news

Secret Service agent at White House correspondents’ dinner was ‘definitively’ hit by suspect’s bullet, prosecutor says.

Authorities in the United States have said that the suspect accused of attempting to kill President Donald Trump was the one who shot a Secret Service agent at the White House correspondents’ dinner last month.

Officials initially did not provide details on how the agent – who was wearing a bulletproof vest – was injured. On Sunday, US Attorney Jeanine Pirro told CNN that investigators have confirmed that the agent was shot by the alleged gunman, Cole Tomas Allen.

“It is definitively his bullet. He hit at that Secret Service agent. He had every intention to kill him and anyone who got in his way, on his way to killing the president of the United States,” Pirro said.

“This was a premeditated, violent act, calculated to take down the president, and anyone who was in the line of fire.”

She added that a pellet that came from the suspect’s shotgun was “intertwined with the fiber” of the agent’s protective vest.

The determination could lead to additional legal charges against the 31-year-old suspect. It also rules out speculation that the agent may have been struck by so-called “friendly fire”.

The Justice Department announced three charges against Allen last week – attempting to assassinate Trump, the transportation of a firearm across states with intent to commit a felony and the discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence.

A sentence of life in prison faces anyone convicted of attempted assassination.

Last week, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said Allen had travelled via train from his home near Los Angeles to Chicago and then to Washington, DC.

He arrived in the US capital on April 24, the day before the dinner at the Washington Hilton hotel, and checked in.

According to Blanche, during the dinner, Allen approached a security checkpoint on the terrace of the hotel, one level above the ballroom where Trump was.

“He ran through the magnetometer holding a long gun. As he did so, US Secret Service personnel assigned to the checkpoint heard a loud gunshot,” Blanche said.

“One Secret Service officer was shot in the chest, but was wearing a ballistic vest that worked. This heroic officer, who was hit, fired five times at Allen, who was not shot, but fell to the ground and was promptly arrested.”

Officials have said Allen was carrying a shotgun, a semiautomatic pistol and three knives.

The shooting, considered to be the third assassination attempt against Trump since 2024, has shaken US politics. The White House has accused the US president’s Democratic rivals of inspiring political violence with their verbal attacks on the administration.

But Trump himself is known for personal attacks against opponents, and critics have accused him of using the shooting to censor his rivals.

The Department of Energy is seeking millions of dollars for work in part on a new bunker-busting nuclear weapon called the Nuclear Deterrent System-Air-delivered (NDS-A) in its latest budget request. At present, there is only one specialized air-delivered deep-penetrating weapon known to be in America’s nuclear stockpile, the B61-11 gravity bomb, and there have been discussions about a potential successor for decades now.

The Fiscal Year 2027 budget request for the Department of Energy, which was released last month, includes a new line under Weapons Activities for Future Programs. The Department is asking for $99.794 million in the next fiscal cycle to support those efforts.

“The Increase represents the start of one new Phase 6.X program, currently known as Phase 1 Nuclear Deterrent System-Air-delivered (NDS-A), as well as supporting production assessments for two new Rapid Capability Team (RCT) projects,” according to a public summary of what the Future Program funding would support.

The Department of Energy, in cooperation with the U.S. military, develops, produces, and sustains nuclear weapons, and uses a multi-phase rubric to categorize where they are in their respective life cycles. The Phase 6.X process is itself broken into several stages, spanning all the way from the definition of the basic concept of a weapon and its requirements through to full-scale production.

Where the NDS-A may already be in the process is unknown, but the mention of “Phase 1” here could point to Phase 6.1, which is the basic concept assessment stage. Beyond that it will be air-delivered, there are also no details currently available publicly about the weapon’s design, including whether it will be based on something already in the stockpile. It is also not known if it will be an unpowered bomb or a missile/rocket-assisted weapon of some kind. We will come back to this point later on.

“The Nuclear Deterrent System-Air-delivered will provide the President with additional nuclear options to defeat Hard and Deeply Buried Targets, ensuring that adversaries cannot place their most valued assets beyond the reach of America’s nuclear forces,” a spokesperson for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) told TWZ when asked for more information. “The program is moving aggressively, and further information will become publicly available when it is strategically beneficial to the United States.”

Within the Department of Energy, NNSA is specifically responsible for nuclear weapons-related activities.

As noted, at present, the B61-11 is the only air-delivered nuclear weapon in the U.S. stockpile today that is specifically designed to address this target set. The B61-11 is based on the earlier B61-7, but is substantially different in form and function. It has a heavily reinforced outer shell, possibly with a depleted uranium penetrating nose section, and a rocket booster at the rear to help it penetrate down into underground facilities. Sources differ on the maximum yield of the B61-11, but it is said to either be between 340 and 360 kilotons (identical to that of the B61-7) or to be closer to 400 kilotons. There are also reportedly fewer than 100 of these bombs in the stockpile.

You can learn more about the entire B61 family, the first versions of which entered service in the 1960s, here.

For a time, the newer B61-12 variant, which has a precision guidance package in a new tail kit, was considered as a potential successor to the B61-11. The B61-12 is also a dial-a-yield design with multiple yield settings, but the highest one is reportedly 50 kilotons. The logic was that improved accuracy would allow for more precise placement of the bomb, and, by extension, of its explosive force. This, in turn, would make up for its lack of deep-penetrating capability and more limited yield. The plan to supplant the B61-11 with the B61-12 was subsequently abandoned.

B61-12 Flight Test with F35-A Lightning II

More recently, a more powerful B61-13 variant, which features the same precision guidance tail kit as the B61-12, was developed explicitly to provide “the President with additional options against certain harder and large-area military targets.” This version is understood to have a maximum yield in line with the B61-7. However, the U.S. government has also previously said that the B61-13 is not intended as a direct replacement for the B61-11, according to the Federation of American Scientists (FAS).

The U.S. military also has B83-1 nuclear gravity bombs in the stockpile, which are of a completely different design from the B61 series and have a far more powerful megaton-class maximum yield. By virtue of that high yield, the B83-1 is also intended to be used against certain deeply buried and otherwise hardened facilities, as well as large-area targets.

In the early 2000s, NNSA, in cooperation with the U.S. Air Force, did explore the possibility of developing a B61-11-like bomb on the basis of the B83-1, as well as a new deep-penetrating version of the B61 itself. In 2005, Congress brought a halt to work on what was dubbed the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP).

There have been hints since then, however, about possible revivals of the RNEP concept and/or other plans for a true successor to the B61-11.

What may be prompting the requirement for the NDS-A now is unknown. There are deeply-buried targets only a nuclear weapon can realistically destroy. The development of the B61-11 is understood to have been prompted heavily by one such facility in particular, Russia’s Kosvinsky Kamen bunker. Kosvinsky Kamen is a key node in the Russian nuclear command and control enterprise and was built under a mountain of the same name in the northern Urals. The nature of its location and design also means it could serve as a so-called “continuity of government” site for senior leadership to operate from before or after a nuclear strike or in response to some other major emergency.

However, the landscape of deeply-buried, hardened facilities that U.S. authorities would be interested in holding at risk has grown substantially in the past two decades since work, at least publicly, on RNEP came to an end.

The Russian and Chinese governments have been expanding on their already significant arrays of subterranean facilities. In China, this includes the construction of vast fields of new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) silos, as well as work on a new underground command center outside of the capital, Beijing, just in recent years.

Other, smaller countries, like North Korea and Iran, have been investing in new underground and other hardened facilities, as well. This has been driven in many cases by concerns about the prospect of conventional strikes carried out by the U.S. military and others.

In the past year, the matter of Iran’s deeply buried nuclear facilities, and the limits of U.S. conventional options for prosecuting those targets, has been an especially hot-button issue. During Operation Midnight Hammer in June 2025, U.S. B-2 bombers struck Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow and Natanz with 30,000-pound-class GBU-57/B conventional bunker buster bombs. The outcome of that operation remains a subject of heated debate and is deeply intertwined with the justifications for U.S. and Israeli forces launching the latest campaign against Iran in February. U.S. officials are now at a crossroads with how to proceed with operations targeting Iran, which has now turned to a maritime blockade, at least for the time being, following the announcement of a ceasefire in April.

The video below is a montage of imagery from GBU-57/B MOP tests over the years.

GBU-57 MOP test

Broader concerns about just getting the B61-11 to its intended target in the future may also be a factor driving plans now for the new NDS-A nuclear bunker buster. Unpowered bunker buster bombs, nuclear or conventional, need to be released relatively close to their targets. The kinds of facilities that the B61-11 is intended to be employed against are deep inside hostile territory, behind layers of integrated air defenses. Major potential adversaries, as well as smaller nation states and even non-state actors, are only expected to expand the scale and scope of their defensive architectures in the coming years. With all this in mind, it is not surprising that the more survivable B-2 is currently the only platform certified to employ the B61-11, as well as the conventional MOP. It is more or less a given that both of those weapons will be integrated onto the forthcoming B-21 Raider for the same general reasons.

That being said, as TWZ regularly highlights, stealth aircraft are not invisible or invulnerable. This reality is part of the argument for the planned integration of the new nuclear-tipped AGM-181 Long Range Stand Off (LRSO) air-launched cruise missile onto the B-21, as well as the venerable and non-stealthy B-52. LRSO will also just extend the B-21’s reach, with that aircraft already expected to be an extremely long-range platform. This all raises the possibility of the NDS-A being a powered design offering some degree of standoff capability.

As an aside here, powered designs have also been part of the discussions about potential conventional successors to the MOP. A follow-on to the GBU-57/B, the Next Generation Penetrator (NGP), is now in development, but it is unclear whether or not that will be a powered weapon. Still, when it comes to the NDS-A, it seems more likely that it will be a traditional bomb that adapts elements of existing designs, including the B61-11, -12, and -13.

Whether or not the NDS-A effort reaches fruition also remains to be seen. The previous RNEP effort prompted significant criticism, including from members of Congress, in part because of concerns about what steps it might prompt other countries to take in response. At the same time, there has been a change in tenor in U.S. nuclear policy in recent years, driven by other global developments, especially efforts by the Chinese to rapidly and substantially expand their stockpile.

There is also a question of affordability. The U.S. military is already in the midst of a major modernization push across all three legs of America’s nuclear deterrence triad that is set to cost hundreds of billions of dollars in the coming decades. This could impact support for funding another ‘new’ nuclear weapon, even if it is derived from an existing design.

More definitely remains to be learned about the NDS-A program and the design of that weapon. What is clear is that the Department of Energy is requesting funding to kick off at least the initial development of a new air-delivered nuclear bunker buster that could succeed the B61-11.

UPDATE: 5:27 PM EST –

It has been brought to our attention that some additional details about the NDS-A effort have been tucked away in U.S. budget requests in recent years.

In its Fiscal Year 2025 budget, the Air Force asked for, and ultimately received just over $39 million for work on NDS-A, but under a budget line titled “Hard and Deeply Buried Target Defeat System (HDBTDS) Prototyping.”

“The Air-delivered Nuclear Delivery System (NDS-A) is a new start project to address a capability gap identified in the 2022 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). A congressionally directed study based on the NPR led to endorsement of the Deputy’s Management Action Group (DMAG) and initiation of this project,” according to the 2025 Fiscal Year budget documents. “The Air Force will work with the Department of Energy’s (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and its National Laboratories to develop a prototype NDS-A system to demonstrate the capability to close this gap in the near term.”

“Early development will include Model and Simulation (M&S) analysis of several nuclear explosive package (NEP) options to refine the proposed NEP,” the budget documents add. “Ground tests may include wind tunnel, static ejection, vibration and thermal, cable pull-down, and sled tests. Flight tests will be performed by USAF F-15E developmental flight test aircraft, with final prototype demonstrations flown on B-2 aircraft.”

The video below shows flight testing of the B61-12 using a U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagle.

B61-12 full-weapon system demonstration at Tonopah Test Range

In the Air Force’s proposed 2026 Fiscal Year budget, the line item was renamed “Nuclear Delivery Systems Prototyping,” but references to NDS-A by name were also omitted. A nearly $18 million year-over-year increase in requested funding (from roughly $39 million to almost $57 million) was attributed “to greater emphasis on prototype design after completion of Modeling and Simulation of mission effectiveness of design space options; increased procurement and development of components; the initiation of subsystem and test unit assembly; and the initiation of ground tests of the Prototype Weapon Assemblies.”

The Fiscal Year 2025 and 2026 budget documents do not provide any details about the design of the weapon or say what aircraft it will be integrated onto operationally.

More details about the current state of the Air Force side of this program are likely contained in the service’s 2027 Fiscal Year budget request documents. However, at the time of writing this update, they are inaccessible online.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

The pope urged the rememberance of journalists who lost their lives pursuing the truth, particularly in conflict areas.

Pope Leo has marked World Press Freedom Day ⁠by condemning ⁠violations of media freedom around the world and paying tribute to journalists killed while reporting in ⁠conflict zones.

At the end of his weekly Sunday prayer in a sunny Saint Peter’s Square at the Vatican, the pontiff ⁠said the day highlighted both the importance of independent journalism and the growing threats faced by reporters.

“Today we celebrate World Press Freedom Day … unfortunately, this right is often violated, sometimes in blatant ‌ways, sometimes in more hidden forms,” he said.

World Press Freedom Day, ⁠sponsored by the UN cultural agency UNESCO is intended to show support for media organisations that come under ⁠pressure or censorship. It is also an opportunity to commemorate journalists who have been killed at work.

The Roman Catholic leader urged the faithful to remember journalists and reporters who have lost their lives pursuing the truth, particularly in conflict areas.

“We remember the many journalists and reporters who have been victims of war and violence,” ⁠the pope said.

A report last month by the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs’ Costs of War project found that Israel’s war on Gaza was the deadliest conflict for media workers ever recorded, with Israeli forces having killed 232 Palestinian journalists since October 2023.

More journalists have been killed in Gaza than in both world wars, the Vietnam War, the wars in Yugoslavia, and the United States war in Afghanistan combined, the report found.

In past speeches, the ⁠leader of the Catholic Church has described journalism as a pillar of society and democracy, and information as a public good that must be safeguarded ‌and defended.

The pontiff has often thanked reporters for sharing the truth, saying that doing their job could never be ‌considered ‌a crime, and frequently calling for the release of journalists who have been unfairly detained or prosecuted.

Last week, the leading Paris-based press freedom NGO, Reporters Sans Frontières (RSF), or Reporters Without Borders, found that freedom of the press around the world has fallen to its lowest level in a quarter of a century.

For the first time since RSF started producing the index in 2002, it said more than half of the world’s countries fall into the “difficult” or “very serious” categories for press freedom – “a clear sign that journalism is increasingly criminalised worldwide”.

Tickets for the cohosts’ opening game in Los Angeles are available for prices ranging between $1,120 and $6,050.

With under 40 days to go until the World Cup, tournament organisers continue to struggle with ticket sales as seats remain available for most group-stage games, albeit at exorbitant prices.

Home fans can find tickets for tournament cohost United States’ (USA) opener against Paraguay, with prices starting at $1,120 and going as high as $4,105, with many tickets priced around $2,000 for the June 12 match in Los Angeles. Seats in the hospitality package groupings go as high as $6,050 per seat.

Tickets are still available on FIFA’s official website through its “last-minute sales” section.

Football fans are already outraged by exorbitant match prices — the most expensive ticket for the final costs nearly $11,000 — since the first phase of ticket sales in December. Late last month, FIFA announced yet another “last-minute ticket phase” with tickets for all 104 matches available on a first-come, first-served basis.

The stagnant sales contradict FIFA President Gianni Infantino’s assertion in January that demand for tickets for this year’s tournament in the US, Canada and Mexico would be the equivalent of “1,000 years of World Cups at once”.

Experts attribute dynamic pricing and greed as key factors, with fans saying they have been “priced out” by FIFA.

While many in the US are accustomed to the pricing model commonly adopted at the Super Bowl, fans from around the world are not used to dynamic pricing and legal profiting from ticket resales, sports executive Peter Moore told Al Jazeera in a recent interview.

“FIFA taking a 30 percent cut of dynamic pricing is outrageous,” the former Liverpool chief executive said.

“FIFA is taking advantage of the unique commercial opportunities in the US, dynamic pricing and the secondary market being legal here, to make money. Infantino has said [he expects] FIFA revenues from the World Cup to exceed] $11bn. Why not make it more reasonable and accessible and make, maybe, $8bn?”

Last month, four seats for the World Cup final were listed at just under $2m each on FIFA’s official resale site.

A total of seven group-stage games still have general sale tickets available for $380, including Austria vs Jordan, New Zealand vs Egypt, Jordan vs Algeria, Cape Verde vs Saudi Arabia, Algeria vs Austria, Congo DR vs Uzbekistan and Curacao vs Ivory Coast.

The USA vs Paraguay opener is the most expensive group game, followed by Argentina vs Austria ($2,925), Ecuador vs Germany ($2,550), Uruguay vs Spain ($2,520) and England vs Croatia ($2,505).

According to FIFA’s website, a total of 17 group-stage games are sold out, including the tournament opener between Mexico and South Africa in Mexico City on June 11.

Seven games staged in Mexico are sold out, including the cohosts’ two other matches against South Korea in Guadalajara and the Czech Republic in Mexico City.

Turkiye vs USA in Los Angeles, Brazil vs Morocco in New York/New Jersey and Scotland vs Brazil in Miami are among other sold-out games.

Spirit Airlines, a budget carrier in the United States, has begun winding down operations, cancelling all flights, after talks with the Trump administration to secure a $500m bailout failed. Experts say a spike in aviation fuel prices from the US-Israel war on Iran dealt the final blow to the struggling airline that pioneered the ultralow-cost carrier model.

The airline’s shutdown after 34 years has left some 17,000 staff members unemployed, many passengers stranded, and raised doubts about the future of budget air travel.

How did Spirit Airlines reach this point? Did the US-Israel war on Iran deliver the final blow?

Here’s what we know:

What has Spirit Airlines said?

On Saturday, Spirit Aviation Holdings, the airline’s parent company, said the company had started to wind down operations.

“Spirit Aviation Holdings, Inc … today regretfully announced that the Company has started an orderly wind-down of operations, effective immediately. All Spirit flights have been cancelled, and Spirit Guests should not go to the airport,” the company said in a statement on Saturday.

The statement added that, despite its efforts, “the recent material increase in oil prices and other pressures on the business have significantly impacted Spirit’s financial outlook”.

Spirit Airlines, whose airfares were lower compared with other US airlines, had 4,119 domestic flights scheduled between May 1 and May 15, offering 809,638 seats, according to the latest data from Cirium, an aviation analytics firm.

The carrier’s parent firm started as a long-haul trucking company in 1964. It shifted to aviation around 1983. The carrier rebranded from Charter One Airlines to Spirit in 1992.

How did Spirit Airlines reach this point?

The airline had been struggling financially for years and had filed for bankruptcy twice – in November 2024 and then in August 2025 – due to continued losses, high debt, and intense competition from other airlines.

According to a May 2 report by the Reuters news agency, Spirit had recently reached a deal with its lenders that would have helped it emerge from its second bankruptcy by late spring or early summer.

But the war on Iran, which led to a significant increase in aviation turbine fuel (ATF) prices, added to Spirit’s financial struggles and complicated its bankruptcy exit.

Spirit’s restructuring plan assumed ATF costs of about $2.24 a gallon in 2026 and $2.14 in 2027, but prices had climbed to about $4.51 a gallon by the end of April, leaving the carrier unable to survive without new financing.

A Spirit board meeting ended without an agreement to rescue the company, a person close to the discussions told Reuters late on Friday.

US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy told Reuters he tried to get many airlines to buy Spirit but found no takers. “What would someone buy?” Duffy asked. “If no one else wants to buy them, why would we buy them?”

US President Donald Trump also said he had tried to bail out the airline with a $500m financing package.

“If we can help them, we will, but we have to come first,” Trump told reporters. “If we could do it, we’d do it, but only if it’s a good deal.”

However, a creditor close to the deal told Reuters, “The Trump administration made an extraordinary effort to try and save Spirit, but you can’t breathe life into a corpse. Given that, the company should make its intentions clear for the sake of its customers and employees.”

Anita Mendiratta, special adviser to the UN Tourism secretary-general, noted that while war and geopolitical instability may not have caused Spirit’s collapse, they likely delivered the final blow.

“Surging fuel costs exposed the vulnerability of airlines operating on thin margins with little room for shock absorption,” she told Al Jazeera.

“Spirit’s weaknesses were already there – it had already gone through two bankruptcy filings in the two years prior; global instability simply accelerated the inevitable. In today’s aviation market, volatility is no longer an exception; it is the operating environment,” Mendiratta said.

Are other airlines also under pressure due to the Iran war?

The war on Iran has disrupted global oil and gas prices, with Brent crude rising above $111 a barrel on Friday. The high crude oil prices have also caused ATF prices to rise, affecting budget airlines badly.

Across the globe, airlines have been increasing prices to reflect the high ATF prices, and some have also reduced their flight operations.

German airline Lufthansa said last month it cancelled 20,000 flights in a bid to protect itself from the soaring ATF costs.

On Friday, leading Indian carrier Air India said it has increased fuel surcharges on all flights, adding that it will reduce 100 flights a day across its domestic and international routes.

Mendiratta noted that the aviation industry is on alert as airlines carrying high debt, facing fuel cost volatility, labour cost pressures, fleet constraints, and sustained pricing pressure remain exposed [to the war], especially those operating through a low-cost carrier model.

“What happens next is a defining test of aviation leadership. The rapid response from rival airlines to protect stranded passengers reflects an industry that understands its most valuable asset is not aircraft or market share, it is customer trust [both traveller and cargo],” she said.

“Just as importantly, how airlines support displaced employees, reassure markets, and reinforce operational stability will shape confidence in the sector’s long-term recovery,” she added.

In recent years, the evolution of women in Saudi Arabia has become one of the most scrutinized aspects of the kingdom’s reforms of recent times. These reforms have frequently served as proof of a broader transformation under Vision 2030, an ambitious pathway designed to modernize Saudi Arabia and decrease its reliance on oil revenues. However, behind these apparent advancements arises an intricate question: are these reforms a genuine move towards social emancipation or primarily a tactical element of state-led goals of economic diversification, modernization, and enhancing global reputation?

In 2016, Saudi Arabia introduced Vision 2030, launched and guided by King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud and Muhammad bin Salman as a comprehensive and holistic strategy aimed to reform the country’s future. This initiative leverages the Kingdom’s strengths, including its pivotal role in the Arab and Islamic world, robust investment capabilities, and advantageous strategic position. The goal is to establish Saudi Arabia as a global leader while improving quality of life and broadening growth opportunities for citizens. At its essence, Vision 2030 seeks to reposition Saudi Arabia in the global economy by diversifying the non-oil sectors, drawing in foreign investment, and cultivating a dynamic workforce.

The women’s research compendium has gained significant attention from the government in alignment with the kingdom’s Vision 2030 and its associated programs. Consequently, relevant authorities, including the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Development, have allocated one of the visions’ goals to improve the public and private lives of Saudi women. From this perspective, the progress of Saudi women towards empowerment has condensed. This perspective of ministry is facilitated by numerous policies, legislations, and regulations that bolster the female’s status in society. In this context, women have become a pivotal component of reform. Enhancing female participation in the labor force is not just a social aspiration but also an economic imperative. By incorporating women into sectors like tourism, mass markets, and technology, the government intends to harness previously underutilized human capacity and accelerate economic growth. Hence, women’s empowerment is intricately aligned with the national development goals. It is important to acknowledge the considerable progress the country has made so far, such as the removal of the driving ban; increased employment; and enhanced public representation signify substantial changes in the everyday life of numerous women in Saudi Arabia.

Comparatively, these reforms demonstrate a prominent departure from more prudent norms of Saudi society and have formed new avenues for both personal and professional initiatives. Recognizing these developments is important for sustaining a fair and substantiated analysis. However, a deeper evaluation reveals that this empowerment is closely associated with the economic strategy and development. The consolidation of women in the workforce is consistently presented not just as a matter of rights but as a roadmap to enhance productivity and to boost the country’s GDP. This realistic perspective implies that empowerment is being pursued not just as a fundamental social objective but as a calculated countermove to fulfill economic demands. In this context, women are viewed not just as citizens, but also as economic assets that are essential to the success of Vision 2030.

In addition to the economic considerations, these reforms significantly contribute to the international image of Saudi Arabia. As the kingdom aims to enhance foreign investment and establish itself as a contemporary progressive nation, the advancement of women’s rights acts as a strong emblem of transformation. These developments are visible as a form of strategic liberalization, a deliberate opening intended to synchronize domestic policies with the international standards. Within this framework, women’s empowerment is integrated into a broader soft power strategy, boosting nations’ appealing image on the world stage. However, this transformation is still being meticulously overseen. Although new liberties have been introduced, they operate within a well-defined structure and are regulated by the state. The pace and scope of these structural initiatives are not propelled by grassroots institutions but are instead orchestrated by the governing bodies. This top-down approach limits the acceleration of the independent voices and limits the growth of a more autonomous civil society. Consequently, empowerment is allocated rather than asserted, therefore prompting the queries regarding its substantive nature and sustainability.

Therefore, this dynamic creates a striking paradox: “advancement without complete autonomy.” Currently, Saudi women experience enhanced mobility and visible participation in public life, but their capacity to independently shape the trajectory of reform is still constrained. The expansion of opportunities has not been accompanied by a similar increase in agency. This conflict highlights an important question: can empowerment truly exist in the absence of independent expression and participation in decision-making processes? However, the future prediction denotes that the sustainability of these reforms depends on their ability to progress beyond their strategic foundations. Women’s empowerment continues to be closely linked to economic and image-building objectives of the state; it risks being susceptible to shifts in governmental priorities and policies. On the other hand, lasting transformation necessitates more profound structural alterations that are way beyond mere participation to encompass genuine agency and proper representation.

In this context, the transformations unfolding under Vision 2030 are the embodiment of both advancement and limitation. They indicate a notable departure from the previous practices and traditional norms while also underscoring the constraints of government-driven modernization. Ultimately, the issue is not if change will lead to enduring empowerment, for true empowerment is not just about participation in the workforce or recognition in public spheres; it is about having the capacity to influence one’s own future. This aspect remains the most vital and a pending dimension of Saudi Arabia’s evolution.

In conclusion, the trajectory of advancing gender diversity as articulated in Vision 2030 demonstrates both meaningful advancements and fundamental structural limitations. Although reforms have undeniably broadened strategic growth indicators and transformed the social norms, they’re still closely intertwined with economic needs and strategic initiatives for international status. This top-down model of reform prompts essential inquiries regarding the depth, independence, and long-term durability of women’s empowerment. For Saudi Arabia, the operating complexities will be whether these transformations can progress beyond mere instrumental milestones to cultivate true agency and representation. Only then can women’s empowerment shift from being a facet of national strategy to a lasting anchoring principle of societal advancement.

Iran has offered a new 14-point proposal to the United States in the latest diplomatic step to reach a permanent end to the war, which has exposed the limits of US military dominance and shaken the global economy.

Responding to the new proposal on Saturday, US President Donald Trump said he is studying it but is not sure he can make a deal with Iran, a day after he voiced frustration with a previous offer from Tehran through the mediator Pakistan.

Late on Thursday, Tehran sent the proposal to Pakistan, which got the two sides to agree on the ceasefire. According to the Iranian Tasnim news agency, the 14-point plan was formulated in response to a nine-point US plan.

But weeks since the ceasefire began on April 8, Washington and Tehran have been unable to negotiate a peace deal. Tehran wants a permanent end to the war, while Trump has insisted that Iran first end the effective blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of global oil and gas exports pass. The US president has also made the issue of Iran’s nuclear capability a “red line”.

Iran’s de facto blockade of the strait came in response to the US and Israel launching attacks on the country on February 28. A naval blockade of Iranian ports by the Trump administration, despite the ceasefire deal, has heightened tensions.

The US and Iran have also been continuing to attack, capture, and intercept each other’s ships, pointing to an ongoing naval war still playing out in the Strait of Hormuz.

So what’s the new proposal, and will President Trump accept it?

Here’s what we know:

What is Iran’s 14-point proposal to end the war?

According to Iranian media reports, Tehran’s new proposal came in response to a Washington-backed nine-point peace proposal, which primarily sought a two-month ceasefire.

However, in its latest peace proposal, Iran said it wants to focus on ending the war instead of extending the truce and wants all issues resolved within 30 days.

The new proposal calls for guarantees against future attacks, a withdrawal of US forces from around Iran, the release of frozen Iranian assets worth billions of dollars and the lifting of sanctions, war reparations, ending all hostilities, including in Lebanon, and “a new mechanism for the Strait of Hormuz”.

Iran, which was also attacked by the US and Israel last June, wants a guarantee against future aggression. Israel has previously targeted Iranian nuclear scientists and run campaigns to sabotage its nuclear sites.

Tehran also wants its right to uranium enrichment guaranteed as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), but Trump has made the nuclear issue a “red line”. Iran wants decades of sanctions, which have devastated its economy, to be lifted as part of any deal. The navigation through the strait and demands for war reparations are other sticking points in the talks.

According to a report by Iranian state broadcaster IRIB, after delivering the proposal, Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said, “Now the ball is in the United States’ court to choose the path of diplomacy or the continuation of a confrontational approach.”

Paul Musgrave, an associate professor of government at Georgetown University in Qatar, said Iran has “slightly softened” its proposal.

“The news reports on it indicate that there is a slight softening in the proposal, or rather a run-up to discussing the proposal, namely that the Iranian side may have given up its precondition that the US cease its distant blockade of Iranian traffic [in the Strait of Hormuz],” he told Al Jazeera.

“Beyond that, though, a lot of the things that are reportedly in the proposal include maintaining Iran’s sovereign ability to enrich uranium, its nuclear programme and, of course, what it delicately refers to as a ‘control mechanism’ over shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.”

Musgrave said on the two biggest issues – enrichment of uranium and transferring its highly enriched uranium – the US and Iran remain “far apart”.

“President Trump has been unyielding that Iran must surrender its nuclear capability,” he said.

Kenneth Katzman, a senior fellow at New York-based nonprofit Soufan Center, said Iran’s mistrust of Trump remains a bigger obstacle.

“The differences on the nuclear issues are actually … not that great a difference any more. It’s still substantial, but can be narrowed. The issue is that Iran really mistrusts Trump and the United States and does not want to move, really, into full discussion until this blockade is lifted,” he said.

“That’s a problem that could lead to US escalation. As Trump knows, he must break this Iranian control of the strait, so that’s where the issue is.”

Katzman said while both sides are “frustrated”, neither is likely to give up on the negotiations in the immediate future.

How did the US respond?

Trump has said he is reviewing Iran’s proposal, but warned that Washington could resume attacks if Tehran “misbehaves”.

Speaking to reporters in Florida before boarding Air Force One on Saturday, Trump confirmed that he had been briefed on the “concept of the deal”.

Despite the diplomatic opening, the president struck a characteristically blunt tone regarding the possibility of renewed hostilities, which have been paused since the ceasefire.

“If they do something bad, there is a possibility it could happen,” Trump said when asked if strikes would resume.

Trump added that the US was “doing very well” and claimed that Iran was desperate for a settlement because the country had been “decimated” by months of conflict and a naval blockade.

Trita Parsi from the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft told Al Jazeera the economic cost of the blockade on Iranian ports has exceeded what the White House anticipated and argued that the broader strategic damage to the US was probably more significant.

“Iran has been under all kinds of economic pressure and sanctions for 47 years,” Parsi told Al Jazeera. “None of them has managed to break the Iranians or force them to capitulate,” he said.

In a post on Truth Social later on Saturday, Trump said it was difficult to imagine that the Iranian proposal would be acceptable as Tehran had “not yet paid a big enough price for what they have done to Humanity, and the World, over the last 47 years”.

Trump seems to have rejected the new Iranian proposal “without reading it or being briefed on it”, according to Musgrave from Georgetown University.

What are the previous peace proposals to end the conflict?

Iran’s latest proposal comes amid a fragile three-week truce that came into effect on April 8 and has put a pause on the US-Israel war on Iran.

A day before the ceasefire, Iran had proposed a 10-point peace plan, which included an end to conflicts in the region, a protocol for safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz, the lifting of sanctions and reconstruction, state-run news agency IRNA reported.

Trump had said Iran’s 10-point plan was a “significant proposal” but “not good enough”.

The April 7 proposal from Iran came in response to a 15-point plan drafted by the US on March 25.

Washington’s plan included a one-month ceasefire while the two sides negotiated terms to end the war, via Pakistan.

According to Israel’s Channel 12, it also included the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear facilities in Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow, a permanent commitment from Iran to never develop nuclear weapons, the handover of Iran’s stockpile of already enriched uranium to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a commitment from Iran to allow the United Nations watchdog to monitor all elements of the country’s remaining nuclear infrastructure, reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and end of all sanctions on Iran, alongside the ending of the UN mechanism that allows sanctions to be reimposed.

Iran, however, rejected this plan and said a temporary ceasefire would give the US and Israel time to regroup and launch further attacks and in turn proposed its 10-point plan.

What is the situation on the ground now?

Despite a ceasefire, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said on Saturday that it remains on “full standby” for a return to hostilities, citing the US’s lack of commitment to previous treaties.

In a post on X on Sunday, the IRGC’s intelligence unit said, “There is only one way to read this: Trump must choose between an impossible military operation or a bad deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran. The room for US decision-making has narrowed.”

The impasse is further complicated by technical obstacles to reopening the Strait of Hormuz, including the presence of Iranian sea mines. Tehran has closed the strait since the war began on February 28, upending global oil and gas prices.

To pressure Iran to open the strait, the US imposed a blockade of all Iranian ports on April 13, stoking the oil and gas crisis. On Friday, Brent crude, the international benchmark, was at $111.29 per barrel at 08:08 GMT, compared with about $65 before the war.

Tensions have been further stoked by Trump’s recent characterisation of the US naval blockade as a “very profitable business”.

“We took over the cargo. Took over the oil, a very profitable business. Who would have thought, we’re sort of like pirates, but we’re not playing games,” Trump said at an event in the US state of Florida on Saturday.

Tehran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs seized on the remarks, labelling them a “damning admission of piracy”.

Parsi from the Quincy Institute told Al Jazeera the US naval blockade of Iran has backfired on Trump and is making the situation worse.

“The negotiations were taking place and could have continued regardless of the blockade,” he said.

“The blockade has nothing to do with the Iranians being at the table. If anything, it is blocking diplomatic progress more than anything else,” Parsi noted.

He argued that Trump had actually secured his greatest advantage through diplomacy before the blockade was imposed.

“Once he managed to get the ceasefire, the primary pressure on him, the war itself and the way it was pushing up gas prices, was lifted. Had he stayed in that scenario and used time to his advantage, he would have been in a much stronger position vis-a-vis the Iranians, because the Iranians had not managed to get the key thing they wanted: sanctions relief.”

Instead, by imposing the blockade, Trump took more oil off the market.

“Oil prices are now higher during the ceasefire than they were during the war itself. All of these economic indicators show that the blockade is making the situation worse for Trump,” Parsi said.

However, Trump has been looking at options to resolve the oil crisis, including setting up a naval coalition called the Maritime Freedom Construct (MFC) to restore freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.

According to US media reports, core functions of the naval coalition would be to share intelligence among member nations, coordinate diplomatic efforts, and enforce sanctions to manage shipping traffic through the strait.

The Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway once carrying roughly a fifth of the world’s oil and gas, remains effectively closed after the United States and Iran imposed competing blockades.

Naval blockades are one of the oldest weapons in warfare, requiring no ground troops or invasion, just the ability to cut off what an enemy needs to survive. These blockades have reshaped economies, societies and alliances across generations, sometimes with instant shockwaves, sometimes with effects only seen later.

From Israel’s ongoing siege of the Gaza Strip to blockades during World War I, here are some notable naval blockades in modern history:

Israel’s siege of Gaza (2007-present)

Israel’s complete land, sea and air blockade of the Gaza Strip is one of the longest sieges in modern history.

Launched in 2007, Israel has limited the entry of goods and essential supplies, causing a prolonged humanitarian and economic crisis for the Strip’s 2.3 million people, who cannot travel freely.

Before Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza began in October 2023, fishermen were restricted to 6-15 nautical miles (11-28km) from shore, well below the 20-nautical-mile (37km) zone guaranteed by the Oslo Accords.

After 2023, with Israel’s policy of starving the population, fishermen have taken extreme measures to feed their families, leading to many being killed by Israeli fire.

Since 2008, several Freedom Flotilla vessels have attempted to break the Israeli blockade. Since 2010, all flotillas attempting to break the Gaza blockade have been intercepted or attacked by Israel in international waters.

On April 30, Israel raided 22 out of the 58 vessels in the most recent Global Sumud Flotilla campaign in international waters more than 1,000km (620 miles) from Gaza.

Blockade of Biafra (1967-70)

During the Nigerian Civil War, which began in July 1967, the Nigerian federal government imposed a land, sea and air blockade on the secessionist Republic of Biafra shortly after it declared independence.

The blockade led to widespread starvation, widely seen as a deliberate wartime strategy, transforming a territorial conflict into a global humanitarian crisis. Death tolls vary, but it is estimated that one to two million people died, the vast majority from hunger and disease rather than direct conflict.

The nearly three-year-long blockade ended with the Biafran surrender in January 1970.

Beira Patrol blockade (1966-75):

The Beira Patrol was a nine-year-long blockade by the British navy to prevent oil from reaching Rhodesia, present-day Zimbabwe, through the Mozambican port of Beira, enforced under United Nations sanctions following Rhodesia’s unilateral declaration of independence.

The blockade largely failed its strategic goal. Rhodesia continued receiving oil via South Africa and other Mozambican ports, which the UN resolution did not authorise the British navy to intercept.

Additionally, the cost to the United Kingdom was substantial. The operation tied up 76 naval ships over nine years, with two frigates required on station at all times.

The blockade ended in July 1975, when Mozambique’s newly gained independence from Portugal allowed it to credibly commit to blocking oil transit to Rhodesia, rendering the naval patrol redundant.

Cuban Missile Crisis ‘quarantine’ (1962)

In October 1962, the US ordered a naval “quarantine” of Cuba after US U-2 spy planes discovered Soviet nuclear missile sites under construction on the island.

The US deliberately called it a “quarantine” rather than a blockade, which would have been legally an act of war, aiming to prevent the Soviets from bringing in more military supplies and to pressure them to remove the missiles already there.

The quarantine drew a line 500 nautical miles (920km) from Cuba’s coast, with US warships authorised to stop, search, and turn back any vessel carrying offensive weapons if necessary.

The crisis brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. The then-Soviet First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev called the blockade “outright piracy” and an act of aggression, and initially ordered ships to proceed. For several days, Soviet vessels steamed towards the quarantine line as the world watched.

The most dangerous phase of the standoff lasted 13 days. An agreement was reached in which the Soviets would dismantle their offensive weapons in Cuba in exchange for a US public declaration not to invade Cuba, and a secret agreement to remove US Jupiter missiles from Turkiye.

The naval quarantine was formally ended on November 20, 1962, after all offensive missiles and bombers had been withdrawn.

Blockade of Wonsan (1951-53)

During the Korean War, UN naval forces led by the US imposed a blockade of the North Korean port of Wonsan in February 1951, lasting nearly two and a half years.

It aimed to deny the North Korean navy access to the city, which was strategically significant for its large harbour, airfield and petroleum refinery.

The blockade was preceded by a dangerous mine-clearance operation in October 1950. North Korean forces had been well supplied by the Soviet Union and China with sea mines, and during the clearance, the sweepers USS Pledge and USS Pirate were sunk, killing 12 men and wounding dozens.

The operation successfully constrained North Korean and Chinese forces on the east coast, forcing them to divert thousands of troops and artillery pieces away from the front line. UN forces also captured several harbour islands, which strengthened the blockade’s grip on the port.

The blockade ended after 861 days with the signing of the Korean Armistice Agreement in July 1953. By that point, allied naval fire had almost levelled Wonsan.

US submarine blockade of Japan (1942-45)

The US imposed a submarine blockade against Japan during the Pacific War.

The blockade began taking shape in 1942, combining US naval submarine attacks on merchant shipping with minelaying operations to cripple Japan’s war capabilities, disrupt shipping and cut off vital supplies such as food and fuel.

As an island nation, Japan was especially vulnerable, almost entirely dependent on imports of oil, rubber and raw materials. Its economy and military could not function without open sea lanes.

Over the course of the war, US submarines sank some 1,300 Japanese merchant ships and roughly 200 warships. By 1945, oil imports had effectively ceased.

Food imports collapsed, causing significant shortages and malnutrition across Japan by 1945, though the extent of civilian starvation is disputed.

After the US dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima on August 6 and Nagasaki on August 9, 1945, Japan announced its surrender on August 15, bringing the blockade and the Pacific War to an end.

Blockade of eastern Mediterranean (1915-18)

In August 1915, during World War I, the Allied forces imposed a blockade of the eastern coast of the Mediterranean to cut off military supplies and weaken the Ottoman Empire’s war effort.

The declared area ran from the intersection of the Aegean Sea and the Mediterranean Sea in the north to the Egyptian frontier in the south. The blockade was initiated by Britain and France, later assisted by Italy and other Allied powers.

The consequences were devastating. Military supplies, munitions, oil, food and medicine were all targeted. The food crisis was compounded by a locust plague in 1915 and a severe drought, contributing to severe famine across Lebanon and Greater Syria.

Reports suggest the famine led to 500,000 deaths by 1918, mostly civilians, with Mount Lebanon losing an estimated one-third of its population. Mass migration followed.

The blockade remained in place throughout the war and lifted only when Allied forces occupied Beirut and Mount Lebanon in October 1918.

Allied blockade of Germany (1914-19)

The British navy began blockading Germany almost immediately after the outbreak of the war in August 1914.

The naval blockade extended from the English Channel to Norway, cutting off Germany from the oceans.

Britain mined international waters to prevent ships from entering the ocean, creating danger even for neutral vessels.

Germany responded by declaring the seas around the British Isles a “military area”, prompting Britain and France to ban all goods to and from Germany.

The blockade’s most devastating consequence was famine. The winter of 1916-17, known as the Turnip Winter, marked one of the harshest years in wartime Germany.

The blockade had cut off food and fertiliser imports, a failed potato harvest left little to fall back on, and a breakdown in food distribution compounded the crisis. It is estimated that between 424,000 and 763,000 civilians died from diseases related to hunger and malnutrition.

The blockade was not yet fully lifted until July 1919, after the Treaty of Versailles had been signed.

Ukrainian forces also strike two shadow fleet tankers near port of Novorossiysk, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says.

Ukrainian forces have launched a drone attack on the Russian Baltic Sea ⁠⁠port of Primorsk, the governor says, as Kyiv and Moscow accuse each other of killing civilians in overnight air raids.

There was no oil spill caused by Sunday’s attack on Primorsk, a major oil-exporting outlet, but it caused a fire in the town that was extinguished, Leningrad Governor Alexander Drozdenko said. More than 60 drones were downed overnight over the northwestern region, he added.

Primorsk, ‌‌one of Russia’s largest export gateways, has the capacity to handle one million barrels per day of oil.

It has been hit multiple times in recent months as Ukraine has stepped up attacks on Russian energy infrastructure and other targets and United States-brokered talks to end the Ukraine war have stalled.

Ukrainian ⁠⁠President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said his country’s forces also struck two shadow fleet tankers in waters at the ⁠⁠entrance to the Russian Black Sea port of Novorossiysk.

“These tankers had been actively used to transport oil – not anymore,” Zelenskyy said on Telegram. “Ukraine’s long-range capabilities will continue to be developed comprehensively – at sea, in the ⁠⁠air, and on land.”

The two neighbours have been launching hundreds of explosive-packed drones at each other on a near-daily basis throughout the four-year war.

Other Russian regions also reported drone attacks on Saturday and Sunday. Moscow Governor Andrei Vorobyov ⁠⁠said on Saturday evening that a 77-year-old man ⁠⁠died in a village in a drone strike.

Sergei Sobyanin, the mayor of Moscow, said four drones were downed on their way to the Russian capital.

Vasily Anokhin, the governor ‌‌of the western region of Smolensk, said three people, including a child, were injured on Sunday in a drone attack on an apartment block.

Attacks in Ukraine

Russian drone strikes on Ukraine killed at least three people across the country, local officials said on Sunday.

Attacks on southern Ukraine’s Odesa region, home to key export terminals, killed two people, including a truck driver at a port, Governor Oleh Kiper said on social media.

“Enemy drones hit three residential buildings, and two more were damaged. … Facilities and equipment for the port infrastructure were also damaged,” he said.

Elsewhere, Russian strikes on the front-line region of Kherson in southern Ukraine also killed one person, officials said.

Russia fired 268 drones and one ballistic missile in the overnight attacks, Ukraine’s air force said.

In eastern Ukraine, Russian troops were ‌‌inching ‌‌towards the city of Kostiantynivka in the Donetsk region, Ukraine’s top army official said on Saturday.

Luxmy Gopal and Roger Johnson brought viewers up to speed with the latest news on BBC Breakfast

BBC Breakfast hosts issued a devastating breaking news announcement live on air.

During Sunday’s (May 3) episode of the popular morning show, Luxmy Gopal and Roger Johnson brought viewers up to speed with the latest news from across Britain and internationally.

They were joined in the studio by Elizabeth Rizzini , who provided regular weather updates, whilst Olly Foster covered the sports news.

However towards the end of the show, Luxmy made the tragic announcement following the news that two migrants have died after a boat sank in the Channel while attempting to cross over to the UK overnight.

Speaking to viewers at home, Luxmy revealed: “Some breaking news to bring you. Reports have just come through in the past few minutes that two people have died off the coast of northern France after a boat carrying migrants came into difficulty overnight.”

Co-host Roger continued: “Lets go live to our reporter Simon Jones, who has got the latest on this for us. Simon what more do we know about what happened.”

The show then cut over to Simon, who appeared on the breakfast show via video link and updated viewers on the devastating news.

A huge rescue operation was launched in the early hours, after a migrant dinghy carrying 65 people got into difficulties off Hardelot beach, south of Boulogne.

French authorities have confirmed two female migrants died in the incident involving a so-called taxi boat, as dozens of people tried to scramble on board.

Authorities say a second migrant boat nearby continued on its journey to the UK, as the incident unfolded around 3am.

It is believed that there were 82 people packed on the boat that “ran aground” on a beach at Neufchatel-Hardelot, about 12 kilometers (seven miles) south of the port of Boulogne, said Christophe Marx, a regional government official.

It comes as at least eight people have now died this year on small boats trying to make the risky trip across the English Channel to the southern coast of the UK.

Last month, Britain and France signed a new three-year deal on security operations to stop the crossings.

France will increase the number of police and gendarmes patrolling the coast while the British government will increase its contribution to the cost, according to an AFP tally based on official French and British sources.

BBC Breakfast airs daily from 6am on BBC One and iPlayer

China currently boasts one of the lowest rates of homicide, violent crime, and gun and explosive incidents globally. The Chinese-style sense of security is a comprehensive system integrating advanced technology, community engagement, and continuous improvement in living standards. This has positioned China as one of the safest countries in the world, according to the 2025 Global Security Report, with 98.2% of Chinese citizens feeling safe by 2025, further solidifying its status as a globally stable destination. The pillars of this Chinese-style sense of security are built upon advanced digital technologies, relying on smart networks and modern surveillance systems such as facial recognition and artificial intelligence to enhance the security network within China.

The phrase “Chinese-style security” refers to China’s model for achieving social stability and reducing crime rates. This model is based primarily on three pillars: proactive prevention systems, where, rather than simply addressing crime after it occurs, China focuses on prevention and control through extensive security networks and a constant police presence in key areas; the continuation of the community mobilization system (the Fengqiao model), a historical concept (currently revived) that involves citizens and local committees in resolving community disputes before they escalate into crimes or legal cases, thus promoting the idea of ​​self-regulation and public cooperation with Chinese authorities; and the use of digitalization and artificial intelligence technologies, where China has heavily invested in smart city technologies and the Skynet system. Skynet utilizes millions of cameras equipped with facial recognition and big data analytics to predict suspicious activities and track wanted individuals with high precision. This combination aims to create a secure environment that supports economic growth within China, despite the occasional international debates it sparks regarding the balance between public security and individual privacy.

Data and reports confirm exceptional social stability in China, with citizens’ sense of security exceeding 98% for six consecutive years. This security is attributed to effective governance, advanced digital technologies, and a high standard of living, making China a safe destination for investment and a source of stability. Key features of Chinese governance and the sense of security include increased levels of trust and optimism, with the Chinese people ranking among the world’s highest in trust in the government and optimism about the future, according to trust index reports. A robust safety net exists, built on Chinese-style security through crime prevention systems, community mobilization, and enhanced digitalization. These systemic features, along with numerous other advantages, reflect the stability within China and the state’s ability to fulfill its commitments and provide a safe and stable social environment, earning international praise, particularly in light of global geopolitical conflicts. With the continuation of Chinese-style modernization, ongoing modernization has contributed to raising living standards, thus strengthening the sense of security within China.

Accordingly, the Chinese government and the authorities of the ruling Communist Party of China support several pillars and points that support this approach to enhance the sense of security within the country. Based on current developments, focusing on security as the foundation for development in China, the stability of the situation in China is seen as a key element in boosting investor confidence and building a safe and stable living environment for citizens, which contributes to economic growth. With the intensification of the Chinese-style modernization model, modernization in China is not limited to economic growth but also focuses on improving the quality of life, providing employment opportunities, and upgrading social services, which significantly raises living standards. With the stable sense of security, China, through well-considered social policies, has succeeded in maintaining a high level of social security, which enhances public trust in the government and contributes to long-term stability. This has resulted in continued international praise (amidst crises). At a time when several regions around the world are experiencing geopolitical conflicts, China’s stability stands out as a model attracting the attention and scrutiny of international observers, particularly due to the Chinese state’s ability to effectively manage its internal affairs compared to many systems worldwide, including American and Western ones. This strengthens China’s capacity to lead the developing Global South and strongly promote its model of Chinese governance.

Based on the preceding understanding and analysis, we can see how the development for security strategy can form a fundamental pillar within the Chinese governance system. Improving living standards contributes to consolidating social stability and public security within China. This analysis highlights a delicate equation in the contemporary Chinese landscape, where continuous development (Chinese-style modernization) is linked to social stability, creating a secure environment in a turbulent world.

Ministry of Commerce says sanctions against refineries accused of importing Iranian oil violate international law.

China has announced an injunction to block US sanctions placed on five Chinese refiners accused ‌of buying oil from Iran.

The sanctions announced by the United States Department of the Treasury late last month bar the companies from the US financial system and seek to penalise anyone doing business with the firms.

In a statement on Saturday, China’s Ministry of Commerce said the sanctions “improperly” restrict business between Chinese enterprises and third countries “in violation of international law and the basic norms governing international relations”.

The Commerce Ministry said it had issued a “prohibition order” stipulating that the sanctions “shall not be recognized, enforced, or complied with” to “safeguard national sovereignty, security, and development interests”.

“The Chinese government has consistently opposed unilateral sanctions that lack UN authorisation and basis in international law,” the ministry added.

It said the order blocked US measures against Hengli Petrochemical (Dalian) Refinery and four other so-called “teapot” refineries: Shandong Jincheng Petrochemical Group, Hebei Xinhai Chemical Group, Shouguang Luqing Petrochemical and Shandong ⁠Shengxing Chemical.

Announcing the sanctions on April 24, the US Treasury Department called Hengli “one of Tehran’s most valued customers”, saying it had generated hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue for the Iranian military through crude oil purchases.

The Trump administration imposed sanctions on the other four refineries named by the Chinese ministry, among other facilities, last year.

China gets more than half of its oil from the Middle East, much of it from Iran.

According to commodities data firm Kpler, China bought more than 80 percent of the oil Iran shipped in 2025.

China’s “teapot” refineries operate independently and are generally smaller than the facilities run by state-owned oil giants, such as Sinopec.

The facilities, which have been crucial to China’s efforts to secure its oil supplies, capitalise on heavily discounted crude sold by countries under sanctions, such as Iran, Russia and Venezuela.

Teapots account for a quarter of Chinese ⁠refinery capacity, operate with narrow and sometimes negative margins, and have been squeezed recently by tepid domestic demand.

US sanctions have created additional hurdles for refiners, including difficulties selling refined products under their correct place-of-origin markings.

EXPLAINER

Iran has sent the US a new 14-point proposal to end the war.

United States President Donald Trump says he will review the latest Iranian proposal to end the war but has expressed doubt that the new plan will lead to a deal as the two sides have escalated their rhetoric.

Tehran has sent a 14-point plan to Washington, calling for guarantees of nonaggression, sanctions relief, the lifting of a naval blockade and an end to the war “on all fronts”, including in Lebanon. This proposal seeks to postpone nuclear talks to a later stage, an issue Trump has considered a “red line”.

Despite the diplomatic opening, the US president did not rule out the possibility of renewed hostilities. “If they do something bad, there is a possibility it could happen,” Trump said.

The Iranians have also fired back with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) saying it is on standby for a return to war.

Here is what we know as the conflict enters day 65:

In Iran

• While Washington requested a two-month ceasefire, Tehran wants to focus on ending the war instead of extending the truce and wants all issues to be resolved within 30 days, according to Iran’s Tasnim News Agency.
• The 14-point Iranian plan includes guarantees of nonaggression, the withdrawal of US forces from the vicinity of Iran, the lifting of the US naval blockade, the release of Iran’s frozen assets, the lifting of sanctions and an end to the war “on all fronts“, including in Lebanon, according to Tasnim.
• The IRGC said it is on standby for a return to war with the US, saying a resumption of hostilities is “likely” as “evidence shows that [the US] is not committed to any agreements or treaties”.
• Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said Trump’s description of the US capture of Iranian vessels as “piracy” is a “direct and damning admission of the criminal nature of their actions” against Tehran.
• TankerTrackers.com said an Iranian supertanker has evaded the US blockade and reached the Asia Pacific while carrying more than 1.9 million barrels of crude oil valued at nearly $220m.

Diplomacy

• The US has approved $8.6bn in major arms deals and military support for Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Israel.
• A convoy of 70 tanker trucks carrying Iraqi crude oil has crossed into Syria via the al-Yarubiyah border crossing as Baghdad seeks alternative export routes after the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

In the US

• Trump said he is studying Iran’s latest 14-point peace proposal but warned that attacks could resume if the Iranian government “misbehaves” or does “something bad”.
• The US is seeking to form an international naval coalition called the Maritime Freedom Construct (MFC) to restore freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, which in effect has been blocked by Iran since the US-Israel war on the country began on February 28. According to US media, its core functions would be to share intelligence among member nations, coordinate diplomatic efforts and enforce sanctions to manage shipping through the strait.
• Trump said a US troop withdrawal from Germany could far exceed 5,000 soldiers as tensions between the two allies rise over the war on Iran.

In Lebanon

• At least 41 people have been killed as Israel launched 50 air strikes on southern Lebanon in 24 hours despite a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon being in place since April 16. The death toll since the latest escalation in the war between Israel and Hezbollah began on March 2 has risen to 2,659 people.
• The Israeli military issued a new warning, threatening attacks on 12 towns and villages in southern Lebanon and ordering residents to flee their homes.The towns and villages include al-Duwayr, Arab Salim, al-Sharqiya (Nabatieh), Jibshit, Braashit, Sarafand, Dounin, Briqa, Qaaqaiya al-Jisr, al-Qasiba (Nabatieh) and Kfar Sir.
• Israel’s military has admitted to striking and damaging a Catholic “religious building” in southern Lebanon on Saturday as criticism grows over Israeli attacks on Christian sites.

Mukalla, Yemen – At the Mukalla Creative Hub, a man in a black T-shirt leans over a desk to help a colleague with his project, while other men remain fixed on their laptop screens. Nearby women sit in ergonomic office chairs, writing or scrolling on their phones. On the other side of the space in Yemen’s coastal city of Mukalla, a sleek cafe-style counter stands at the entrance, while colourful armchairs are neatly arranged and occupied by a few people working among rows of computers.

What draws entrepreneurs, remote freelancers, and students here is not just the stylish setting or uninterrupted electricity, but something far more essential: fast, reliable Starlink satellite internet.

“Four Starlink devices power the space, delivering speeds of 100 to 150 Mbps and allowing users to stay constantly connected,” Hamzah Bakhdar, a digital freelancer who also works at the hub, told Al Jazeera.

In a country where war has devastated telecommunications, eroded salaries and cut off remote areas, Starlink is helping create a small but growing digital workforce of designers, developers, teachers, and freelancers who can now work for clients abroad and earn far more than Yemen’s crumbling local economy would otherwise allow.

Internet access in Yemen has also been weaponised, with buried land cables sometimes cut, leaving parts of the country abruptly disconnected. The Houthi rebels, who are based in the Yemeni capital Sanaa and have fought the internationally recognised government since 2014, control the country’s major internet providers. That allows them to block websites they view as linked to their opponents inside and outside the country, including key platforms used by tech developers and remote workers.

The arrival of Starlink satellite internet has provided an alternative, allowing people to bypass the Houthis’ tight grip on telecommunications and stay online even in remote areas.

Mohammed Helmi, a video editor and motion graphics designer, was juggling projects for three clients in Yemen, Saudi Arabia and the United States. Thanks to the fast internet at the cafe, he no longer worries about losing connection or missing deadlines, problems he said repeatedly disrupted his work in the past.

“In the past, when I downloaded files to my laptop, it would stop as soon as my data ran out,” Helmi, a young man with a thin moustache, told Al Jazeera at the cafe. “I had to buy another gigabyte and start the download all over again. Because of this, I often had to turn down projects.”

Control over the internet

Starlink is operated by billionaire Elon Musk’s SpaceX company, and delivers internet by linking a ground dish to low-orbit satellites owned and operated by the company.

While other satellite internet companies exist, and others are quickly entering the space, Starlink is the only low-orbit satellite internet service legally available in Yemen after the internationally recognised government signed an agreement with the company in September 2024.

But it’s not for everyone.

The kits cost about $500, a price that remains unaffordable for the vast majority of Yemenis, living in one of the poorest countries in the world, where more than 80 percent of people live below the poverty line.

Owning a dish is therefore still a distant dream for many Yemenis desperate to get online.

University students, like Mariam, a student at Hadramout University, says that even buying internet vouchers from local providers who resell Starlink access is beyond her reach – let alone purchasing a device herself.

“People are using vouchers because they cannot afford Starlink devices, whose prices are very high,” Mariam, who preferred to be identified only by her first name, told Al Jazeera.

The Houthis have also reacted aggressively to the arrival of Starlink, launching a campaign warning people against using the service and threatening legal action against anyone found in possession of the device.

They have accused the company of serving as a “US espionage agent” and said it posed “a major threat to national security”. Experts have worried that data gathered over Starlink’s internet service could be used for “intelligence gathering and economic exploitation“.

There are also concerns internationally over the concentration of satellite internet services and infrastructure in the hands of Starlink, particularly in light of Musk’s ownership, with the South African-born billionaire increasingly associating himself with far-right causes in the United States and Europe.

Connecting Yemen’s remote areas

But despite Houthi threats and the high cost of the devices by Yemeni standards, Starlink has spread across the country, reaching areas that had long been isolated.

Omer Banabelah, a mobile app developer, said that before Starlink arrived, a visit to his home village in Hadramout’s countryside meant disappearing from the digital world altogether. He could not make a phone call, let alone connect to the internet, leaving him anxious that clients would move on when their messages went unanswered. With Starlink now available in rural parts of the province, Banabelah said he no longer fears losing work every time he travels.

“I can reply to their messages anytime, from anywhere,” he told Al Jazeera. “Work that takes 10 minutes with Starlink could take an entire day without it.”

Similarly, Yemeni teachers, struggling with poor and delayed salaries that have stagnated for years, have also benefited from the spread of the internet service, which has allowed them to offer uninterrupted online classes and earn badly needed extra income.

Raja al-Dubae, a school director in Taiz, told Al Jazeera that her school began offering online classes based on the Yemeni curriculum to Yemeni students living abroad in the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and China in 2023. It started with just 50 students, with teachers connecting through local networks.

But when internet traffic surged in the densely populated city each afternoon, the connections would collapse, forcing teachers to abandon classes mid-session.

“Teachers were often disconnected from their students, and by the time the internet stabilised, the next class had already begun, leaving them frustrated and unable to finish their lessons,” she said.

Al-Dubae said she initially rejected her nephew’s proposal to buy Starlink because of the high upfront cost, but now regrets the delay. Since installing the service, the number of students has climbed to more than 200, revenues have grown, and teachers have begun earning better additional pay.

“With Starlink, the internet is very fast and reaches every corner of the school,” she said. “Teachers no longer disconnect from their students. I never imagined it would make such a difference. Videos load quickly, we no longer turn away new applicants, and our reputation for fast internet has spread.”

For Yemenis who have grown used to Starlink’s high-speed internet, and the better incomes and business opportunities it has helped create, the worst-case scenario is a return to the slow, unreliable service of local networks.

“Go back to the headache of local networks? Perish the thought. We hope the service will continue to improve,” al-Dubae said, scoffing at the idea of reverting to local internet providers.

Helmi reacted similarly. “If Starlink were cut off, I would be devastated and forced back into the local market, which cannot cover my expenses or living costs,” he said, shifting in his seat and smiling at the thought. “I would need to take on three or four jobs just to match what I earn from a single project from abroad.”

Our two England fans fly out of Heathrow on Monday, 15 June with return flights to JFK in New York costing just over £500 each – which is good value.

With the Three Lions’ final group game taking place in New Jersey, it is the most cost-effective way to travel to the US and back, with the first stop being Dallas.

After landing in the States, they pick up a flight to Dallas the same night – this costs £283 per person.

Four nights at the Hampton Inn & Suites Dallas Market Center cost £624 (£156 a night) for a twin.

Double rooms, which are more available in all cities, come in cheaper at the Hilton Dallas Medical District at £560 (£140 a night).

Both properties have breakfast included, meaning Dallas – which also has free shuttle buses from stations to the stadium in Arlington – is an affordable start to the trip.

The England supporters fly to Boston on Friday, 19 June with the fare £378 each.

Boston is at the other end of the scale as one of the more expensive host cities for accommodation.

Our couple stay at the Hampton Inn & Suites Boston Crosstown Center, costing £1,650 (£330 a night), including breakfast, for five nights.

The cheapest twin-bed option in the city itself is £2,041 (£408 a night) without breakfast at the Courtyard Boston Downtown/North Station.

It is possible to book a hotel near the airport £500 cheaper but with five days in the city, it may not be worth the saving.

With England’s third game being in New Jersey, there is no need to take a flight. The supporters can hop on the Amtrak train to New York on Wednesday, 24 June with tickets £42 each.

Unlike in Boston, there are still lots of hotel options in New York with a five-night stay before the flight home on 29 June.

A double at the Truss Hotel Times Square costs £1,184 (£237 a night) while a twin at the AMTD Idea Tribeca Hotel is £1,275 (£255 a night).

This time, however, you will need to head out for breakfast.

But the last two games come with a sting – train tickets to the stadiums cost £59 per person from Boston and £114 from New York.

Just to get to the States and travel around, the estimated costs for two friends are £6,273 and for a couple £5,855.

And what of the family? It is going to cost £9,008 to get to the States, get around and put your heads down.

Costs are helped by some hotels offering free stays for children.

In Dallas, the Comfort Inn Dallas Medical-Market Center costs £627 (£156 a night).

The same Hampton Inn is used in Boston with a higher cost of £1,763 (£353 a night).

Over in New York, the Holiday Inn in Times Square costs £1,589 (£318 a night).

A fragile ceasefire may have paused the US-Israeli war on Iran, but the economic cost is crippling the daily lives of Iranians. The US is blockading Iranian ports, while the price of goods skyrockets and businesses struggle to keep employees.

Satellite imagery has emerged showing China’s two massive stealthy flying-wing high-altitude, long-endurance (HALE) unmanned aircraft at its secretive test base near Malan. TWZ first identified both of the previously unseen aircraft last year in Planet Labs archived imagery of the airfield, which is known to be on the leading edge of the PLA’s unmanned combat aircraft development efforts. However, this is the first time both have been captured outside their hangars simultaneously, or on the main apron at all. Overall, the image, dated March 26th, 2026, underscores the major uptick of very advanced drone testing activity at the installation.

The flying wing with the longest wingspan (red arrow in the image at the top of the article), which some have dubbed “WZ-X,” and what we refer to as “The Monster of Malan,” is parked on the main apron next to the runway. The very large flying wing has a span of approximately 173 feet — roughly the width of a B-2 Spirit stealth bomber. You can read more about this impressive aircraft in our previous coverage here and here. Other details about its true designation or its manufacturer remain unknown.

The second large flying wing (green arrow) is seen in the image sitting outside a hangar that is part of the sprawling new high-security facility on the opposite side of the complex. It features a ‘cranked kite’ planform with a wingspan of approximately 137 feet, although it would appear to have a significantly higher gross weight and likely lower operating ceiling than its wider stablemate. Based on our previous analysis, this variant is suited for the intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) role, but could also work as a supersized unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) capable of performing very long-range heavy strike missions.

Both of these aircraft appear to have been flying now for a number of months. You can read about this here and here.

There is also what appears to be a stealth fighter-like drone (orange arrow) and a Xi’an Y-20 transport plane on the main apron in the image.

China has shown off a very large number of fighter-drone concepts, very loosely similar to the U.S. Collaborative Combat Aircraft initiative, in recent years. A Chinese military parade in 2025 was really Beijing’s major public thrust into this area of advanced fighter-like drone development. Since then, testing of at least one configuration has been ramped up considerably.

Just reviewing Planet Labs archived images of Malan in recent months shows the aircraft configuration seen above to be very active at the base. This relatively large unmanned ‘fighter’, analogous to a manned light-to-medium weight fighter in size, is a tailless design that features a very similar planform as the J-XDS 6th generation manned fighter. It also appears similar in shape to another CCA-like aircraft that has been photographed flying.

One drone shown off during China’s big military parade looks very similar to it, in particular. But regardless, this general design appears to be a focus of testing at the base.

Other mysterious aircraft have appeared at the installation as well, which is clearly set up specifically to run many programs within its high-security confines at any given time.

Beijing is actively pursuing a range of flying-wing drones of various sizes, including large HALE drones, designed to perform a diverse set of missions, including ISR and strike. For many years, TWZ has assessed that this was an area of the Chinese aviation industry most likely to see an explosion of investment. The WZ-X is still the largest Chinese design in terms of wingspan that we have seen in this category to date. The cranked-kite design is certainly the heaviest.

This new look at China’s two large flying wing combat drones comes as we got our first good look at America’s own RQ-180 HALE stealth drone, which has been flying for some time and is now being used operationally. It also comes as China is rushing ahead on all fronts with its next generation air combat ecosystem, and making impressively quick progress to show for its efforts. Still, a formidable looking aircraft doesn’t mean it can fight as impressively as part of a joint force as it looks, or survive against enemy air defenses. Regardless, China is clearly betting substantially on advanced and large unmanned flying wing designs.

Contact the author: ian.ellis-jones@teamrecurrent.io

US president says he is considering the 14-point peace plan, but warns strikes could resume if Tehran ‘misbehaves’.

United States President Donald Trump has said he is reviewing Iran’s 14-point proposal to end his war on the country, while warning that Washington could restart air strikes if Tehran “misbehaves”.

Speaking to reporters in Florida before boarding Air Force One on Saturday, Trump confirmed that he had been briefed on the “concept of the deal”.

Despite the diplomatic opening, the US president struck a characteristically blunt tone regarding the possibility of renewed hostilities, which have been paused since the announcement of a ceasefire between the sides on April 7.

“If they do something bad, there is a possibility it could happen,” Trump said when asked if strikes would resume.

Trump added that the US was “doing very well” and claimed that Iran was desperate for a settlement because the country had been “decimated” by months of conflict and a naval blockade.

In a post on Truth Social later, Trump said it was difficult to imagine that the Iranian proposal would be acceptable as Tehran had “not yet paid a big enough price for what they have done to Humanity, and the World, over the last 47 years.”

Tehran’s 14-point plan reportedly calls for the lifting of the US naval blockade, war reparations, and the release of all frozen assets.

It also seeks a 30-day window to finalise the terms of their peace, a timeline at odds with Washington’s preference for a longer transition.

The diplomatic push comes amid a fragile three-week truce that has put a pause on the US-Israel war on Iran, which began in late February.

Despite the ceasefire, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said on Saturday that it remains on “full standby” for a return to hostilities, citing the US’s lack of commitment to previous treaties.

Tensions have been further stoked by Trump’s recent characterisation of the US naval blockade as a “very profitable business”.

Tehran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs seized on the remarks, labelling them a “damning admission of piracy”.

The impasse is further complicated by technical obstacles to reopening the Strait of Hormuz, including the presence of Iranian sea mines, and a growing rift with NATO allies following Trump’s decision to withdraw 5,000 US troops from Germany.