greater resistance, especially for attacking a country that has simply exercised its rights before international bodies to claim sovereignty over resources and political self-determination. 

Put another way, the option of not denouncing this, of not activating available mechanisms, is to accept and normalize this situation of neocolonialism, and I believe that is a very dangerous path that could even lead to Venezuela’s annexation by the US. I believe there are moments when peoples, nations, and their leaders must take a firm stand for the sake of history. Here it is no longer a matter of defending a party or a political movement, but rather the existence of a nation that was born free. We have a historic responsibility to ensure it remains that way for future generations.

US officials repeat their “three-phase plan,” which ends with a political “transition,” on a daily basis, while the extremist opposition demands immediate elections to seize power at any cost. From your perspective, what is the path forward, and what should the priorities be?

The priority is to regain independence. If we hold elections, that is with candidates for what? For governor of the colony? Anyone who truly wants to hold the presidency of the Republic of Venezuela must first raise their voice in favor of the immediate restoration of the country’s sovereign rights over its resources and revenues and the assertion of political self-determination. 

In any case, I argue that any eventual electoral process should be the result of a national agreement, renationalizing politics and not waiting for a call from the White House one day announcing that there will be elections in six months. That would be very shameful. I believe that Venezuelan political forces would be obligated, as part of that strategy to reclaim and demand the restoration of Venezuela’s sovereignty, to also commit to the international community and the Venezuelan people to seek a political, democratic, and electoral path forward.

In a recent article, you spoke of an inability to manage the internal political conflict, which paved the way for foreign intervention. Could you elaborate on this idea? How has that situation changed since January 3?

Foreign meddling began on the very first day of the Bolivarian Revolution, and there were agents that facilitated it. The first concrete example was the April 11, 2002 coup d’état, with the open participation of the US and Spanish governments, and from that point on, that interference never ceased. But there was always a degree of autonomy that allowed, especially after 2004, for the democratic resolution of the conflict through national agreements. For instance, the recall referendum that ultimately ratified Chávez’s mandate.

But starting in 2014, after the right-wing insurrectionary attempt known as “La Salida” and its failure, the US began to intervene directly by declaring Venezuela an “unusual and extraordinary threat,” and from that point on, the opposition lost any capacity to make decisions. I was a member of the dialogue delegation in the Dominican Republic in 2018 and saw how an agreement signed by everyone was overturned by a phone call from the US embassy. 

I also believe that later, over the past five years, the Venezuelan government chose to engage in dialogue with the US and bet that the conflict would be resolved directly with Washington. Therefore, everyone put all their eggs in the White House’s basket, and the decision slipped completely out of the control of the country’s internal institutions until the game came to a standstill. And indeed, at the behest of the far-right opposition, Washington intervened and attacked on January 3. That is why I say that reclaiming internal political control in order to resolve the conflict would be an act of dignity and courage on the part of the entire Venezuelan political leadership. Conflict is not going to vanish, because today the calls for a conflict-free Venezuela come alongside a set of measures that deepen it. For example, labor deregulation, social disinvestment, political exclusion, etc.

In recent years, you have analyzed and debated the direction of Chavismo amid sanctions and the implementation of orthodox macroeconomic adjustment policies. Since January 3, we have seen a drastic overhaul of key pillars of the Bolivarian project, such as the Hydrocarbons Law, and critical voices growing louder, including Mario Silva and Luis Britto García. What is the current state of Chavismo, in your opinion?

First of all, the revision and change of course regarding fundamental aspects of Chavismo’s historic program did not begin on January 3 but much earlier. It was formalized starting in 2018 with the Program for Economic Recovery, Growth, and Prosperity, aimed at halting the advance of the transition to socialism and restoring the private sector’s hegemony in managing the economy, with clear consequences for social rights and the fight against social inequality. This was also accompanied by increasingly undemocratic mechanisms, from the political leadership, to impose a change of course in economic and social policy. 

However, a fundamental core of Chavismo’s programmatic unity – the struggle for independence and national sovereignty – remained intact, and that kept Chavismo cohesive despite major differences. Today, I believe Chavismo must be situated within different spheres. There is a Chavismo within the United Socialist Party (PSUV) – no one can dispute that  – but I believe there is a broader, and much larger, Chavismo, with a cultural, political, and symbolic identity rooted in a metanarrative that exists outside the PSUV and the Great Patriotic Pole. That sector currently lacks clear leadership and organizational structure, but it retains its values. It may have circumstantial views of the situation, but essentially it continues to uphold the principles that launched this process: sovereignty, participatory and protagonist democracy, democratic pluralism, freedom, political ethics, debate, speaking the truth, and social equality. It also holds a vision of a multipolar world, in solidarity with international struggles. These were, in essence, the core tenets of Chavismo from its inception and remain relevant for a significant portion of the Venezuelan population that is Chavista or was once Chavista.

You have talked about building national unity at this juncture, but also about upholding Chávez and his legacy. Are these two paths compatible?

This is a difficult and painful reflection because the figure and the project of Hugo Chávez have been burdened with a series of deviations. Practices that run completely contrary to the principles and values he defended, and upon which he built the Chavista project. For example, the case of Víctor Hugo Quero and his mother is deeply outrageous (1). It is a truly shameful incident, yet international news outlets report, “Chavismo admits to the disappearance of a detainee,” “Mother of prisoner killed by Chavismo dies.” Is it Chavismo or just a few individuals responsible? What about the men and women who, for over 25 years, laboriously dreamed, built, and dedicated part of their lives to creating well-being and the common good in their communities, to building a national project called “Chavismo”? It is very unfair because Chavismo, as a movement, is being accused of things it did not do. Chavismo is not this or that leader; it is the men and women who gave up the only thing they had – their time, their effort – to build community, a national project, to plant crops, to learn to read and write or to teach others to read and write, to study, and so on. 

I stand by Chavismo as the men and women who dreamed, who continue to dream, and who have given their all to build a more humane society. For me, that will continue to be Chavismo. And those of us who have held leadership posts in this process must assume their responsibilities for the good and the bad. But it is unethical to blame a popular movement, a popular ideal like Chavismo, for the mistakes, deviations, and vile acts that some leaders may have committed. 

I believe that the call for national unity, to paraphrase [revolutionary communist leader Alfredo] Maneiro, will spring from the most authentic Chavismo, but will transcend it. It will converge with other currents of the left that were not Chavista, with social democratic sectors that broke away from the extremist opposition, and with people who never took a stance on the political conflict the country has experienced in recent decades. It will be the plurality of opinions, of people, of organizations, that will provide the foundation for a necessary movement, which I see as unstoppable and already feel in the streets, in this struggle to regain independence and sovereignty.

Note

(1) Victor Quero died in state custody in July 2025 but his family was not notified. His mother, Carmen Navas, continued to search for him until his death was publicly acknowledged in May 2026 after a judge denied an amnesty request. Navas passed away shortly afterward.