news

American Airlines has resumed flights as Donald Trump moves to rebuild ties following the abduction of Nicolas Maduro.

The first direct commercial flight between the United States and Venezuela has landed in Caracas, ending a seven-year suspension imposed by the US Department of Homeland Security over security concerns.

Flight AA3599, operated by Envoy Air, a regional subsidiary of American Airlines, departed Miami at 10:11am ET (14:11 GMT) on Thursday, five minutes ahead of schedule, according to airport data.

It arrived in the Venezuelan capital roughly three hours later and was due to return to Florida later in the day. Earlier, the airline said that a second daily flight between Miami and Caracas would start on May 21.

The return of nonstop flights comes months after a dramatic shift in US-Venezuela relations, following Washington’s January operation that led to the abduction of former President Nicolas Maduro, and marks the first direct air link between the two countries since diplomatic ties were severed in 2019. For years, travellers had used indirect routes through other Latin American hubs.

Translation: “For nearly seven years, there were no direct commercial flights between the United States and Venezuela. Under President Trump, we are changing that today. Flights between Miami and Caracas have resumed,” The US State Department posted on X. 

Coffee and arepas in the aeroplane

At Miami International Airport, American Airlines marked the occasion with a small ceremony, decorating the departure gate with Venezuelan flags and balloon displays in the country’s yellow, blue and red colours.

Passengers were served coffee and arepas, a traditional Venezuelan dish, on board the flight.

Thursday’s service was operated by an Embraer E175 regional jet with a capacity for about 75 passengers.

US Transportation Secretary Sean P Duffy said the flight signalled more than the return of an air route.

“Today is about more than just another flight, it’s a critical milestone in strengthening the United States relationship with Venezuela and unleashing economic opportunity in both countries,” Duffy added.

He added that the resumption followed extensive work by the department and praised American Airlines for restoring a route he described as vital, saying more flights are expected in the coming months.

High ticket prices

Despite the celebratory mood, high ticket prices remain a key barrier, alongside strict US visa requirements that have left many potential travellers without the documentation needed to fly.

Recent searches on the airline’s website show return fares for early May starting at more than $1,200, before dropping to just more than $1,000 later in the month, suggesting prices may ease as services expand.

By comparison, flights via Bogota typically range from $390 to $900 round-trip, with Avianca among the main carriers.

American Airlines was the last US carrier operating in Venezuela before suspending flights in 2019, while Delta and United had already withdrawn in 2017 amid a deepening political crisis that drove millions to leave the country.

“Parents will be able to reconnect with children, grandparents with grandchildren, and families with the place they once called home,” Miami-Dade County Mayor Daniella Levine Cava said before the departure. “Miami-Dade is home to the largest Venezuelan community in the United States.”

Donald Trump’s rhetoric and actions against Iran, Venezuela and Cuba over the last year have few parallels in modern history. They have to be seen as marking a new stage. As such they call for a reevaluation of analysis and strategy on the part of the Left.

Trump’s repeated threat to bomb Iran “back to the Stone Ages where they belong” is unmatched by the rhetoric of even the most notorious and brutal heads of state over the recent past. Decapitating the entire leadership of a country to compel total submission, as Washington and Tel Aviv have done in Iran, is also a novelty in war strategy. The kidnapping of Venezuela’s president and First Lady as a first step in attempting to establish a colonial relationship by taking complete control of the country’s principal source of revenue, namely petroleum, represents a throwback to practices associated with centuries-old imperial rule

These are examples of “hyper-imperialism,” a concept theorized by Samir Amin to describe the United States “as the sole capitalist superpower.” More recently, the Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research has observed that U.S. hyper-imperialism persists despite a marked erosion of its economic and, though to a lesser extent, financial power. Its military supremacy is not only unrivaled, but is complemented by hybrid warfare, most notably “hyper-sanctions” and the use of lawfare.

What needs to be added to the concept of hyper-imperialism, particularly Trump’s version of it, is its sui generis nature. To find a parallel for the kind of hegemony the United States now exercises – highlighted by the continuous indiscriminate use of force and the threat of it – one would have to look back to the Roman empire or even earlier. One of Trump’s innovations is his deployment of the military to reinforce the system of economic sanctions, examples being the interdiction of oil tankers, the quarantine of Cuban oil, and full-scale war against Iran.

Trump II’s foreign policy hardly represents a complete break from the past. The groundwork was laid by past Democratic and Republican administrations. However, his actions force the Left not only to reformulate strategies, but to reconsider past evaluations and analyses of nations of the Global South subjected to extreme forms of imperialist aggression. The resistance to U.S. aggression must be given greater weight when evaluating governments. In addition, the popular desperation and exhaustion that erode revolutionary fervor and distance people from those same governments should be understood in light of the daily trauma people endure as a direct result of imperialist actions.

What Trump’s hyper-imperialism tells us

The starting point is to recognize that since Trump’s return to the White House, Iran, Venezuela and Cuba have been in a de facto state of war, which is an escalation of the multiple forms of hostility and aggression of past years. This is key to how all three nations should be judged. While the Left’s commitment to democracy needs to remain unquestionable and unwavering, in these cases primary responsibility for democracy’s somewhat uncertain prospects lies with the siege imposed by imperialist powers. No one other than James Madison said “Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded.”

The encirclement imposed by hyper-imperialism on Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela illuminates salient features of imperialism going back in time: first, Washington has honed the sanctions regime into a powerful tool, sometimes inflicting damage comparable to armed intervention; second, imperialism is the principal driver of the pressing economic problems facing the three nations; third, the justification for the actions taken against the three nations does not hold up under scrutiny; and fourth the brutality of the sanctions system underscores the need for its complete elimination. The discussion below looks at these points.

Tehran’s response to Operation Epic Fury underscores the crushing impact of sanctions. The nation’s leaders have made clear that the lifting of sanctions – as well as “international guarantees of U.S. non-interference” in the nation’s internal affairs – is a non-negotiable condition for ending the current conflict. That is to say, the Iranian leaders place the destruction caused by the sanctions on a similar footing as the bombs.

In the case of Venezuela, the events leading up to the abduction of Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores on January 3, 2026 reveal the far-reaching and highly coordinated machinery underpinning the sanctions regime. The second Trump administration’s tracking of the “ghost fleet” carrying Venezuela’s sanctioned oil—and its interdiction of several of those vessels— underscores how far Washington has gone in perfecting sanctions enforcement since the early years of the Cuban Revolution.

The first Trump administration pioneered in promoting “overcompliance” in which Washington’s well-publicized monitoring was designed to assure that companies and financial institutions world-wide would shun all transactions with Venezuela, even ones not specifically targeted by the sanctions. The aim was to impose a veritable blockade. Mike Pompeyo and Elliot Abrams spearheaded a campaign – drawing on the FBI, the Treasury, U.S. embassies, and the intelligence community – to scrutinize the dealings of companies worldwide with Venezuela, in what amounted to a warning shot to companies throughout the world. Even firms that engaged in oil-for-food swaps, which were not proscribed by the sanction regime, were warned that they ran risks. Companies under investigation were likewise told that penalties could be suspended if they halted all dealings with Venezuela.

A retrospective look at the first Trump administration’s sweeping enforcement measures and their devastating impact reinforces the argument that the sanctions have been so harmful that they need to be dismantled unconditionally and entirely. This position contrasts with that of liberals such as the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), which criticized the sanctions against Venezuela yet called for using “negotiations to flexibilize financial and oil sanctions” as leverage to secure concessions. Indeed, power brokers in Washington also favored sanctions relief as a bargaining tool to push the Maduro government to enact market-oriented reforms to the benefit of U.S. capital.

A full grasp of the scale and severity of Washington’s “war” on Venezuela undercuts the notion upheld by some on the left who argue that the sanctions were no more to blame for the nation’s pressing problems than government mismanagement. An even harsher position on the left affirms that the sanctions “do not explain the root causes of the societal collapse we have lived through.” 

Likewise, the forcible removal of Maduro and Flores demonstrates that Washington was intent on dismantling a government whose example and policies ran counter to U.S. interests. Prior to the January 3 kidnapping, some on the left in Venezuela and elsewhere denied that Washington sought to remove Maduro from power because they were convinced that he had effectively sold out. But they were wrong insofar as Washington clearly wanted Maduro out. Pedro Eusse, a leading member of the Communist Party of Venezuela (PCV), which broke with the Maduro government in 2020, wrote in July 2025, “Everything indicates that the true intention of the US and its allies’ policy of aggression toward the Venezuelan government has not been its overthrow, but its subordination.”

In the case of Cuba, the extreme measures of the Trump II administration against the nation also shine light on the cruelty and effectiveness of the system of sanctions per se. Trump’s navy-enforced quarantine on oil shipments is a first for the nation since the October 1962 missile crisis. The result has been recurring 16-hour blackouts that have disrupted water delivery, hospital operations, food production, and garbage collection.

The quarantine spotlights Cuba’s near total dependence on oil, in contrast to nearby Jamaica and the Dominican Republic, which generate a significant share of their electricity from coal and natural gas. The dependence stems precisely from the sanctions, which impeded imports and pushed Cuba into relying almost entirely on Venezuelan oil—only for Trump to cut off that supply too.

Indeed, the quarantine underscores Cuba’s reliance on Venezuelan oil and the reciprocal solidarity that saw fuel exchanged for Cuban medical personnel. That’s a plus for Maduro. The program undercuts the claim of some on the left that Maduro’s foreign policy, in the words of the PCV, never moved beyond an “anti-imperialist rhetoric” without substance.

The Washington-crafted narrative on Cuba and the reaction to it by the mainstream media and the Left are curious. In contrast to the demonization directed at Venezuela and Iran, Washington’s condemnation of Cuba has been relatively hollow and has gained little traction in mainstream outlets or left-leaning circles. The anti-Cuba vilification—driven by hardline anti-Communism—remains largely confined to the far right, epicentered in Miami. The official rhetoric is a departure from the wording in 1982 when the State Department designated Cuba as a State Sponsor of Terrorism due to “its long history of providing advice, safe haven, communications, training, and financial support to guerrilla groups and individual terrorists.” Now the Trump administration’s justification for the same designation is that the Cuban government grants “safe harbor to terrorists” and refuses to extradite them.

As false as the narco-terrorism case against Maduro is, it nonetheless offered a rationale that undoubtedly resonated with at least a slice of public opinion. Compare that to Marco Rubio’s line on Cuba which flatly denies the catastrophic effects of the oil quarantine. Rubio claims “we’ve done nothing punitive against the Cuban regime” and adds, the blackouts “have nothing to do with us.” Instead Rubio faults the Cuban leadership on grounds that “they want to control everything.” A classic case of victim-blaming, but with few buying into it. A YouGov survey in March found that only 28 percent of U.S. adults support the U.S.’s blocking of oil shipments to Cuba, as opposed to 46 percent opposed.

In addition, Rubio’s assertion that the only novelty is that Cuba is “not getting free Venezuelan oil anymore” is blatantly fallacious. Rubio is well aware of Venezuela’s swap with Cuba involving the latter’s International Medical Brigades, which maintain a sizeable presence in Venezuela and elsewhere. This is precisely why Rubio has vigorously attempted to sabotage the program throughout the region, unfortunately with a degree of success.

If the oil quarantine demonstrates anything it’s that the hardships facing the Cuban people are rooted in Washington’s war on Cuba, now going on 65 years. Criticism of Cuban government policies, or of socialism itself, comes in a distant second place.

The Trump II disaster should be an eye opener

Trump’s bullying offensive abroad has fueled mounting opposition to interventionism and has even fostered anti-imperialist sentiment in the United States. Just one week into the 2026 Iranian bombings, 53 percent of the U.S. population opposed the strikes, in sharp contrast to U.S. military involvement in Vietnam, the Gulf War, Afghanistan, and Iraq, which enjoyed large majority support at the outset. That the former editor of The New Republic called the U.S. war on Iran imperialistic is telling. In a New York Times op-ed, Peter Beinart wrote “Donald Trump’s foreign policy vision is imperialism.”

One lesson of recent events is particularly relevant for the Left: the demonization of heads of state is a sine qua non for military intervention. In the case of Iran and Venezuela, the discrediting combines some fact with a large dosage of fake news. In the case of Maduro, the demonization which dates back to shortly after he assumed office in 2013, was taken to higher levels as a result of the controversial presidential election of July 28, 2024, which the opposition claimed was fraudulent. Subsequently the corporate media consistently tagged the word “autocrat” and “dictator” onto Maduro’s name. Six months later, Trump was in office and the vilification escalated to a new pitch. Indeed, the branding of Maduro as a narco-terrorist was an indispensable prelude to the bombing of boats in the Caribbean and the subsequent kidnappings – notwithstanding the doubts raised by some media outlets regarding the veracity of the claim.

The takeaway is that the Left needs to distinguish between criticism and demonization and take cognizance of the possible dire consequences of the latter.

The demonization of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and his inner circle also set the stage for imperialist actions, but, of course, his government could not be placed in the same category as those of Cuba and Venezuela.

Furthermore, as in Venezuela and Cuba, harsh sanctions have been conducive to shadow economies, clientelistic networks, and fraudulent dealings, patterns well documented in numerous studies on sanctions throughout the world.

Eskandar Sadeghi-Boroujerdi, a prolific scholar on Iran who is highly critical of the government, told Jacobin “While the Islamic Republic is paranoid, it is also very much under siege from all sides.” He also notes the intrinsic relationship between the sanctions and the nation’s pressing problems: “Sanctions and structural weaknesses of the Iranian economy feed off one another — there’s a symbiotic relationship between them.”

In short, any serious reading of Iran must foreground the role of sanctions—an approach that inevitably tempers the tendency to cast its leadership in purely demonizing terms.

The lessons of July 28, 2024

The issue of the accurateness of the July 28, 2024 election tallies in Venezuela needs to be reframed. Those elections could not have been democratic, regardless of the announced results, because Venezuelan voters had a gun pointed at their heads: reelect Maduro and the sanctions continue; elect an opposition candidate and the sanctions will be lifted.

The overwhelming majority of Venezuelans knew full well what was at stake. Luis Vicente León – the nation’s leading pollster, himself a member of the opposition – reported that 92 percent of the population believed that the sanctions negatively impacted the economy, and most characterized the effect as “very negative.” (The poll puts the lie to the State Department’s repeated claim that the sanctions only harm government officials.)

A similar scenario played out in the Nicaraguan presidential elections of 1990 when opposition candidate Violeta Chamorro upset the Sandinistas in the midst of a devastating, U.S.-promoted civil war. But there was a fundamental difference. Far from demonizing the Sandinistas, Chamorro accepted a power-sharing transition agreement with them. In contrast, for over a decade prior to the July 28 elections the opposition’s main leader, María Corina Machado, had ruled out negotiations with those who had allegedly violated human rights. She never tired of voicing the slogans “no immunity,” ”no to amnesty,” “no agreements with criminals,” often with specific reference to the Chavistas and to Maduro himself. Maduro and his followers had every reason to fear the type of repression that the opposition initiated during the two-day abortive coup it staged in April 2002 against the Chavista government. Even opposition pollster León admitted that the fear was well-founded.

Marta Harnecker, the renowned leftist theoretician, wrote that the Sandinistas erred in holding the 1990 elections amid U.S. promoted violence and sabotage. Harnecker labeled the decision to organize elections “on terrain shaped by the counterrevolution” a “strategic error.”

A reevaluation and reinterpretation of the July 28 elections is instructive. The hard-core Chavistas accept the official results which showed Maduro winning with nearly 52 percent of the vote. The opposition refutes that claim. A third position is defended by supporters of Maduro who nevertheless express skepticism and point out that because of a massive hacking attack from outside the country, it may be impossible to ever know the true count.

The debate about the accuracy of the official results of July 28 sidesteps the overriding issue of whether the elections should have been held in the first place. Indeed, the idea of conditioning elections on the lifting of sanctions was not far-fetched. A year before the elections, Maduro, in a reference to the United States, declared: “If they want free elections, we want elections free of sanctions.” Subsequently, Elvis Amoroso, the Chavista head of the nation’s electoral council, tied the participation of European Union electoral observers to its lifting of sanctions. At the same time, the Biden administration indicated its willingness to bargain with the Venezuelan government along those lines.

Carlos Ron, a former vice-minister and currently an analyst for Tricontinental, told me that the Chavista leadership ruled out delaying the elections in order to demonstrate its democratic credentials in the face of the international smear campaign. Ron said “At that moment, greater importance was placed on the need to defend the democratic character of the Bolivarian political process and its continuity, and abide by the Constitution, in the face of imperialist pressures.”

Maduro’s intentions may have been commendable. But the decision overlooked one compelling reason to suspend the electoral process. Tying the holding of elections to the removal of the sanctions would have placed the entire blame for setbacks to democracy where it belonged: U.S. intervention in Venezuela’s internal affairs.

In defense of democracy

As a rule, the Left has always championed the defense of democracy. In this sense, the Left’s vision compares favorably with U.S.-style “liberal democracy,” shaped by the influence of big money and other inherently undemocratic practices such as gerrymandering, the Electoral College and voter suppression.

Historically, however, the Left has faced formidable obstacles on this front. For instance, it has come to power in countries like Russia, China and Cuba that were lacking in democratic tradition. That, however, was the least of the problem. Its main problem has been, and continues to be, imperialist hostility which limits options.

Precisely for that reason, the Left needs to tread cautiously in the way it frames the issue of democracy in nations that are in the crosshairs of imperialism. In the three countries discussed in this article, the Left can’t deny that democracy has been infringed upon. The Maduro government, for instance, stripped the PCV – the country’s oldest political party, forged in a history of militant struggle including two periods of clandestine resistance armed struggle in the 1950s and 1960s – of its legal status, transferring recognition to a marginal breakaway faction that appropriated its name and symbols.

Nor can it deny that discontent is currently widespread in the three nations, which became most evident in the Iranian “Woman, Life, Freedom” protests and those of the first days of this year. In Cuba and Venezuela, protests reflect widespread disillusionment, even while the mobilizations have been manipulated and financed from abroad.

One troubling sign in Venezuela is that the disturbances have spread out from upper-middle class neighborhoods where they were confined during the 4-month protests (the “guarimba”) of 2014 and, albeit less so, during those of 2017. The two days following the July 28, 2024 elections, for instance, protests were registered in Caracas barrios such as Petare, the city’s largest. Reflecting on the protests, long-standing Caracas resident and international commentator Phil Gunson reported “Petare is a traditionally Chavista zone, but ever since a few years ago, people have been distancing themselves from the government.”

The Left can’t turn its back on this reality. But nor can it join mainstream voices that channel dissatisfaction into blanket vilification of governments under imperial siege. Rather its line has to be basically: “What do you expect!” In the face of hyper-imperialist aggression these countries are at war, figuratively and in some cases literally speaking. Criticism needs to be framed within this context.

Lenin’s concept of democratic centralism – the principle designed to guide the internal workings of his political party – is instructive. In his writing throughout his political career, party democracy remained a constant, but the degree of centralism depended on the political climate in the nation. Along similar lines, the Left’s adherence to democracy can never be minimized. However, valid criticism of undemocratic practices in countries like Venezuela and Cuba in which the Left is in power needs to consider those actions as overreactions to imperialist aggression.

In this era of intensified hyper-imperialism, the Left is compelled to stand behind nations like Cuba and Venezuela, and recognize that the real blame for backsliding including violation of democratic norms lies with imperialism. The barbaric actions of Trump II are making this imperative clearer than ever.

Steve Ellner is a retired professor of the Universidad de Oriente in Venezuela where he lived for over 40 years and is currently Associate Managing Editor of Latin American Perspectives. He is the author and editor of over a dozen books on Latin American politics and history. In 2018 he spoke in over twenty cities in the U.S. and Canada as part of a Venezuelan solidarity tour.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Venezuelanalysis editorial staff.

This article was originally posted in CounterPunch.

Palestine and Israel representatives had been lined up close together at the FIFA Congress in Canada.

Palestinian football federation president Jibril Rajoub refused to stand alongside Israel FA ⁠Vice-President Basim Sheikh ⁠Suliman in a heated moment at the 76th FIFA Congress.

Both men were called to the stand by FIFA President Gianni Infantino at the event on Thursday, but Rajoub ⁠declined to be brought closer to Suliman, a Palestinian citizen of Israel.

Infantino put his hand on Rajoub’s arm and invited him with a gesture to come closer to Suliman, but in ⁠vain.

Asked what Rajoub said when he refused, Palestinian FA Vice President Susan Shalabi, who was in the room, told Reuters: “I cannot shake the hand of someone the Israelis have brought to whitewash their fascism and genocide! We are suffering.”

Israel has denied committing genocide in Gaza.

Infantino ‌then took the stand and said: “We will work together, President Rajoub, Vice President Suliman. Let’s work together to give hope to the children. These are complex matters.”

Speaking to the Reuters news agency after the congress ended, Shalabi said Infantino’s attempt to have Suliman and Rajoub shake hands showed little consideration for the Palestinian FA chief’s speech, in which he made yet another plea for Israeli clubs not to base teams in ⁠the West Bank settlements.

“To be put in a position ⁠where to have a handshake after everything that was said, this negates the whole purpose of the speech that the general [Rajoub] was giving,” she said.

“He spent like 15 minutes trying to explain to everyone how ⁠the rules matter, how this could easily become a precedent where the rights of member associations are violated with impudence, ⁠and then we’ll just wrap this under the carpet. ⁠It was absurd.”

Last week, the Palestinian Football Association (PFA) appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport against FIFA’s decision not to sanction Israel over clubs based in West Bank settlements.

The PFA has long argued that clubs ‌based in settlements in the West Bank – territory Palestinians seek as part of a future state – should not compete in leagues run by the Israel Football Association (IFA).

FIFA said ‌last ‌month it would take no action against the IFA or Israeli clubs, citing the unresolved legal status of the West Bank under public international law.

Who: Arsenal vs Fulham
What: English Premier League
Where: Emirates Stadium, London, United Kingdom
When: Saturday, May 2, at 5:30pm (16:30 GMT)
How to follow: We’ll have all the buildup on Al Jazeera Sport from 13:30 GMT in advance of our live text commentary stream.

For all the talk of ‌Arsenal having blown their Premier League title hopes after being reeled in by Manchester City, the truth is that come ⁠Saturday, they could have re-established ⁠a six-point lead to pile the pressure on Pep Guardiola’s side.

City’s 2-1 victory over Arsenal at the Etihad Stadium on April 29 meant that, having trailed by 10 points a few weeks earlier, they were able to knock Mikel Arteta’s side ⁠off the summit for the first time since October.

Momentum appeared to have shifted completely, but the fixture schedule may have come to Arsenal’s rescue as they try to clinch a first English crown since 2004.

How can Arsenal re-establish their Premier League lead so quickly?

With City otherwise engaged in FA Cup semifinal action last weekend, Arsenal ⁠ground out a 1-0 home win over Newcastle United to end a four-match losing streak in domestic competitions.

On Saturday, they host London rivals Fulham while City do not play again in the league until Monday, when they face a tough-looking trip to European-chasing Everton.

While City would have two games in hand before they kick off at the Hill Dickinson Stadium, the prospect of again having to make up a six-point gap with ‌absolutely no margin for error would be a serious test of their resolve.

How do Arsenal and Fulham shape up for Premier League clash?

According to data analysts Opta, Arsenal are still favourites to end the season on top – but that could all change if they stumble against Marco Silva’s Fulham.

Sitting in 10th place with four games, Fulham are still very much in the hunt for European qualification and will be looking to exploit any Arsenal fatigue after Arteta’s side’s 1-1 draw at Atletico Madrid in the Champions League semis on Wednesday.

“We will go there with no fear, and play for the badge,” Fulham midfielder Josh King said.

Stat attack – Fulham at Arsenal

History will be a considerable comfort, however, to Arsenal fans struggling to cope with ⁠the title-race tension.

Fulham have played 32 times away to Arsenal in all competitions and never won.

City’s record ⁠at Everton is equally impressive, though, losing none of their last 18 in all competitions and winning 15 of them and drawing three.

Whatever the outcome of Arsenal’s derby with Fulham, a City win at Everton would then give them the chance to crank up the pressure as their next league game at home to Brentford ⁠comes the day before Arsenal’s trip to West Ham United, a fixture being described as Arsenal’s toughest in the run-in.

What happened the last time Arsenal played Fulham?

Arsenal beat Fulham 1-0 in the reverse fixture between the sides earlier this season at Craven Cottage.

Leandro Trossard scored the only goal of the game on October 18, in the 58th minute.

The home side failed to register a shot on target, while Arsenal managed five and had a 63 percent share of possession.

When did Fulham last beat Arsenal?

The west London club secured a 2-1 home win in the Premier League two seasons ago.

Raul Jimenez and Bobby De Cordova-Reid scored the goals to turn the game around following Bukayo Saka’s fifth-minute opener.

Head-to-head

This will be the 67th meeting between the sides, with Arsenal winning 44 of the encounters and Fulham claiming the spoils nine times.

The first match between the sides came in 1904 in an FA Cup tie that Arsenal won 3-2.

The next game came 10 years later when the sides met in the league for the first time, with Fulham exacting revenge with a 6-1 home win in the old Division Two.

Arsenal team news

Both the German and fellow forward Eze were injured in the Premier League win against Newcastle last week, but the latter shrugged off his knock to appear as a substitute against Atletico.

Jurrien Timber and Mikel Merino are both definite absentees through injury, but Riccardo Calafiori returned to the bench for the Champions League game in midweek and could be in line for a start.

Arsenal predicted starting lineup

Raya; Mosquera, Saliba, Gabriel, Calafiori; Odegaard, Zubimendi, Rice; Saka, Gyokeres, Eze

Fulham team news

Former Tottenham winger Ryan Sessegnon could return from a knock sustained in Fulham’s last outing, but Alex Iwobi’s thigh problem means he will not face his former club.

Kenny Tete and Kevin remain confirmed absentees.

Fulham predicted starting lineup

Leno; Castagne, Andersen, Bassey, Robinson; Berge, Lukic; Wilson, Smith Rowe, Chukwueze; Jimenez

Price of petrol in US jumps by nearly 30 cents in one week amid Strait of Hormuz blockade and Iran diplomatic deadlock.

The average price of one gallon (3.8 litres) of gasoline in the United States has reached $4.30, according to the American Automobile Association (AAA), up from less than $3 before the February 28 start of the US-Israel war on Iran.

Thursday’s prices come as US President Donald Trump insists that time is on his side in the standoff with Iran, even as he refuses Tehran’s offers of a preliminary deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

According to AAA, prices for gas or petrol went up by 27 cents over the past week amid the deepening impasse, with Iran blocking the strait and the US imposing a naval siege on Iranian ports.

“The national average is $1.12 higher than it was this time last year, as oil prices surge above $100/barrel with no indication of when the Strait of Hormuz will reopen,” AAA said in a brief report on Thursday.

“Gas prices are the highest they’ve been in four years, since late July 2022.”

California, home to nearly 40 million people, saw petrol prices hit more than $6 per gallon on Thursday.

The spike in energy prices has been fuelling inflation and economic uncertainty, adding to Trump’s political woes.

The US president’s approval rating is hitting record lows amid growing discontent with the conflict with Iran, recent public opinion polls show.

Since the start of the war, Trump and his allies have been trying to frame the hike in petrol prices as a temporary price worth paying to achieve the aims of the military campaign.

The US president reiterated that argument on Thursday when asked about the latest price increase.

“And you know what? And we’re not going to have a nuclear weapon in the hands of Iran,” the US president told reporters.

“The gas will go down. As soon as the war is over, it’ll drop like a rock.”

However, oil prices do not drop automatically after hostilities stop. Despite the ceasefire reached on April 8, the cost of gas in the US has continued to climb.

Iran denies seeking a nuclear weapon.

Although the US is one of the largest oil producers and is not heavily reliant on energy products from the Middle East, global prices affect what Americans pay at the pump.

On Thursday, Trump stressed that Iran is all but vanquished militarily and economically – a claim he has been repeating since the early days of the conflict.

“Iran is dying to make a deal,” he said, calling the naval blockade against the country “incredible”.

Tehran has projected defiance, refusing to hold direct talks with the US until the siege is lifted, even after Trump announced last week that he was dispatching his top envoys to Pakistan to negotiate with Iranian officials.

Earlier on Thursday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian suggested that Iran is running out of patience with the current situation of no war and no peace amid the US siege.

“The world has witnessed Iran’s tolerance and conciliation. What is being done under the guise of a naval blockade is an extension of military operations against a nation paying the price for its resistance and independence,” Pezeshkian said in a social media post.

“Continuation of this oppressive approach is intolerable.”

U.S. President Donald Trump is at an inflection point in the currently paused war in Iran. He is facing a legally mandated deadline tomorrow for seeking Congressional permission to continue the conflict while also reportedly meeting today with Epic Fury’s top general about future strikes. Meanwhile, Iran’s Supreme leader signalled that his country is not willing to give in to Trump’s demands, increasing the chances hostilities could continue.

This is all happening against the backdrop of a shaky ceasefire and stalled negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program and continuing closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

A young girl in southern Lebanon joined hundreds mourning her father, one of three paramedics killed in an Israeli “double-tap” strike during the US-brokered ceasefire. At least 95 emergency responders have been killed in Lebanon, a pattern the UN says may amount to a war crime.

The move comes as part of a larger prisoner pardon tied to a Buddhist religious holiday.

Myanmar’s ⁠former leader Aung San ⁠Suu Kyi ⁠has been moved to house ‌arrest, state media report, more than five years after the military toppled the civilian government that the Nobel laureate had led and jailed her.

President Min Aung Hlaing, who ordered the coup in 2021, said in a statement on Thursday that he “commuted the remaining sentence to be served at the designated residence”.

State media broadcast a photograph of Suu Kyi seated on a ‌wooden bench and flanked by two uniformed personnel – the first public image of the democracy campaigner in years.

Translation: Change the location where Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is serving her sentence (change her remaining sentences to continue serving at her designated residence).

Earlier on Thursday, authorities had announced her prison sentence was being reduced as part of a larger prisoner pardon tied to a Buddhist religious holiday. State media said in addition to the amnesty granted to 1,519 prisoners, including 11 foreigners, the sentences of remaining convicted prisoners were cut by a sixth.

Suu Kyi was originally sentenced to 33 years in prison in late 2022 for several offences that her supporters and rights groups described as attempts to discredit her and legitimise the army takeover that removed her from office and to prevent her return to politics.

Thursday’s amnesty, the second applied to her in recent weeks, would bring her sentence down to 18 years with more than 13 years left to serve, according to the calculation.

The decision to move the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize winner to house arrest was welcomed as a “meaningful step” towards a “credible political process”, a spokesman for United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said.

“We appreciate the commutation of Aung San Suu Kyi to a so-called house arrest in a designated residence. It is a meaningful step towards conditions conducive to a credible political process,” Stephane Dujarric told reporters.

He reiterated the UN’s call for the “swift release” of all political prisoners in Myanmar.

“It is good to hear that the house arrest has been confirmed, but we haven’t received any direct notification,” a member of Suu Kyi’s legal team told the Reuters news agency.

“We only found out about it from the news announcement.”

More amnesties for other prisoners

The amnesty is the second in two weeks after one on April 17 when more than 4,500 prisoners were granted amnesty.

The amnesties come after Min Aung Hlaing was sworn into office as president on April 10 after an election that critics said was neither free nor fair and was orchestrated to maintain the military’s tight grip on power.

In his inauguration speech, he said his government would grant amnesties aimed at promoting social reconciliation, justice and peace.

Suu Kyi, who is now 80 years old, has been serving her prison term at an undisclosed location in the capital, Naypyitaw.

Information about her condition has remained tightly controlled. Reports in 2024 and 2025 indicated declining health, including low blood pressure, dizziness and heart problems, but these claims could not be independently verified. Her legal team has not been allowed to meet her in person since December 2022.

The 2021 army takeover triggered enormous public resistance that was brutally suppressed, triggering a bloody civil war that has killed thousands of people.

According to the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners, a rights monitoring organisation, 22,047 people have been in detention in Myanmar since the army takeover.

Suu Kyi spent almost 15 years as a political prisoner under house arrest between 1989 and 2010. Her tough stand against military rule in Myanmar turned her into a symbol of nonviolent struggle for democracy.

The United States has fallen to a “historic low” in the Reporters Sans Frontieres (RSF), or Reporters Without Borders, annual press freedom tracker, continuing a decade-long decline, the organisation has said.

The report on Thursday recorded a global drop in press freedom indicators in 2025, with, for the first time, more than half of the world’s countries labelled as “difficult” or “very serious”.

While the US, during the first year of US President Donald Trump’s second term, remained in the “problematic” category, it dropped seven spaces from 57th in the world to 64th. Norway led the list, with Eritrea ranked lowest among 180 countries.

In a statement, Clayton Weimers, executive director of RSF’s North America office, said the US was experiencing a “press freedom crisis”.

“Trump and his administration have carried out a coordinated war on press freedom since the day he took office, and we will live with the consequences for years to come,” he said in a statement.

“Our message is clear: Protect legal rights, ensure accountability for attacks on media professionals, and support independent media to restore American press freedom.”

The report pointed to both Trump administration policies and the wider consolidation of media companies in the US, which critics say opens the door to stifling certain points of view.

That has included Skydance Media’s acquisition of Paramount Global, which includes CBS News. Skydance is owned by David Ellison, whose father, Larry Ellison, is a confidant of Trump’s.

Paramount Skydance is also currently acquiring Warner Bros, which owns CNN.

All told, just six companies control most US media: Comcast, Walt Disney, Warner Bros Discovery, Paramount Skydance, Sony, and Amazon.

While Trump has long had an adversarial relationship with journalists, press freedom observers say the head of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has accelerated pressure on media figures and journalists during the president’s second term.

In March, FCC chair Brendan Carr said he would revoke the licences of broadcasters that are “running hoaxes and news distortions”, and that do not “operate in the public interest” in their reporting on the US-Israel war with Iran. Trump said he was “thrilled” by Carr’s statements.

Carr has also threatened to revoke the licenses of broadcasters for their coverage of Trump’s immigration policies, which critics say can have a chilling effect on local news organisations.

The effort has extended to television talk show hosts, who have been threatened by the FCC over jokes.

Most recently, Carr announced an investigation into several ABC channels.

That came days after the network’s flagship late-night host, Jimmy Kimmel, made a joke about the White House Correspondents Dinner (WHCD).

Kimmel had quipped that First Lady Melania Trump had the “glow of an expectant widow” before the event.

Days later, a gunman attempted to storm the WHCD in Washington, DC, which Trump was attending for the first time. The Trumps later connected Kimmel’s joke to the attack, calling for Kimmel’s firing.

Kimmel has said the joke was about the 79-year-old president and the 56-year-old first lady’s “age difference” and not a call for violence.

Critics of the FCC’s move included Republican Senator Ted Cruz, who said he does “not believe the FCC should operate as the speech police”.

The White House has repeatedly called Trump the most “transparent” president in US history, pointing to his regular news conferences.

The visit of King Charles III to the United States comes at a time of visible tension between Washington and London. His meetings with Donald Trump and symbolic engagements linked to the anniversary of the United States Declaration of Independence highlight Britain’s effort to preserve a relationship that has faced increasing political strain. Rather than seeking immediate policy breakthroughs, the visit underscores a broader diplomatic strategy focused on long term stability.

Worst tensions in decades
Relations between the US and the United Kingdom are being described by analysts as the most difficult since the Suez Crisis. Disagreements over global conflicts, defence commitments, and rhetoric from Washington have created friction not only with Britain but also with other European allies.

Political differences driving the strain
Tensions have been sharpened by clashes between President Trump and Keir Starmer, particularly over foreign policy decisions such as Britain’s stance on the Iran conflict. Criticism from Washington, alongside broader disagreements within alliances like NATO, has added to the sense of divergence.

Role of royal soft power
King Charles III’s visit is less about direct political negotiation and more about reinforcing deeper ties. Through speeches, public appearances, and outreach beyond government circles, the monarch is aiming to remind Americans of the longstanding cultural, security, and historical links between the two nations. His address to Congress and symbolic messaging emphasise shared values while subtly encouraging cooperation and openness.

Beyond politics to public diplomacy
The visit targets not just policymakers but the American public. By engaging across different states and institutions, the British monarchy is working to sustain goodwill that can outlast any single administration. This reflects a strategy of insulating the broader relationship from short term political tensions.

Questioning the special relationship
The idea of a “special relationship,” first popularised by Winston Churchill, is increasingly being reassessed. Some British officials argue the term feels outdated in a changing global order, where alliances are more transactional and expectations around defence and economic contributions are rising.

Analysis
The UK’s approach reveals a calculated reliance on continuity rather than confrontation. With limited leverage over US policy decisions, London is using soft power to maintain influence and access. The monarchy provides a unique diplomatic channel that operates above partisan politics, allowing Britain to keep communication lines open even during periods of disagreement.

However, this strategy has limits. Symbolism cannot fully offset structural tensions such as defence spending gaps, diverging foreign policy priorities, or shifting global power dynamics. While royal diplomacy can ease atmospherics, it cannot substitute for alignment at the governmental level.

In the longer term, the visit illustrates Britain’s recognition that its global role depends heavily on sustaining strong ties with Washington, even in less favourable political conditions. By playing a long game, the UK is attempting to ensure that current strains do not permanently weaken one of its most important strategic partnerships.

With information from Reuters.

World leaders condemn the interception of the boats bound for Gaza as violating international law.

Israel has intercepted 22 out of the 58 aid ships travelling through international waters and bound for the besieged Gaza Strip.

The ships make up part of a second Global Sumud Flotilla to try in recent months to break an Israeli blockade by carrying humanitarian aid to Palestinians in Gaza. They sailed from the Spanish port of Barcelona on April 12.

The vessels were seized by Israel late on Wednesday in international waters off Greece’s Peloponnese peninsula, hundreds of miles from Gaza, the flotilla’s organisers said on Thursday.

Israel “kidnapped” 211 of the 400 activists taking part in the flotilla, including a Paris city councillor, according to the flotilla’s organisers. Israel’s Foreign Ministry had earlier put the number of those detained at 175.

Here’s how world leaders have reacted to the news:

Italy

Italy called for the immediate release of Italian nationals on board the flotilla.

Italy “condemns the seizure of the Global Sumud Flotilla vessels… and calls on Israel to immediately release all the unlawfully detained Italians”, the government said in a statement.

Italy’s ANSA news agency cited sources among the organisers saying 24 Italians had been detained.

In its statement, the government also called for the “full respect of international law and guarantees on the physical safety of the people on board”.

It said it was “committed to continue supplying humanitarian aid to Gaza in the framework of our cooperation and in respect of international law”.

Germany

In a joint statement with Italy, Germany said it was following developments regarding the flotilla with “great concern” and called for international law to be respected and for “restraint from irresponsible actions.”

Spain

Spain’s Foreign Ministry said it “energetically condemns” Israel’s seizure of the flotilla, which is carrying Spanish nationals.

Madrid has summoned Israel’s charge d’affaires to convey its protest over the detention of the vessels, the ministry added in a statement.

Turkiye

Turkiye’s Foreign Ministry condemned Israel’s seizure of the boats in the flotilla as “an act of piracy.”

“By targeting the Global Sumud Flotilla, whose mission is to draw attention to the humanitarian catastrophe faced by the innocent people of Gaza, Israel has also violated humanitarian principles and international law,” the ministry said in a statement.

Hamas

In a post on Telegram, the Palestinian group Hamas condemned the interception, accusing Israel of committing a crime without accountability and calling for the release of those detained.

Global Sumud Flotilla organisers

The flotilla’s organisers condemned Israel’s seizure of its vessels.

“This is piracy,” they said in a statement. “This is the unlawful seizure of human beings on the open sea near Crete, an assertion that Israel can operate with total impunity, far beyond its own borders, with no consequences.”

“No state has the right to claim, police, or occupy international waters, but Israel has done that, extending its control outward to occupy the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of Europe,” the statement said.

Israel

Israel’s Foreign Ministry called the flotilla organisers “professional provocateurs” and said that its forces acted lawfully.

“Due to the large numbers of vessels participating in the flotilla and the risk of escalation, and the need to prevent the breach of a lawful blockade, an early action was required in accordance with international law,” the ministry said in a statement.

The conflict involving Iran and the disruption of the Strait of Hormuz have shaken global energy markets. Supply constraints and extreme volatility have driven oil prices sharply higher, exposing a growing structural divide in how major oil companies operate across the Atlantic.

European majors profit from trading strength
Companies such as BP, Shell, and TotalEnergies have benefited from strong oil trading performance. Their global trading networks allow them to move crude and refined products across regions, taking advantage of price differences created by supply disruptions.

These firms trade volumes far exceeding their own production, turning volatility into profit. In the current crisis, trading has significantly boosted earnings, offsetting weaker performance in other segments.

Volatility creates both gains and exposure
The sharp rise in Brent crude prices and market instability has created lucrative arbitrage opportunities. Companies have rerouted fuel shipments across longer and unusual routes to capture higher margins.

However, these strategies come with risks. Trading at such scale requires large amounts of capital, and holding cargoes for extended periods increases financial exposure if market conditions shift.

Trading as a shock absorber
For European majors, trading divisions have acted as a buffer during the crisis. Losses from disrupted production or regional exposure have been partially offset by gains in trading, highlighting the strategic importance of these operations in volatile markets.

US majors rely on production strength
In contrast, Exxon Mobil and Chevron focus primarily on large scale oil and gas production. Their output significantly exceeds that of European rivals, giving them a strong advantage when prices rise.

While they have more limited trading operations, their upstream strength allows them to generate substantial cash flow in high price environments without relying heavily on market arbitrage.

Structural differences in strategy
The divergence reflects long term strategic choices. European companies invested more heavily in renewables and diversified energy portfolios, which limited growth in their upstream production. US firms, by contrast, maintained a strong focus on expanding oil and gas output.

As a result, European majors depend more on trading to drive returns, while US majors depend on production scale.

Analysis
The Iran war has highlighted a clear split in the global energy industry between trading focused and production focused business models. European majors have shown that strong trading capabilities can generate significant profits during periods of disruption, effectively turning volatility into an advantage.

However, this model is inherently unpredictable. Trading gains depend on market conditions and may not be sustainable if volatility declines. In contrast, the US model offers more stable returns tied directly to production levels and commodity prices.

In the long term, this divide could shape investor perceptions and valuations. If European companies continue to rely heavily on trading while lagging in production, the gap between them and US rivals may widen. The industry is increasingly defined by a fundamental question: whether it is more profitable to move oil around the world or to produce it at scale.

With information from Reuters.

Driven by a race to get ahead of quickly evolving enemy capabilities, the U.S. Navy is now aiming to enter the next step of contracting for its 6th-generation crewed fighter – known as F/A-XX – by August. Despite intervention from Congress, the next-generation carrier-based fighter has remained in limbo since the Pentagon moved to effectively shelve the program last year.

That’s according to Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Daryl Caudle, who spoke with reporters Monday at the Sea-Air-Space 2026 exposition near Washington, D.C. In response to a question from TWZ, Caudle acknowledged the uncertainty that has kept F/A-XX in a holding pattern, even as the Air Force’s future fighter, dubbed the F-47, has forged ahead. The current competitors for the F/A-XX are Boeing, which is also the F-47’s prime contractor, and Northrop Grumman.

“One of the challenges we’re seeing is, not only [are] our peer competitors improving their capability for anti-air, either air-to-air or surface-to-air, but the lower cost of entry of very capable weapons is also making more players on the field in which that level of stealth and technology is required,” Caudle, the Navy’s top officer, said. “So this is not about the need for a peer adversary. This is just having an aircraft that can operate with a level of uncertainty and with the acceptable level of risk.”

This is in line with arguments Caudle made in favor of moving ahead of F/A-XX in January, where he cited growing threats posed by smaller nation-state adversaries, including Iran, as well as non-state actors.

Today, Caudle again emphasized that he nevertheless had been “very vocal” on the need for a carrier-based next-generation fighter, and had expressed “many times” to Deputy Secretary of War Steve Feinberg that the service had to secure the aircraft. It’s important, Caudle said, for both the future carrier air wing and collaboration and planning with the MQ-25 Stingray, the Boeing-made carrier refueling drone set to reach initial operational capability later this year.

“It ties to our MQ-25 for stealth refueling. It ties to our reach. It ties to the work we’re doing for making the carrier air wing something that remains very effective into the future based on the range in which you can operate safely,” Caudle said. “So the need’s clearly there.”

MQ-25A Stingray first taxi test

While it was recently reported that the Navy, bolstered by funding from Congress for the new F/A-XX, planned to award a contract for the program by year end, Caudle said August was now the likely timeframe.

As noted, the Pentagon had moved to essentially shelve F/A-XX in its Fiscal Year 2026 budget request, with the Navy only requesting a relatively meager $74 million for the program. U.S. officials said at the time this decision had been driven largely by concerns about the ability of the U.S. industrial base to support work on two sixth-generation fighters, the other being the F-47, simultaneously.

Congress subsequently interceded, appropriating $1.69 billion for F/A-XX through a combination of regular spending bills and the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. From a budgetary perspective, the Navy’s next-generation fighter program remains well behind the F-47, which has already received billions in funding and could be in line to get approximately $5 billion more in Fiscal Year 2027. The Navy only appears to be requesting an additional $140 million for its new carrier-based combat jet in the $1.5 trillion proposed defense budget for the next fiscal cycle.

“We’ve got a lot of airframes out there. We’ve got an F-35 program. We’ve got a F-47 program. You know, we’re still building the [F/A-18 Super Hornet] … there’s a lot of airplanes being built,” Adm. Caudle said today. “The Air Force has got a lot of demand on the system. The Navy’s got a lot of demand … One of the contractors who would make this plane for us is in a place where they really can’t deliver in the timeframe we need it. So there was, you know, a check twice, cut once, kind of mentality here on this decision. And now there, I think we’re all on the same page on the reason why the hard look needed to be done. I’m good with it.”

As noted, Boeing and Northrop Grumman are in competition to produce the F/A-XX, a program that first took shape as a Navy request for information in 2012. An earlier down-select reportedly eliminated Lockheed Martin in March 2025. Last August, Northrop Grumman released a rendering of its concept for the aircraft, showing a streamlined nose and landing gear on the front of a carrier with the tagline, “Project Power Anywhere.” Boeing’s concept, released the same month, drew visual comparisons to its F-47 Next-Generation Air Dominance fighter for the Air Force.

Citing classification, Adm. Caudle said today he couldn’t provide any information on design or payload details that give the Navy confidence in pursuing F/A-XX despite the adversary threats he mentioned. However, he suggested speed was increasingly essential to having a chance at maintaining overmatch.

“We monitor very closely, red-team that very hard, and assess that threat with a predicted trajectory of whether or not the existing designs we’ve seen will still overmatch that,” he said. “So I think we’re okay there, but we do know that our existing airframes could become vulnerable to some of those threats by the time [it’s fielded] … because it takes time to deliver that, that our existing airframes could be vulnerable to some of those threats, and we want to make sure the air wing of the future can still participate.”

Despite Caudle’s comments today, it should be remembered that this is not the first time that major progress on the Navy’s next-gen fighter has supposedly been imminent. Last October, Reuters reported the program had been greenlighted by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, with a contract expected to follow in short order. 

Aside from funding moves from Congress to ensure the survival of the F/A-XX program, no public steps have been taken to advance the program since.

Contact the editor: Tyler@twz.com

WASHINGTON — If agony in high places is any measure, the war in Bosnia is already President Clinton’s Vietnam.

The President says that it is the issue he cannot stop worrying about at the end of the day; he takes the problem home at night and hashes it over with his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton. The tragedy in the Balkans is “not only heartbreaking,” he said this week, “it’s infuriating.”

And Secretary of State Warren Christopher, a notably unemotional man, throws up his hands at the subject. “This is a problem from hell,” he declared. On Wednesday, Christopher met privately with author and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel to discuss the issue’s moral implications.

Clinton’s advisers have huddled for hours over the last three weeks to thresh out options for diplomatic and military action–and still have not reached a decision.

Like Lyndon B. Johnson, whose presidency was wrecked by the American military intervention in Vietnam, Bill Clinton faces an agonizing conflict between his international ideals and the potential cost of achieving them.

Beginning in last year’s presidential campaign, Clinton declared that the United States had a responsibility to stop the onslaught of Bosnia’s Serbs against the republic’s other ethnic groups, the Croats and Muslims. “We have an interest in standing up against the principle of ‘ethnic cleansing’ . . ,” he said earlier this month. “If you look at the other places where this could play itself out in other parts of the world, this is not just about Bosnia.”

Yet the President’s attempt to stop the Serbs through diplomatic pressure has failed. So Clinton, only three months into his presidency, faces an unpalatable choice between escalation and retreat–that, and a swelling national debate over the limits of American responsibility.

Since the fall of Saigon in 1975, Americans have argued over every potential military intervention in terms of Vietnam, whether the battlefield was Lebanon, Central America, the Balkans and even Desert Storm in its early days. Is Bosnia another quagmire, a war America should not enter because its price in blood will inevitably run too high? Or is it, as Christopher has asked, another Holocaust–a tragedy America must stop because the cost in innocent lives–and to America’s moral conscience–is too great to ignore?

All historical analogies are inexact, of course. But Vietnam and the Holocaust are the twin phantoms that haunt the Clinton Administration’s debate over what to do in the Bosnian highlands.

Last week, at the opening of Washington’s new Holocaust Memorial Museum, Clinton found himself confronted directly with one of history’s unwelcome ghosts, when Wiesel appealed to him to stop the war in Bosnia: “Something, anything must be done,” Wiesel pleaded.

At the same time, members of Congress and senior military officers are increasingly warning of the other pitfall. “All of us want to stop the tragedy in Bosnia,” said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a former pilot who spent five years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam. “But . . . I’m not willing to risk another Vietnam.”

Clinton has tried to defuse such fears by promising that he is only considering the use of air power in Bosnia, not the introduction of ground troops. Responds McCain, “The fact is, militarily, if you want to affect the situation, you have to inject massive (numbers of) ground troops.”

The President and his advisers do not like the Vietnam analogy but they cannot escape it. Their own careers, their ways of thinking, were forged in the crucible of the nation’s longest war.

White House National Security Adviser Anthony Lake resigned his first White House job–under Richard M. Nixon, in 1970–to protest the relentless escalation of the war. Defense Secretary Les Aspin served as a young Army lieutenant on the Pentagon staff that planned the conflict. Secretary of State Warren Christopher, then a Justice Department official, was assigned to quell the sometimes-violent protests that followed.

And Clinton spent his college years struggling with the issue of the war–whether to volunteer, to resist the draft or, as he finally chose, to maneuver his way out of military service.

On the ground, diplomats and military experts say, Bosnia is not much like Vietnam at all–except, perhaps, for its mountains. In Vietnam, the United States faced a well-armed guerrilla army hardened by years of war against the colonial French. In Bosnia, the Serb militias are said to be ill-trained and ill-disciplined, and their weapons, while effective against their lightly armed Muslim foes, would have little effect against U.S. air power.

In Vietnam, the Communists had an important strategic ally in the Soviet Union. “That had a restraining influence on Johnson, who didn’t want to risk a nuclear confrontation with Moscow,” noted Patrick Glynn of the American Enterprise Institute. “The Serbs don’t have a big brother with nuclear weapons.”

Where the Vietnam analogy is most telling, officials said, is not in the hills of Bosnia but in the corridors of official Washington. Once again, an Administration is thinking about intervention in a tangled civil war–and hoping to find a low-cost way to do it.

“Are we looking at a pattern of decision-making that looks like Vietnam?” asked Glynn, who has advocated military intervention in Bosnia. “I worry that the Administration is falling into an old pattern–a gradualist approach that commits us to action but takes only small steps that don’t solve the problem.”

“The idea of taking only intermediate steps is very dangerous,” agreed John Steinbruner of the Brookings Institution.

“I really do sympathize with Clinton’s dilemma,” he added. “This could blow him out of the water. But I don’t think he can stay out and get away with it. And I don’t think he can do it the easy way. I’m afraid he’s going to have to organize an international coalition and intervene in a big way.”

So far, no one in the Administration has publicly called for that kind of massive intervention, which would presumably include the use of U.S. and allied ground troops. Instead, Clinton and his Cabinet appear closely divided over more limited options–principally, lifting a U.N. embargo to allow the Bosnian Muslims to import weapons and launching air strikes against the Serbs to stop their offensive and force them back to peace talks.

Clinton himself initially tried to stay away from the issue, aides said, hoping he could avoid being diverted from his ambitious domestic agenda. But in recent weeks, he has reluctantly concluded that he cannot escape. “I think it is a challenge to all of us . . . to take further initiatives in Bosnia,” he declared at the Holocaust museum last week. “I accept it.”

And Clinton has accepted the argument that a small, symbolic military action would be worse than none at all. “That shouldn’t be done just to say that people . . . will feel better that we did something,” he said in an interview with the Boston Globe earlier this week.

But he has not worked out how to enforce those high principles in practice. “The essence of the matter isn’t just punishing the Serbs. It’s establishing a principle that this is a breakdown in the world’s civil order and the world has to respond,” said Steinbruner.

Clinton, Christopher and others like to note that the dilemma in Bosnia is one that they inherited from the previous Administration of President George Bush.

But that is becoming cold comfort, as the problem rapidly becomes theirs as well.

“If Bush were in power, he’d be facing the same problems,” Steinbruner noted. “But Bush ignored the problem. The Democrats are reacting the way they do because they have a harder time writing these things off. They’re less ruthless about it. They worry more about the moral questions in foreign policy . . . and so they fall into the natural trap of trying to do something, but not too much.”

The U.S. Marine Corps wants to field its first conventional takeoff and landing Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) drones in 2029, and is also looking at the possibility of fielding similar drones with short takeoff and landing capabilities. The news comes soon after the service outlined its plans for Kratos’ XQ-58 Valkyrie, and potentially other CCAs, to be paired with its F-35s as a “bridge” to an entire family of next-generation air combat capabilities, which could include a sixth-generation crewed fighter. You can read more about the implications of that in our previous coverage.

Updates on the latest developments within the Marine Corps’ CCA program were provided by Col. Scott Shadforth, a program manager for the Expeditionary and Maritime Aviation Advanced Development Team (XMA-ADT), at the annual Modern Day Marine conference in Washington, D.C., at which TWZ is in attendance.

The Corps’ CCA efforts currently fall under a program called Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF) Uncrewed Expeditionary Tactical Aircraft (MUX TACAIR). The MAGTF is the primary organizing concept around which the service deploys air and ground forces.

Shadforth defines the CCA program as “how the Marine Corps is going after increasing the lethality of existing and future tactical aircraft in a high-threat environment.”

The MUX TACAIR effort emerged out of a previous effort that the Marine Corps War Fighting Lab sponsored as part of a Rapid Defense Experimentation Reserve (RDER) with the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). This earlier program was known as the Penetrating Affordable Autonomous Collaborative Killer — Portfolio (PAACK-P).

The Marine Corps is kicking off its CCA efforts with a landing gear-equipped version of the XQ-58. In contrast, the previous PAACK-P program involved the rocket-assisted takeoff (RATO) variant of the XQ-58. Meanwhile, the MQ-58 designation refers to Marine-specific variants of Kratos’ Valkyrie now in development, although it remains unclear how official this is. 

As Shadforth explained, under MUX TACAIR, the Marine Corps is attempting to answer the question: “How do we take that essential [XQ-58] airframe itself and turn it into a conventional takeoff and landing [CTOL] platform so that it’s reusable at a higher rate?”

The OSD effort involved four flights of the XQ-58, culminating in the fall of 2024. At the beginning of this month, the Marine Corps completed a risk-reduction flight involving XQ-58 payloads and integration at China Lake.

Up to this point, the tests have all involved RATO variants of the XQ-58, but the Marines are targeting a first flight using conventional takeoff and landing sometime in the mid- to late summer of this year.

Shadforth confirmed that the “ultimate goal” for the MQ-58 effort is to get its hands on “deliverable prototypes” in the summer of 2029. In an ideal case, he added, these would be delivered to VMX-1 in Yuma, “so the Marine Corps can actually get their hands on the aircraft and fly the aircraft in a tactical environment and develop the CONOPS for how they’re actually going to employ those.”

VMX-1, or Marine Operational Test and Evaluation Squadron One, has multiple aircraft types in its inventory and is responsible for tests and evaluations of all types of Marine aircraft and associated systems, while assisting in the creation of tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs). You can read more about its work here.

MUX TACAIR doesn’t start and end with the MQ-58, however.

Shadforth said that the Marine Corps is currently exploring further MUX TACAIR options with “several vendors,” including General Atomics and Anduril. Meanwhile, the branch is also working with Northrop Grumman as part of the MQ-58 effort.

As to how the CTOL MQ-58 will be best integrated with the fleet of Marine Corps F-35Bs, which feature short takeoff and landing (STOVL) at the heart of their capabilities, this is something the service is still weighing up.

According to Shadforth, the Marine Corps “is always going to be interested” in finding ways for fixed-wing aircraft to operate from shorter runways, suggesting that a STOVL-type CCA could well be part of its future plans. Of course, a return to the RATO-capable MQ-58 could be one way of achieving this.

For now, the Marine CCA effort is squarely focused on the CTOL variant of the Valkyrie, but Shadforth said that it’s also looking toward the future, including “other vendor offerings, whether they exist in reality or not, that remove the need for landing gear.” CCAs that offer either runway independence or that are able to operate from shorter or improvised airstrips represent a capability “the Marine Corps will be interested in exploring,” Shadforth added. One obvious candidate here would be the X-BAT, the jet-powered autonomous stealth ‘fighter’ drone designed to take off vertically and land the same way, tail first, after completing its mission. 

At this point, it should be recalled that Kratos said earlier this year that the CTOL version of the Valkyrie being developed for the Marines will still be able to make rocket-assisted takeoffs from static launchers. This means the drone will retain a valuable degree of runway independence, though it will have to touch down on a runway at the end of its sortie.

Before that, Kratos also unveiled a special launch trolley that allows variants of the XQ-58 without landing gear to take off from traditional runways, though not land back on them, as seen in the video below.

Kratos Valkyrie Trolley Launch System

An aircraft with some kind of STOVL capabilities “just kind of opens up the world to us, where we don’t need 7,000-, 8,000-, 9,000-, or 10,000-foot paved runways. Those are always capabilities that we’re interested in,” Shadforth said.

Overall, this is a somewhat surprising route, considering that the XQ-58 in its basic form is already runway independent. This would suggest the Marines, in the future, are looking specifically for something that combines STOVL performance with faster sortie rates. After all, the XQ-58 also requires some infrastructure for that and requires a reset time. A STOVL or VTOL type of CCA would also be able to deploy and operate alongside the F-35B more seamlessly.

“As far as how CCA is envisioned integrating with existing STOVL-type platforms, the Marine Corps is kind of on the front end right now of getting CCA out to the operational forces. A lot of that’s going to come through experimentation and evaluation. As we target the 2029 timeframe to get prototypes out to VMX-1, part of their mission set is going to be: now we’ve physically got these things, how are we actually going to employ them with the various tactical aircraft we have available?” he continued.

As well as the STOVL F-35Bs, these tactical aircraft include CTOL/carrier-capable F-35Cs and potentially legacy F/A-18 Hornets, as well as other Joint Force capabilities.

Shadforth continued: “Those are issues that are going to have to be explored and experimented with for how we’re going to see how those CCAs are going to operate. The point being there’s no set solution at the moment.”

In terms of missions, the Marine Corps is initially focusing MUX TACAIR on an “electronic warfare type platform,” Shadforth said. “Those are the payloads we’re interested in looking at at the moment.”

XQ-58A Valkyrie Demonstrator Inaugural Flight

But Shadforth confirmed that other efforts with different vendors are exploring how to use the space within the Valkyrie air vehicle to see what other payloads and capabilities are available to the Marine Corps. Not only usefulness but timeliness are important factors here, Shadforth added.

Kratos is known to be working on a miniature cruise missile called Ragnarok, which the XQ-58 can carry in its internal bay and externally under its wings, and you can read more about it here. Renderings have also shown Valkyries with AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM) under their wings. The drone can carry Small Diameter Bombs (SDB) internally, and has demonstrated drone launch — launched effects are therefore almost certain to be included for the electronic warfare mission.

Within all this, it is important to remember that, at this point, the Marine CCA effort is still very much in the prototyping phase, led by the MQ-58. As Shadforth noted, the service has “not entered into a specific acquisition-type construct yet,” beyond developing these prototypes. Nevertheless, with a timeline now in place to get the first MQ-58s to Yuma, and with conventional takeoff and landing trials expected in the next few months, MUX TACAIR reflects the overall acceleration of the Corps’ CCA program.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

Lakers lose to Rockets

From Broderick Turner: An hour before tip-off of Game 5 of the first-round playoff series against the Houston Rockets, the word came down that Austin Reaves was available to play for the Lakers, his wait over, his time away with a Grade 2 left oblique strain no longer an issue for him.

Reaves missed the first four games of the series against Houston and the last five regular-season games after sustaining the injury in Oklahoma
City on April 2. He checked into the game off the bench with 5 minutes and 39 seconds left in the first quarter to a standing ovation.

Reaves proceeded to give the Lakers a lift, but the Rockets received even more elevated play , their five starters scoring in double figures and their defense on point during Houston’s 99-93 win over Los Angeles on Wednesday night at Crypto.com Arena.

Even with Reaves scoring 22 points and handing out six assists and LeBron James producing 25 points and seven assists, the Lakers couldn’t close out this best-of-seven series they once had total command of just a few days ago.

The Lakers have lost the last two games and their once 3-0 lead heading to Houston with their lead down to 3-2.

“I mean, we don’t have a lot of time to dwell on it,” James said. “I mean, you can give yourself tonight, a little bit tomorrow. But … once we get on that plane and head down to Houston we got to forget about it and understand what we are going for and it’s going to be even harder.

Continue reading here

Lakers box score

NBA playoffs schedule

Lakers playoff schedule

First round
All times Pacific

at Lakers 107, Houston 98 (box score)
at Lakers 101, Houston 94 (box score)
Lakers 112, at Houston 108 (box score)
at Houston 115, Lakers 96 (box score)
Houston 99, at Lakers 93 (box score)
Friday: Lakers at Houston, 6:30 p.m., Prime Video
*Sunday: Houston at Lakers, TBD

*-if necessary

Dodgers lose to Marlins again

From Kevin Baxter: Wednesday was getaway day for Dodgers, the final game of a six-game homestand ahead of a weeklong trip to St. Louis and Houston. And that’s a good thing, first baseman Freddie Freeman said, because there are a number of players on the team that really could use a getaway, Freeman chief among them.

With Wednesday’s 3-2 matinee loss to the Miami Marlins, the Dodgers (20-11) have lost two in a row at home for the first time this season. In those two games the Dodgers scored just three runs, went four for 18 with men in scoring position and left 16 runners on base.

And the final outs Wednesday came when Freeman, batting with the bases loaded and one out, grounded into a bizarre, unassisted double play with Marlins second baseman Xavier Edwards fielding the ball, tagging Shohei Ohtani as he ran him back to first, then dragging his foot across the bag to retire Freeman.

“I hit it right at the second baseman. He tagged Ohtani and tagged first,” Freeman offered in an accurate, if hardly revelatory explanation.

Continue reading here

Dodgers box score

MLB standings

Angels lose to White Sox again

Rookie Sam Antonacci hit a tying triple with two outs in the ninth inning and Colson Montgomery had a winning single in the 10th, lifting the Chicago White Sox to a 3-2 victory Wednesday for a three-game sweep that extended the Angels’ losing streak to six.

Mike Trout hit his 10th home run of the season for the Angels, who have lost 10 of 11 and dropped to 12-20. Additionally, Angels starter Yusei Kikuchi left after two innings with left shoulder tightness.

Kikuchi gave up no runs on two hits and a walk with one strikeout before exiting. His average fastball velocity dropped from 94.9 mph in the first inning to 92.8 mph in the second.

Continue reading here

Angels box score

MLB standings

Who is the Kentucky Derby favorite?

From Jay Posner: This year’s Kentucky Derby field does not appear to have a true standout. But it could have a star.

If that sounds illogical, trainer Chad Brown, who will start Emerging Market in a bid to win his first Derby, can explain.

“There’s clearly a couple horses that are deserving favorites in the race, but there’s by no means an American Pharoah in here, at least up to this point going into the race,” Brown said, referencing the 2015 Triple Crown champion. “Now, you know, whoever wins the race and goes on, maybe one emerges and turns into one of the best 3-year-olds in the last few years.”

That’s what happened last year, when Sovereignty, the third betting choice in the race, progressed from a Derby win to victories in the Belmont and Travers and was voted Eclipse Award for Horse of the Year.

This year’s field is so deep, Brown said, that an argument could be made “for maybe half the horses in the field, if they ran their very, very best race and had a good trip, could win this race.”

Continue reading here

Sparks to retire a number

From Marisa Ingemi: The Sparks will retire former player DeLisha Milton-Jones’ No. 8 jersey on July 28 when the team hosts the New York Liberty as a part of the WNBA’s 30th anniversary celebration.

A three-time All-Star, Milton-Jones played 11 years for the Sparks, helping lead them to back-to-back titles in 2001 and 2002.

“It’s like one of those moments where it’s Christmas, and you’re anticipating getting a gift and when the day finally is here, that feeling you can’t even describe is rather euphoric and nostalgic all at the same time, and it brings a peace about you in a way that you can’t explain,” Milton-Jones said. “Because you put so much time, energy and effort into everything that you did in that moment in your life, and now to be rewarded in this manner is just pretty big.”

Milton-Jones will be the fourth Sparks player to have her number retired after Lisa Leslie (No. 9), Penny Toler (No. 11) and Candace Parker (No. 3).

Continue reading here

NCAA men’s tournament could expand

From Steve Henson: Ever-growing power conferences are the driving force behind an impending expansion of the NCAA men’s and women’s basketball tournaments, which ESPN reported could be formalized within weeks and begin next season.

The field would grow from 68 teams to 76 that would include eight additional at-large teams in each tournament. The current First Four — eight teams playing four games — would expand to 12 games played by 24 teams at two sites on the first Tuesday and Wednesday of the tournament. The traditional 64-team bracket would begin Thursday as usual.

Mid-majors likely are tempering any celebration. The change might not mean more invitations to the Big Dance for underdogs because the NCAA and its media partners favor large, established schools with large, established fan bases for viewership and revenue.

Continue reading here

Ducks playoffs schedule

All times Pacific

at Edmonton 4, Ducks 3 (summary)
Ducks 6, at Edmonton 4 (summary)
at Ducks 7, Edmonton 4 (summary)
at Ducks 4, Edmonton 3 (OT) (summary)
at Edmonton 4, Ducks 1 (summary)
Thursday: Edmonton at Ducks, 7 p.m., TNT, truTV, HBO Max, KCOP-13
*Saturday: Ducks at Edmonton, TBD

*-if necessary

This day in sports history

1961 — LPGA Titleholders Championship Women’s Golf, Augusta CC: Mickey Wright wins her 5th major title by 1 stroke from Patty Berg & Louise Suggs.

1962 — LPGA Titleholders Championship Women’s Golf, Augusta CC: Mickey Wright wins her 8th major title in a playoff with Ruth Jessen.

1971 — The Milwaukee Bucks become the second team to register a four-game sweep in the NBA championship, beating the Baltimore Bullets 118-106.

1975 — Larry O’Brien is named the NBA’s third commissioner, following J. Walter Kennedy (1963-75) and Maurice Podoloff (1946-63). O’Brien holds the position until 1984.

1976 — Muhammad Ali wins a unanimous 15-round decision over Jimmy Young in Landover, Md., to retain his world heavyweight title.

1985 — NFL Draft: Virginia Tech defensive end Bruce Smith first pick by Buffalo Bills.

1987 — NY Islander Mike Bossy plays his final game.

1992 — The Red Wings and Canucks become the ninth and 10th teams in NHL history to rebound from 3-1 deficits to win playoff series. Detroit beats the Minnesota North Stars 5-2 in the Norris Division, while Vancouver defeats the Winnipeg Jets 5-0 in the Smythe Division.

1993 — Top-ranked Monica Seles is stabbed during a changeover in Hamburg, Germany. Guenter Parche, 38, reaches over a courtside railing and knifes Seles in the back. She has an inch-deep slit between her shoulder blades and missed the remainder of the 1993 season.

2005 — James Toney outpoints John Ruiz to win the WBA heavyweight title in New York. Toney, a former champion at three other weights, wins his third heavyweight bout, becoming the third one-time middleweight champion to take boxing’s top crown.

2010 — Tiger Woods matches the worst nine-hole score of his PGA Tour career and winds up with a 7-over 79 to miss the cut at the Quail Hollow Championship. Woods finishes at 9-over 153, the highest 36-hole total of his career. It’s the sixth time in his 14-year career he misses a cut.

2012 — Manchester City defeat Manchester United 1-0 in what is claimed to be the biggest match in the English Premier League’s history.

2014 — Anze Kopitar scores the tiebreaking goal late in the second period and Jonathan Quick makes 39 saves to cap the Kings’ comeback from three games down with a 5-1 victory over the San Jose Sharks in Game 7 of the first round. This is the fourth time an NHL team won a best-of-seven series after losing the first three games.

2015 — For the first time in 51 years, the NFL draft returns to Chicago. Florida State’s Jameis Winston is selected by Tampa Bay as the first selection.

2023 — Seattle Kraken become first NHL franchise to earn its first-ever playoff series win against reigning Stanley Cup champion, eliminating the Colorado Avalanche in seven games.

Compiled by the Associated Press

This day in baseball history

1903 — The New York Highlanders won their home opener at Hilltop Park, 6-2 over Washington.

1919 — Philadelphia’s Joe Oeschger and Brooklyn’s Burleigh Grimes pitched complete games in a 9-9, 20-inning tie. Both teams scored three runs in the 19th inning. Oeschger gave up 22 hits and walked five, while Grimes allowed 15 hits and walked five.

1922 — Charlie Robertson of the Chicago White Sox pitched a 2-0 perfect game against the Detroit Tigers. Johnny Mostil, playing left field for the only time, made two outstanding catches.

1923 — The New York Yankees sign 20-year-old prospect Lou Gehrig to a contract paying him a salary of $2,000 and a bonus of $1,500.

1940 — James “Tex” Carleton of the Brooklyn Dodgers threw a 3-0 no-hitter at Cincinnati.

1944 — In the first game of a doubleheader split, New York first baseman Phil Weintraub drove in 11 runs and player-manager Mel Ott scored six runs as the Giants beat the Brooklyn Dodgers 26-8. Brooklyn won the nightcap 5-4.

1946 — Bob Feller struck out 11 New York Yankees en route to his second of three career no-hitters, a 1-0 victory at Yankee Stadium.

1952 — Ted Williams plays his final game before leaving for military duty in Korea.

1958 —Ted Williams of the Boston Red Sox became the 10th major leaguer to reach 1,000 extra-base hits in a 10-4 loss to the Kansas City Athletics at Fenway Park.

1961 — Willie Mays of the San Francisco Giants hit four home runs and drove in eight runs in a 14-4 victory over the Braves in Milwaukee. Hank Aaron hit two homers for the Braves.

1967 — Steve Barber and Stu Miller of the Baltimore Orioles combined on a no-hitter in a 2-1 loss to the Detroit Tigers in the first game of a doubleheader.

1969 — Jim Maloney of the Cincinnati Reds struck out 13 en route to a 10-0 no-hitter over the Houston Astros, the third of his career.

1986 — The Seattle Mariners strike out 16 more times in a 9-4 loss to the Boston Red Sox, to set a major league record of 36 strikeouts in two consecutive games.

1988 — New York and Cincinnati hooked up in a wild game at Riverfront Stadium, with the Mets winning 6-5 on a delayed call by first base umpire Dave Pallone. The call resulted in a $10,000 fine and 30-day suspension of Reds manager Pete Rose when Pallone accidentally poked Rose in the cheek and Rose shoved Pallone twice.

1994 — Toronto’s Joe Carter finished April with 31 RBIs to set a major league record for the month. Colorado’s Andres Galarraga finished with 30 to set a National League record.

1996 — Jeff King of the Pittsburgh Pirates becomes the third major leaguer to hit two home runs in one inning twice in his career.

2000 — Randy Johnson of the Arizona Diamondbacks defeats the Chicago Cubs, 6-0, as he becomes only the third pitcher in major league history to win six games in April.

2002 — Al Leiter cruised through seven three-hit innings in the New York Mets’ 10-1 rout of Arizona to become the first pitcher to beat all 30 teams in the majors.

2005 — Major league players are asked by Commissioner Bud Selig to agree to a 50-game suspension for the first offense, a 100-game suspension for the second offense and a lifelong ban after the third offense for the use of steroids.

2008 — Julio Franco announces his retirement as a player at age 49.

2012 — Ryan Braun hit three homers and a two-run triple in Milwaukee’s 8-3 win over San Diego. No player had hit three homers and a triple in a game since Fred Lynn in 1975.

2017 — Anthony Rendon had 10 RBIs, three home runs and six hits, powering the Washington Nationals past the New York Mets 23-5. Rendon went a career-best 6 for 6 and scored five times.

2019 — CC Sabathia becomes the 17th pitcher to reach 3,000 strikeouts.

2020 — The latest event to be cancelled due to the ongoing global coronavirus pandemic is the annual Little League World Series.

2022 — Clayton Kershaw becomes the Dodgers’ all-time franchise leader for strikeouts when he fans Spencer Torkelson of the Tigers in the 4th inning. With 2,697 strikeouts, he moves past Hall of Famer Don Sutton.

Compiled by the Associated Press

Until next time…

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

In international politics, the platforms a country sits on often matter as much as what it says. For decades, Somalia was largely the subject of global security discussions, rarely a decisive participant in them. Today, that reality is changing in ways that carry symbolic weight and practical consequences.

Somalia’s recent election to the African Union Peace and Security Council (AU PSC), alongside its membership in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), marks a turning point in its diplomatic trajectory. For quite some time, Somalia was merely being discussed in the world’s most influential security forums. It is now shaping the agenda on the table.

This shift reflects more than a procedural achievement. It signals the maturity of Somalia’s diplomatic and security institutions, and the steady rebuilding of its international credibility after decades of conflict and state fragility.

For much of the past three decades, decisions affecting Somalia’s security were often made in rooms where Somali voices were either absent or marginal. External actors debated intervention strategies, sanctions regimes, peacekeeping mandates, and humanitarian responses, while Somalia struggled with internal instability.

This membership in the UNSC and AU PSC changes that dynamic fundamentally. These bodies are not symbolic; they make binding decisions, adopt resolutions, authorise peacekeeping operations, and shape international legal frameworks. For Somalia, this may seem something simple, but its impact is profound. Somalia is now part of the process that determines policies affecting its own security and development.

That participation strengthens state-building in several ways. It reinforces institutional capacity within Somalia’s foreign policy apparatus, promotes transparency and accountability through engagement with multilateral norms, and aligns Somalia more closely with international legal and diplomatic standards.

Somalia is transitioning from being a recipient of international decisions to becoming a contributor to them. Somalia’s role on these councils also carries representational significance beyond its own borders.

As a member of the UNSC and AU PSC, Somalia now occupies a rare diplomatic position. It simultaneously represents the interests of the African continent, the Arab and Muslim world, and the least developed countries (LDCs). The concerns of these categories of states have often been overshadowed by the priorities of more powerful nations. Somalia now stands for them.

Somalia’s own first experience in rebuilding institutions after conflict, managing complex security transitions, and balancing sovereignty with international cooperation enables it to advocate not only for itself, but also for broader principles: Inclusive peace processes, sustainable development approaches to security, and equitable participation in global decision-making.

Peace in the world, peace at home

President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s 2022 political manifesto, “Somalia at peace with itself, and at peace with the world”, is increasingly reflected in these recent memberships. This vision is proving effective, as Somalia’s participation in global peace decision-making demonstrates a growing alignment between its external engagements and internal stabilisation efforts.

The seats at the UNSC and AU PSC will directly reinforce Somalia’s state-building process. Active involvement in shaping international peace also reflects and supports the way peace and security agendas are being handled domestically.

A defining moment in 2026

The year 2026 represents a rare convergence of opportunity. Somalia’s simultaneous presence at the AU PSC and UNSC provides a diplomatic platform unmatched in its recent history. This dual role should enable it to act as a bridge between regional and global security frameworks. It can ensure that Somalia’s security priorities are reflected in the AU decision, and forwardly, that African priorities are reflected in global resolutions. It can also translate international commitments into regional actions that qualify for alignment with local contexts.

This not only affects diplomacy and policy discussions but offers an opportunity to advocate for real change that directly affects the daily lives of Somalis. Such issues may include counterterrorism, stabilisation support, humanitarian access, development financing, climate security, and mechanisms for inclusive politics. By shaping the content and direction of relevant resolutions, Somalia can help align international commitments more closely with national priorities.

A future shaped by participation

With greater influence comes greater responsibility. Membership in these councils demands consistency and adherence to international norms. Somalia is now ready to navigate these complex diplomatic landscapes, balancing national interests with collective global security obligations. And it is now capable of maintaining credibility through constructive engagement, principled positions, and reliable partnerships.

With Somalia now seemingly committed to momentum on these fronts, its growing international stance will become self-reinforcing. Each diplomatic success will strengthen national institutions, which in turn will enhance future influence.

Somalia’s presence at the highest levels of global and regional security governance marks a significant milestone in its long journey towards recovery and stability. It reflects years of diplomatic effort, institutional rebuilding, and gradual restoration of international trust. It also signals a future in which Somalia is increasingly defined not by crisis, but by stability.

For a country that once stood on the margins of global decision-making, this transformation is both historic and hopeful. It signals a shift from isolation to engagement, from being acted upon to helping shape outcomes.

For young Somali generations who grew up hearing that Somalia could not advance, these diplomatic achievements offer a different narrative. They inspire pride, restore confidence, and help rebuild trust in the nation’s future.

That challenge lies ahead. But after a period of turmoil, Somalia is well positioned to meet it, not as a passive observer, but as an active shaper of its own destiny. This is also part of the broader Somalia policy on defence diplomacy, founded on global collaboration and mutual interdependency.

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

Beirut, Lebanon – On April 8, Ahmad Hamdi, 22, was sitting on his couch at home in Beirut’s Tallet el Khayat neighbourhood, hours after Israel had launched more than 100 attacks in under 10 minutes across Lebanon.

Then he heard the “indescribable sound” of a rocket. Ahmad jumped off the couch as the glass in his building shattered around him before more rockets hit.

Clouds of dust obscured the view from his apartment on the fourth floor. When they dispersed, he saw the building directly facing his had been reduced to a pile of rubble.

He looked back at the couch he had been sitting on. At some point between the second and fourth explosion, shards of shrapnel had hit the couch exactly where his chest had been when the first rocket struck.

“When you think of Tallet el Khayat, you feel it is safe and secure,” Ahmad told Al Jazeera. “No one would expect something like that would happen.”

Indiscriminate attacks

April 8 has become known in Lebanon as Black Wednesday. Israel’s attacks on that day killed at least 357 people across the country. Israel claimed it killed 250 Hezbollah operatives. The exact breakdown of civilians and combatants is still not known, but numerous sources looking into the day’s casualties told Al Jazeera that the attacks appeared to be indiscriminate at best and in some cases may have amounted to the direct targeting of civilians. United Nations experts have described Israel’s attacks on April 8 as “indiscriminate”.

“The method in which the attacks happened in the middle of the day with dozens of strikes all at one time without warning and when civilians were present shows recklessness in Israeli military conduct,” Ramzi Kaiss, Lebanon researcher at Human Rights Watch, told Al Jazeera.

On March 2, Israel intensified its war on Lebanon for the second time in under two years. Earlier that day, Hezbollah had responded to near-daily Israeli attacks on Lebanon for the first time since December 2024 in response to the United States and Israel’s assassination of Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Israel also invaded southern Lebanon, where it has gone about systematically destroying towns and villages in what experts – and Israeli officials – said is an effort to create an uninhabitable “buffer zone” along its border.

“Part of [Israel’s] military strategy is to create a buffer zone and no man’s land,” Bassel Doueik, the Lebanon researcher for the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data (ACLED) conflict monitor, told Al Jazeera. “What Israel is doing in southern Lebanon is creating a multilayered buffer zone inside Lebanese territory and that is why they are demolishing houses in towns along the border.”

Israel has not stopped attacking Lebanon since October 2023 and has violated a November 2024 ceasefire more than 10,000 times, according to the UN. Most of its attacks have been in southern Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley in the east.

Doubts about Israel’s claims

Israel conducted 100 air strikes and dropped more than 160 bombs across Lebanon on April 8, according to ACLED.

Israel claimed the attacks targeted Hezbollah headquarters, command-and-control sites, military formations and assets of its air force unit and elite Radwan Force.

Hezbollah discontinued the practice of providing the circumstances of its fighters’ deaths in September 2024. The Lebanese group does conduct some public funerals for fighters killed during the battles in southern Lebanon, but it is difficult to ascertain the exact number of those killed, making it hard to prove or disprove Israel’s claims.

But groups investigating the April 8 attacks said the available information casts doubt on the Israeli narrative. Analysts with ACLED said they are still confirming casualties but early indications showed that only a few victims were known Hezbollah members.

“One hundred one women and children were killed on April 8,” Ghida Frangieh, a Lebanese lawyer and researcher with Legal Agenda, a Beirut-based nonprofit research and advocacy organisation, told Al Jazeera. “For this number of 250 to be correct, it means every man killed must have been a Hezbollah combatant. This is not true as we were able to document several civilian men killed during these attacks.”

Lebanese media reported on a number of those killed by Israel on April 8, including employees of local restaurants, teachers, a poet, journalists, Lebanese soldiers and a member of a Druze-majority political party.

In some cases, Israeli attacks wiped out several members of the same family. Seven members of the Nasreddine family were reportedly killed on April 8 in Hermel in northeastern Lebanon. And three generations of the displaced Hawi family, including three children, were killed in the Jnah neighbourhood bordering Beirut.

Israel ’emboldened to continue’ violations of international law

Even if Hezbollah targets were present at all of the sites struck during the April 8 attacks, researchers said the attacks should still be considered indiscriminate. And while there still may be a discrepancy over the exact numbers of Hezbollah members vs civilians killed, international humanitarian law places the burden of proof on the attacking army.

“International humanitarian law is clear: Armed forces must distinguish at all times between civilians and military objectives,” Reina Wehbi, Amnesty International’s Lebanon campaigner, told Al Jazeera. “Even when there is a legitimate military target and in order to avoid indiscriminate, disproportionate or other unlawful attacks, parties must respect the principle of precaution and do everything feasible to verify that targets are military objectives, to assess the proportionality of attacks and to halt attacks if it becomes apparent they are wrongly directed or disproportionate.”

Over the past two and a half years, Israel has regularly violated the laws of war in Lebanon and in Gaza by indiscriminately attacking civilians, targeting paramedics and journalists, and using white phosphorus. Still, experts said there is little chance Israel will be held accountable.

“For the Israeli military, there is no deterrence to committing violations in Lebanon,” Kaiss of Human Rights Watch said. “After the crimes of humanity against Gaza, countries could have immediately suspended arms sales, the transit of arms through airports, placed targeted sanctions on officials, and the US and others could have suspended arms sales, but none of that happened.”

Kaiss said Lebanon could also give jurisdiction to the International Criminal Court (ICC), of which it is not currently a member, to investigate and prosecute Israel’s crimes in Lebanon. The ICC has already issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.

Attacks on Beirut have temporarily halted since US President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire in Lebanon on April 16. But the war rages on in southern Lebanon with Israel continuing to kill civilians, including rescue workers. Israel and Lebanon have started to engage in direct negotiations despite Hezbollah’s objections in what the Lebanese state hopes will bring an end to Israel’s attacks and occupation of southern Lebanon.

But on the ground, there has been little deterrence or accountability for Israel’s crimes against civilians.

“This hasn’t happened in the last two years, so the Israeli military on the ground feels emboldened to continue,” Kaiss said.