Weekly protests in Dublin are growing as people demand justice and accountability for Yves Sakila, a Congolese man who died after being restrained by security guards outside a shopping centre.
Both the US and Iran have recently signaled progress on efforts to reach a deal to end their conflict, though their accounts of its terms differ on some issues across respective media narratives, Anadolu reports.
US President Donald Trump on Saturday said an agreement with Iran to end the war was “largely negotiated” and awaited finalization.
On Sunday morning, Iran’s semi-official Tasnim news agency also published a report on the details of a potential agreement. However, certain aspects of what has been agreed seem to diverge.
Here is a comparison of the US and Iranian versions of the deal by key issues.
Strait of Hormuz
Citing a US official, Axios said the deal that Washington and Tehran are close to signing would extend a ceasefire by 60 days, during which the Strait of Hormuz would be reopened.
During the 60-day period, the Strait of Hormuz would be opened without any tolls, and Iran would remove the mines it has placed there to ensure unrestricted maritime passage.
In return, Washington would lift its blockade on Iranian ports, added the report.
The New York Times also said it was informed by three senior Iranian officials that Tehran had agreed to a memorandum of understanding to halt fighting and reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio also said on Sunday that the agreement could, if successful, result in a “completely open” Strait of Hormuz, with no tolls or restrictions on passage.
“They don’t own it. It’s an international waterway,” Rubio told reporters of the strait, in remarks that came during his visit to India.
A report by Iran’s semi-official news agency Tasnim, however, said that the Strait of Hormuz will not fully return to its pre-war status if the agreement is reached.
Instead, the number of ships allowed to pass would be restored to pre-war levels within 30 days, the outlet added.
Tehran also demands an end to the US blockade on its ports, arguing that no changes will be made in the strait if the blockade remains in place.
For its part, the US argues that the quicker Iran removes the mines and allows shipping to resume, the sooner the blockade will be lifted.
Sanctions relief and release of frozen Iranian assets
Iran was seeking the immediate unfreezing of funds and a permanent lifting of sanctions, but the US position indicates these measures would only be granted after Iran made concrete concessions, according to the Axios report.
As part of the proposed 60-day agreement, the US is offering temporary sanctions waivers that would allow Iran to sell its oil freely. These waivers are explicitly linked to Iran reopening the Strait of Hormuz, removing mines, and ending restrictions on maritime traffic. Once these steps are taken, Washington would also lift its naval blockade on Iranian ports.
Tehran, however, says no agreement will be reached unless at least a portion of the frozen Iranian assets is released immediately. Iranian media confirmed the discussion of temporary oil sanctions waivers in the latest US proposal but insisted on broader and more permanent sanctions relief.
Nuclear file
The Axios report said the draft deal includes commitments from Iran not to pursue nuclear weapons, along with provisions to negotiate a suspension of uranium enrichment and the removal of its stockpile of highly enriched uranium.
The Iranian media reports, however, indicate that Tehran has not yet accepted anything on its nuclear program.
A potential deal would involve a 60-day negotiation window on Iran’s nuclear program, according to Tasnim.
Extent of ceasefire
Both US and Iranian media reports suggest that the cessation of hostilities would mean a halt to fighting on all fronts, including Lebanon.
This was also highlighted by Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei on Saturday, when he said Tehran was prioritizing an end to hostilities across all fronts, including Lebanon.
Context
Regional tensions have escalated since the US and Israel launched strikes against Iran in February. Tehran retaliated with strikes targeting Israel, as well as US allies in the Gulf, along with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
A ceasefire took effect on April 8 through Pakistani mediation and was later extended by Trump indefinitely. Washington and Tehran also held rare direct talks in the Pakistani capital Islamabad on April 11-12, but have failed to reach an agreement.
Trump’s Saturday remarks came after Pakistani army chief Asim Munir’s visit to Tehran. The visit was the second of its kind in recent weeks, as Munir is directly involved in Islamabad’s mediation efforts.
Both the US and Iran have recently signaled progress on efforts to reach a deal to end their conflict, though their accounts of its terms differ on some issues across respective media narratives, Anadolu reports.
US President Donald Trump on Saturday said an agreement with Iran to end the war was “largely negotiated” and awaited finalization.
On Sunday morning, Iran’s semi-official Tasnim news agency also published a report on the details of a potential agreement. However, certain aspects of what has been agreed seem to diverge.
Here is a comparison of the US and Iranian versions of the deal by key issues.
Strait of Hormuz
Citing a US official, Axios said the deal that Washington and Tehran are close to signing would extend a ceasefire by 60 days, during which the Strait of Hormuz would be reopened.
During the 60-day period, the Strait of Hormuz would be opened without any tolls, and Iran would remove the mines it has placed there to ensure unrestricted maritime passage.
In return, Washington would lift its blockade on Iranian ports, added the report.
The New York Times also said it was informed by three senior Iranian officials that Tehran had agreed to a memorandum of understanding to halt fighting and reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio also said on Sunday that the agreement could, if successful, result in a “completely open” Strait of Hormuz, with no tolls or restrictions on passage.
“They don’t own it. It’s an international waterway,” Rubio told reporters of the strait, in remarks that came during his visit to India.
A report by Iran’s semi-official news agency Tasnim, however, said that the Strait of Hormuz will not fully return to its pre-war status if the agreement is reached.
Instead, the number of ships allowed to pass would be restored to pre-war levels within 30 days, the outlet added.
Tehran also demands an end to the US blockade on its ports, arguing that no changes will be made in the strait if the blockade remains in place.
For its part, the US argues that the quicker Iran removes the mines and allows shipping to resume, the sooner the blockade will be lifted.
Sanctions relief and release of frozen Iranian assets
Iran was seeking the immediate unfreezing of funds and a permanent lifting of sanctions, but the US position indicates these measures would only be granted after Iran made concrete concessions, according to the Axios report.
As part of the proposed 60-day agreement, the US is offering temporary sanctions waivers that would allow Iran to sell its oil freely. These waivers are explicitly linked to Iran reopening the Strait of Hormuz, removing mines, and ending restrictions on maritime traffic. Once these steps are taken, Washington would also lift its naval blockade on Iranian ports.
Tehran, however, says no agreement will be reached unless at least a portion of the frozen Iranian assets is released immediately. Iranian media confirmed the discussion of temporary oil sanctions waivers in the latest US proposal but insisted on broader and more permanent sanctions relief.
Nuclear file
The Axios report said the draft deal includes commitments from Iran not to pursue nuclear weapons, along with provisions to negotiate a suspension of uranium enrichment and the removal of its stockpile of highly enriched uranium.
The Iranian media reports, however, indicate that Tehran has not yet accepted anything on its nuclear program.
A potential deal would involve a 60-day negotiation window on Iran’s nuclear program, according to Tasnim.
Extent of ceasefire
Both US and Iranian media reports suggest that the cessation of hostilities would mean a halt to fighting on all fronts, including Lebanon.
This was also highlighted by Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei on Saturday, when he said Tehran was prioritizing an end to hostilities across all fronts, including Lebanon.
Context
Regional tensions have escalated since the US and Israel launched strikes against Iran in February. Tehran retaliated with strikes targeting Israel, as well as US allies in the Gulf, along with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
A ceasefire took effect on April 8 through Pakistani mediation and was later extended by Trump indefinitely. Washington and Tehran also held rare direct talks in the Pakistani capital Islamabad on April 11-12, but have failed to reach an agreement.
Trump’s Saturday remarks came after Pakistani army chief Asim Munir’s visit to Tehran. The visit was the second of its kind in recent weeks, as Munir is directly involved in Islamabad’s mediation efforts.
US officials indicate Tehran may take days to respond to Trump’s tougher terms on a potential agreement to end the nearly three-month war.
Published On 31 May 202631 May 2026
President Donald Trump sought to change several terms of a proposal to end the US-Israel war on Iran, according to media reports in the United States, as a finalised deal remains elusive.
The New York Times reported on Saturday that Trump’s changes involved toughening the deal terms, and the US has sent the new framework back to be considered by Iran, according to officials familiar with the proceedings.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
The report said it was not immediately clear what the changes entailed. However, Axios reported Trump wanted to reinforce multiple points of the deal that he felt were important, such as what to do with Iran’s nuclear material.
A senior US official told Axios that Trump was informed it could take three days for Iran to respond.
“They’re literally in caves, and they’re not using email,” the official told Axios.
“There will be a deal. The imminence of it, we’ll see. We’re willing to wait so the president gets what he asks for. It could be a week. It could be less. It could be more. At the turn of the week, we hope to have something,” the official added.
The new tweaks could prolong negotiations between the parties for days before a decision is reached on whether the deal would end the war, which began after the US and Israel attacked Iran on February 28.
US sources told the AFP news agency that the proposal had been waiting on Trump’s sign-off, but he made no decision after a White House Situation Room meeting on Friday.
Trump has said his priorities for any deal included Iran agreeing to never develop nuclear weapons and the reopening of the blockaded Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly 20 percent of the world’s oil supply transits.
On Saturday, the Iranian military’s Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters reasserted the country’s control over the strait, warning that foreign commercial and military vessels would be targeted if they did not comply with regulations governing passage through the strategic waterway.
Tehran has also said repeatedly that it does not intend to build nuclear weapons. In March 2025, Tulsi Gabbard, the former US director of national intelligence, testified to Congress that Washington “continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon”.
Both the US and Iran have recently signaled progress on efforts to reach a deal to end their conflict, though their accounts of its terms differ on some issues across respective media narratives, Anadolu reports.
US President Donald Trump on Saturday said an agreement with Iran to end the war was “largely negotiated” and awaited finalization.
On Sunday morning, Iran’s semi-official Tasnim news agency also published a report on the details of a potential agreement. However, certain aspects of what has been agreed seem to diverge.
Here is a comparison of the US and Iranian versions of the deal by key issues.
Strait of Hormuz
Citing a US official, Axios said the deal that Washington and Tehran are close to signing would extend a ceasefire by 60 days, during which the Strait of Hormuz would be reopened.
During the 60-day period, the Strait of Hormuz would be opened without any tolls, and Iran would remove the mines it has placed there to ensure unrestricted maritime passage.
In return, Washington would lift its blockade on Iranian ports, added the report.
The New York Times also said it was informed by three senior Iranian officials that Tehran had agreed to a memorandum of understanding to halt fighting and reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio also said on Sunday that the agreement could, if successful, result in a “completely open” Strait of Hormuz, with no tolls or restrictions on passage.
“They don’t own it. It’s an international waterway,” Rubio told reporters of the strait, in remarks that came during his visit to India.
A report by Iran’s semi-official news agency Tasnim, however, said that the Strait of Hormuz will not fully return to its pre-war status if the agreement is reached.
Instead, the number of ships allowed to pass would be restored to pre-war levels within 30 days, the outlet added.
Tehran also demands an end to the US blockade on its ports, arguing that no changes will be made in the strait if the blockade remains in place.
For its part, the US argues that the quicker Iran removes the mines and allows shipping to resume, the sooner the blockade will be lifted.
Sanctions relief and release of frozen Iranian assets
Iran was seeking the immediate unfreezing of funds and a permanent lifting of sanctions, but the US position indicates these measures would only be granted after Iran made concrete concessions, according to the Axios report.
As part of the proposed 60-day agreement, the US is offering temporary sanctions waivers that would allow Iran to sell its oil freely. These waivers are explicitly linked to Iran reopening the Strait of Hormuz, removing mines, and ending restrictions on maritime traffic. Once these steps are taken, Washington would also lift its naval blockade on Iranian ports.
Tehran, however, says no agreement will be reached unless at least a portion of the frozen Iranian assets is released immediately. Iranian media confirmed the discussion of temporary oil sanctions waivers in the latest US proposal but insisted on broader and more permanent sanctions relief.
Nuclear file
The Axios report said the draft deal includes commitments from Iran not to pursue nuclear weapons, along with provisions to negotiate a suspension of uranium enrichment and the removal of its stockpile of highly enriched uranium.
The Iranian media reports, however, indicate that Tehran has not yet accepted anything on its nuclear program.
A potential deal would involve a 60-day negotiation window on Iran’s nuclear program, according to Tasnim.
Extent of ceasefire
Both US and Iranian media reports suggest that the cessation of hostilities would mean a halt to fighting on all fronts, including Lebanon.
This was also highlighted by Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei on Saturday, when he said Tehran was prioritizing an end to hostilities across all fronts, including Lebanon.
Context
Regional tensions have escalated since the US and Israel launched strikes against Iran in February. Tehran retaliated with strikes targeting Israel, as well as US allies in the Gulf, along with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
A ceasefire took effect on April 8 through Pakistani mediation and was later extended by Trump indefinitely. Washington and Tehran also held rare direct talks in the Pakistani capital Islamabad on April 11-12, but have failed to reach an agreement.
Trump’s Saturday remarks came after Pakistani army chief Asim Munir’s visit to Tehran. The visit was the second of its kind in recent weeks, as Munir is directly involved in Islamabad’s mediation efforts.
French Ministry of Interior says 416 people detained nationwide, including 283 in Paris, after PSG’s win over Arsenal.
Published On 31 May 202631 May 2026
Police in France have detained more than 280 people in Paris after violent clashes erupted when thousands poured onto the streets after Paris Saint-Germain’s victory in the Champions League final.
About 22,000 police were deployed across France for the game on Saturday, including 8,000 in Paris, after unrest marred PSG’s win in the competition last year. Paris tram lines were halted, several metro stations shut and bus traffic halted in places in a bid to minimise disturbances.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
According to the French Ministry of the Interior, 416 people were detained nationwide, including 283 who were apprehended in Paris. It was not immediately clear how many of these individuals were remanded in custody to face further investigation.
Interior Minister Laurent Nunez said seven officers were wounded and called the unrest “absolutely unacceptable”.
Six vehicles and two businesses were damaged.
A group of supporters also stormed the Paris ring road, the Boulevard Peripherique, bringing traffic to a halt for a time and setting off flares.
PSG supporters drive their scooters past antiriot police at the Place du Trocadero in Paris [AFP]
As fans celebrated the dramatic penalty shootout victory in the Hungarian capital, Budapest, about 20,000 people converged on Paris’s Champs-Elysees avenue, police said.
Shops boarded up their windows before the match to avoid a repeat of disturbances last year when youths ransacked shops on the Champs-Elysees and other streets. Hundreds of people were arrested.
Two dozen flares and about 100 fireworks were seized on Saturday while a bus shelter was destroyed near the Champs-Elysees.
The match was played on a hectic evening in Paris with singer Aya Nakamura performing at the Stade de France national stadium, rapper Damso at the La Defense Arena and the French Open tennis tournament in full swing.
Police said a bakery and a restaurant were damaged near PSG’s Parc des Princes stadium, where tens of thousands of people had gathered inside to watch the match. Another 4,000 to 5,000 people loitered outside with projectiles that were thrown at officers.
About 150 people “attempted to enter through one of the gates” at the stadium, but police pushed them back, a police spokesperson said.
Some also tried to erect a barricade with rental bikes, which was cleared by police.
Clashes broke out between police and supporters near the stadium, and officers responded with tear gas when fireworks were thrown at them.
PSG supporters gather on the Champs-Elysees after the club’s win [Romeo Boetzle/AFP]
‘Only in France’
The scenes angered the French far right. Three-time presidential candidate Marine Le Pen wrote on X that “only in France does a football club’s victory spark riots.”
“Only in France does everyone feel compelled to lock themselves in their homes on the evening of a victory to avoid being confronted with violence,” she added.
Nunez said there was a “very robust, very solid system in place” to curb violence.
“Our responsibility is to guarantee everyone a festive celebration that is calm and fully secure,” a police spokesperson said.
PSG’s players will take part in a parade on Sunday afternoon on the Champ de Mars in front of the Eiffel Tower in front of an expected crowd of 100,000 people before they are received by President Emmanuel Macron at the Elysee Palace.
Syrian commission confirms the deaths of Rania al-Abbasi’s six children, missing since 2013 under Bashar al-Assad’s rule.
Published On 31 May 202631 May 2026
Syria’s National Commission for Missing Persons (NCMP) says the children of dentist and former chess champion Rania al‑Abbasi, who disappeared with their parents more than a decade ago under then-President Bashar al-Assad, are likely dead.
“We have reached reliable and corroborating results that allow us to conclude with a high degree of professional certainty that Dr Rania al-Abbasi’s children are deceased,” the NCMP said in a statement on Saturday.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
The fate of the children, unknown for years, became a symbol of the plight of other missing children of detainees and those forcibly disappeared during al-Assad’s rule, which ended with his ouster in 2024.
Al-Abbasi went missing along with her husband, Abdul Rahman Yasin, and their six children, aged three to 15, in March 2013 after government forces raided their home in Damascus, according to rights groups.
The commission, set up by the country’s new rulers in May 2025 to investigate missing and forcibly disappeared people, said its findings were “based on multiple verification and analysis procedures” conducted in coordination with national authorities.
“Efforts to find the remains … are still ongoing,” it added.
Hassan al-Abbasi, Rania’s brother, confirmed the children’s deaths in a video posted on Facebook.
He said the family had been able to view video recordings linked to the main suspect in a 2013 massacre in a Damascus district, including one showing him accusing children in a dark room of being “major financiers of terrorism”.
“They turned out to be our children,” Hassan al-Abbasi said. “We finally saw them … but they were martyred.”
The fate of Rania and her husband remains officially unknown after all contact with them was lost following their arrest on accusations linked to opposition to the Assad government.
Rights groups and media reports suggest they may have died, though their bodies were never found.
The issue of missing people remains one of the most pressing in Syria. They include detainees who vanished in government prisons as well as people who went missing during fighting, at checkpoints or while fleeing their homes over the years of civil war.
Tens of thousands of people were detained or disappeared during the war, which erupted in 2011 after a brutal crackdown on antigovernment protests by al-Assad.
The NCMP said last year that the number of people who went missing over decades of al-Assad family rule may exceed 300,000.
Notorious al-Assad regime figure linked to killings
Separately on Saturday, the Syrian Ministry of Interior said its investigation into the disappearance of al-Abbasi’s children had uncovered evidence linking Amjad Youssef – a notorious figure during al-Assad’s rule and the perpetrator of the 2013 Tadamon massacre – to their killing.
In a statement, it said interrogations of detainees, together with videos and information shared by the NCMP, had helped strengthen the case.
Youssef was arrested in April, prompting many Syrians to demand “just punishment” for a man they say carried out the massacre in cold blood.
The Tadamon case drew international attention after footage surfaced documenting the killings.
In 2022, The Guardian newspaper in the United Kingdom published footage it said had been leaked by a conscript in a pro-government militia showing members of the Assad-era Military Intelligence Branch 227 killing at least 41 people and burning their bodies.
The video showed an intelligence officer, identified as Youssef, shooting blindfolded and bound detainees.
An early draft of the annual defense policy bill, or National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), for the 2027 Fiscal Year, would authorize the addition of $5 million to the Navy’s budget for work on a containerized HELIOS. It would also add $2.5 million for a “Containerized Maritime High Energy Laser Weapon System,” which does not otherwise appear to be mentioned, at least by that name, in the service’s proposed budget for the 2027 Fiscal Year. The House Armed Services Committee released this draft NDAA earlier this week.
The one HELIOS laser directed energy weapon in Navy service currently, which is integrated onto the Arleigh Burke class destroyer USS Preble, seen being tested. USN USN
The Navy’s proposed budget for the next fiscal cycle does already include a request for $75.6 million for a separate Joint Laser Weapon System (JLWS) effort. The development of a containerized 150-kilowatt-class laser directed energy weapon, along with work toward 300 and 500-kilowatt-class designs, are part of the stated plans for JLWS. It’s unclear whether the Maritime High Energy Laser Weapon System mentioned in the draft NDAA is related to JLWS.
HELIOS, which the Navy has also designated Mk 5 Mod 0, is a 60-kilowatt-class laser directed energy weapon. At that power level, it is able to destroy or at least damage certain targets, such as drones or small boats, a capability that has now been demonstrated in multiple tests. There has been talk in the past about scaling HELIOS’s power rating up to 150 kilowatts.
Currently, the Navy only has one HELIOS laser, installed on the Arleigh Burke class destroyer USS Preble. Despite integration on an operational warship, the service describes this system as a “Non-Program of Record (POR) Research & Development (R&D) asset” in its most recent budget request.
A graphic depicting an Arleigh Burke class destroyer firing a HELIOS laser. Note that the beam would not be visible to the naked eye during a real engagement. Lockheed Martin
As an aside, another laser system, the Optical Dazzling Interdictor, Navy (ODIN), is currently found on seven other Arleigh Burke class destroyers. An eighth example was integrated on the USS Kidd, but has been temporarily removed while that ship is completing a two-year maintenance availability. That ODIN system is currently being used for land-based training at the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Port Hueneme Division, in California. Designed as a “dazzler,” ODIN is lower-powered than HELIOS, and is intended to blind or confuse electro-optical and/or imaging infrared systems, including seekers on incoming munitions, sending them off course rather than shooting them down.
An ODIN system seen undergoing testing on land. USN
As noted, HELIOS offers demonstrated capability now, and a containerized version is something the Navy might be able to field more widely in the near-term. This, in turn, could help provide a bridge to future developments under JLWS. Containerized systems, as well as palletized ones, inherently offer valuable flexibility, especially in a maritime context. Integration can be more readily achieved on a broad array of ships – including carriers, amphibious warfare ships, sea base-type vessels, and sealift ships, as well as certain surface combatants – as long as there is sufficient deck space and available power.
In April, the Navy disclosed a test of a palletized version of AeroVironment LOCUST laser counter-drone system on the Nimitz class aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush, underscoring exactly this kind of flexibility. For that test, AeroVironment leveraged a palletized configuration of LOCUST it had already developed for the U.S. Army. However, various changes were made to adapt it to shipboard use, including “hardened electronics for salt fog, humidity, vibration, and long deployments” and the addition of “stabilization hardware to manage ship motion,” according to a company press release.
The palletized LOCUST system seen on the deck of the USS George H.W. Bush. USN
When it comes to a containerized version of HELIOS, which could also be used to bolster defenses ashore, would benefit from having been developed for maritime use from the start. It might still be less hardened against environmental conditions, as well as battle damage, than its more deeply integrated counterpart on the USS Preble. There are also questions about how the system might be integrated onto the host ship and its combat system, if it has one at all.
Laser directed energy weapons do also have limitations, especially when employed in the maritime domain, as TWZ has highlighted in the past:
“A single laser can only engage one target at once. As the beam gets further away from the source, its power also drops, just as a result of it having to propagate through the atmosphere. This can be further compounded by the weather and other environmental factors like smoke and dust. More power is then needed to produce suitable effects at appreciable distances. Adaptive optics are used to help overcome atmospheric distortion to a degree. Altogether, laser directed energy weapons generally remain relatively short-range systems.”
“In addition, laser directed energy weapons, especially sensitive optics, present inherent reliability challenges for use in real-world military operations. Shipboard use adds rough sea states and saltwater exposure to the equation. There is also the matter of needing to keep everything properly cooled, which creates additional power generation and other demands.”
Overall, the Navy’s current top leadership is already very supportive of containerized systems and directed energy weapons, including both lasers and high-power microwave types. In March, Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Daryl Caudle, the service’s top officer, unveiled a formal Containerized Capability Campaign.
Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle, left, speaks at a separate budget-related hearing before members of the House Appropriations Committee on May 12, 2026. USN
“From towed-array-systems, to drone swarms, to electronic attack systems, to high-powered lasers … I want to containerize everything,” Caudle said at the annual McAleese Defense Programs Conference in March. “Tailored capabilities give our combatant commanders something they value above all else: options.”
Laser directed energy weapons are also central to the current plan for the Navy’s future Trump class battleships, but they are expected to be deeply integrated into that design rather than containerized. Adm. Caudle has been outspoken more broadly in his view that laser-directed energy weapons are key to bolstering close-in defenses on his service’s warships going forward, including against the growing threat posed by drones.
A rendering of a Trump class battleship firing various weapons, including laser directed energy weapons. USN
“My thesis research at [the] Naval Post Graduate School was on directed energy and nuclear weapons,” the CNO told TWZ and other outlets at a roundtable at the Surface Navy Association’s (SNA) annual symposium in January. “This is my goal, if it’s in line of sight of a ship, that the first solution that we’re using is directed energy.”
In particular, “point defense needs to shift to directed energy,” Caudle added at that time. “It has an infinite magazine.”
Even before assuming his current role as CNO, Caudle has been a vocal supporter of Navy directed energy weapon developments. At the same time, as mentioned, the service has faced continued stumbling blocks to more widespread fielding of these capabilities. This is, in many ways, reflected just in HELIOS, which remains a largely experimental effort despite years of testing and previous talk about expanding it into a broader operational capability. The Navy has integrated other one-off lasers onto other ships in the past. This includes the Laser Weapon System Demonstrator Mk 2 Mod 0 installed for a time on the San Antonio class amphibous warfare ship USS Portland, which is seen being tested in this video below.
Despite it adding funding for containerized system development, the draft NDAA that the House Armed Services Committee also proposes to cut $5 million from the Navy’s Directed Energy and Electric Weapon Systems line item due to what it simply describes as “unjustified growth.” The bill is also very likely to change in substantial ways in the coming weeks and months before it is ever put to a full vote, let alone sent to President Trump’s desk.
Whether or not the extra funding for a containerized version of HELIOS, or the Maritime High Energy Laser Weapon System, comes across in the end, the Navy is already heavily committed to new developments in this arena despite the continued challenges.
The San Antonio Spurs, sparked by superstar Victor Wembanyama, have advanced to the NBA Finals for the first time since 2014 by dethroning the defending champions, the Oklahoma City Thunder, 111-103, to book a championship showdown against the New York Knicks.
The Spurs captured the best-of-seven Western Conference finals 4-3 on Saturday and reached the NBA Finals, which begin on Wednesday against the Knicks in San Antonio.
“Though we’re still hungry for one more, this feeling is, I can’t explain it, it’s so powerful,” Wembanyama said. “We want four more. We’re not done. Go Spurs go.”
French 7-foot-4-inch (224cm) centre Wembanyama scored 22 points and grabbed seven rebounds, Julian Champagnie added 20 points, including six three-pointers, and Stephon Castle had 16 points for the Spurs, who led the winner-take-all contest almost the entire way.
“We had a good team, a great team,” Champagnie said. “We had to stay the course and play a good game.
“We were passing the ball. We were playing as a team. We come out here and play together.
“We never knew if we were going to get this far, but when you’ve got the greatest player in the world, things happen.”
That was a nod to Wembanyama, the Most Valuable Player of the Western Conference finals and the NBA Defensive Player of the Year.
“It doesn’t mean anything for me other than the fact we are a team,” Wembanyama said of his series MVP award. “I got this for all of us and all the fans right here.”
Wembanyama was emotional after securing his first appearance in the NBA Finals [Zach Beeker/Getty Images via AFP]
Of his teammates, Wembanyama added, “They don’t even know how much I love them. They are just incredible. Everybody stepped up tonight.”
“Wemby” dominated in his first playoff game seven and was emotional at the finish, laughing, crying and hugging teammates over reaching his first NBA Finals.
“Realising that some part of the childhood dream was going to come true,” the 22-year-old Frenchman said of his reaction.
The win sets up an NBA Finals repeat of this season’s NBA Cup final, which the Knicks won with a 124-113 defeat of San Antonio last December in Las Vegas.
“A lot of physicality, hit first, and rebounding,” Champagnie said of the Knicks. “It will be a nice challenge for us.”
San Antonio Spurs guard Devin Vassell hangs on the rim after a dunk [Tony Gutierrez/AP]
NBA Most Valuable Player Shai Gilgeous-Alexander led Oklahoma City with 35 points.
“He was brilliant. He had a great game,” Thunder coach Mark Daigneault said. “He delivered. It was a really big-time game for him.
“That would have been one of the stories of the game if we had been able to figure out a way to win it.”
Daigneault said the challenge to repeat was not among the things that led to the defeat.
“You can be proud of effort and progress and the level we played … and we can also be really disappointed,” he said.
“Felt like we could have won the series. We were right there. There’s nobody we don’t think we can’t beat.
“I thought we had enough to win, but credit San Antonio – they’re the ones who did.”
Oklahoma City Thunder guard Shai Gilgeous-Alexander shoots [Nate Billings/AP]
A Spurs squad with only one player who had been in a game seven before overcame a more experienced Thunder squad that won the title in a game seven last year.
“Back in October, we knew we had a chance to be pretty good,” Spurs coach Mitch Johnson said.
“There’s a lot being talked about, words like competitiveness, resolve, togetherness, execution – who gives a damn about the word experience?
“They had to go out and execute, and they did.”
Wembanyama hit two three-pointers in a 17-9 run to start the fourth quarter that lifted the Spurs ahead 97-86 with eight minutes remaining.
“Wemby” was whistled for his fifth foul seconds later and went to the bench, boosting Thunder hopes in the dying minutes while Gilgeous-Alexander tried to rally the reigning champions, only to fall short at the finish.
Jaua defended the importance of national unity in the struggle to reclaim sovereignty. (Venezuelanalysis)
Elías Jaua is a Venezuelan intellectual, university professor, and politician who served as vice president under Hugo Chávez in addition to several ministerial roles in the Chávez and Maduro administrations. He currently heads the Center for the Study of Socialist Democracy (CEDES). In this exclusive interview, Jaua discusses Venezuela’s post-January 3 conjuncture, the anti-imperialist struggle to reclaim sovereignty, and the role to be played by Chavismo.
Venezuela’s reality changed on January 3 with the US strikes and kidnapping of President Maduro. How would you describe the current situation? And regarding the US, there is talk of “conditional sovereignty” and “tutelage,” while officials speak of a “cooperation agenda.” What is your take on this?
Sovereignty is a comprehensive concept. You either have it or you don’t. Sovereignty means not depending on anyone. It is the foundation of a republic. A republic means independence from others, something distinct from liberal, individual freedom. Venezuela today is a state under tutelage, overseen by the Donald Trump administration. This was officially declared by Trump and White House officials such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
This is also clearly reflected in oil production, which must be sold primarily to the US, and the proceeds from those exports do not enter directly into Venezuela’s coffers but instead into a US Treasury account. From there, the Venezuelan government will make requests and have certain amounts necessary for the country’s basic functioning disbursed. That is a complete loss of economic sovereignty. We have also seen how reforms to strategic laws, such as those governing hydrocarbons and mining, have been rushed through. Today, there is immense pressure on labor legislation, both from the Venezuelan business community and from transnational capital, which views labor laws as yet another obstacle to attracting investment.
And finally, we have seen that Venezuela’s foreign policy – which was openly supportive of Palestine, Iran, and Cuba – has been significantly toned down. This is another clear sign that Venezuela is no longer an independent state. Its status as a republic is entirely relative.
US forces recently ran a military exercise in Caracas, with aircraft flying over the city and landing at the embassy compound. (EFE)
In light of all this, how do you feel the government and other national political groups should respond?
I view the decision made on January 3 not to respond to the US military attack as a responsible one, because the enemy clearly had military superiority and the capability to control the entire airspace using high-tech means. A response would have resulted in significant destruction of the country’s infrastructure and armed forces, as well as the killing of thousands of civilians.
Now, four months later, the Venezuelan government and all political forces should clearly denounce to the international community the coercion to which we are being subjected. On the one hand, as a public denunciation, but also to have it formally recorded before international bodies such as the International Commission on Human Rights. What occurred in January were war crimes, a fact supported by United Nations rapporteurs. Next, a complaint should be filed with the International Court of Justice to restore control over national revenues to the Venezuelan state.
One might argue that this is ineffective at the moment, that international law is irrelevant and international organizations are incapable of acting – and that is true. But the country must establish a legal precedent because these institutions still exist, and as a result they are a source of rights. These complaints set precedents so that the country can, in the future, claim the rights that have been damaged by the occupying power.
Finally, it is important to reach out to the international community, and above all to the peoples of the world, so that they know there is a nation that refuses to be placed under tutelage and subjected to these conditions, in order to build international solidarity. An internal political stance must also be established, because this attempt to conceal the gravity of the coercion to which the country is being subjected numbs popular consciousness, undermines patriotic morale, and that is contrary to what is expected of the leadership – not only of the government, but of the entire political leadership of the nation.
But what if that triggers another US military attack?
I don’t think a repeat of the January 3 incident is imminent because it would have repercussions in the US domestic political landscape. The political cost for the Trump administration would no longer be zero, as it practically was on January 3, but there would be greater resistance, especially for attacking a country that has simply exercised its rights before international bodies to claim sovereignty over resources and political self-determination.
Put another way, the option of not denouncing this, of not activating available mechanisms, is to accept and normalize this situation of neocolonialism, and I believe that is a very dangerous path that could even lead to Venezuela’s annexation by the US. I believe there are moments when peoples, nations, and their leaders must take a firm stand for the sake of history. Here it is no longer a matter of defending a party or a political movement, but rather the existence of a nation that was born free. We have a historic responsibility to ensure it remains that way for future generations.
Jaua highlighted the importance of denouncing US neocolonial impositions and calling for international solidarity. (Unión Radio)
US officials repeat their “three-phase plan,” which ends with a political “transition,” on a daily basis, while the extremist opposition demands immediate elections to seize power at any cost. From your perspective, what is the path forward, and what should the priorities be?
The priority is to regain independence. If we hold elections, that is with candidates for what? For governor of the colony? Anyone who truly wants to hold the presidency of the Republic of Venezuela must first raise their voice in favor of the immediate restoration of the country’s sovereign rights over its resources and revenues and the assertion of political self-determination.
In any case, I argue that any eventual electoral process should be the result of a national agreement, renationalizing politics and not waiting for a call from the White House one day announcing that there will be elections in six months. That would be very shameful. I believe that Venezuelan political forces would be obligated, as part of that strategy to reclaim and demand the restoration of Venezuela’s sovereignty, to also commit to the international community and the Venezuelan people to seek a political, democratic, and electoral path forward.
In a recent article, you spoke of an inability to manage the internal political conflict, which paved the way for foreign intervention. Could you elaborate on this idea? How has that situation changed since January 3?
Foreign meddling began on the very first day of the Bolivarian Revolution, and there were agents that facilitated it. The first concrete example was the April 11, 2002 coup d’état, with the open participation of the US and Spanish governments, and from that point on, that interference never ceased. But there was always a degree of autonomy that allowed, especially after 2004, for the democratic resolution of the conflict through national agreements. For instance, the recall referendum that ultimately ratified Chávez’s mandate.
But starting in 2014, after the right-wing insurrectionary attempt known as “La Salida” and its failure, the US began to intervene directly by declaring Venezuela an “unusual and extraordinary threat,” and from that point on, the opposition lost any capacity to make decisions. I was a member of the dialogue delegation in the Dominican Republic in 2018 and saw how an agreement signed by everyone was overturned by a phone call from the US embassy.
I also believe that later, over the past five years, the Venezuelan government chose to engage in dialogue with the US and bet that the conflict would be resolved directly with Washington. Therefore, everyone put all their eggs in the White House’s basket, and the decision slipped completely out of the control of the country’s internal institutions until the game came to a standstill. And indeed, at the behest of the far-right opposition, Washington intervened and attacked on January 3. That is why I say that reclaiming internal political control in order to resolve the conflict would be an act of dignity and courage on the part of the entire Venezuelan political leadership. Conflict is not going to vanish, because today the calls for a conflict-free Venezuela come alongside a set of measures that deepen it. For example, labor deregulation, social disinvestment, political exclusion, etc.
“We’re socialists and anti-imperialists!” banner in a Chavista march. (Archive)
In recent years, you have analyzed and debated the direction of Chavismo amid sanctions and the implementation of orthodox macroeconomic adjustment policies. Since January 3, we have seen a drastic overhaul of key pillars of the Bolivarian project, such as the Hydrocarbons Law, and critical voices growing louder, including Mario Silva and Luis Britto García. What is the current state of Chavismo, in your opinion?
First of all, the revision and change of course regarding fundamental aspects of Chavismo’s historic program did not begin on January 3 but much earlier. It was formalized starting in 2018 with the Program for Economic Recovery, Growth, and Prosperity, aimed at halting the advance of the transition to socialism and restoring the private sector’s hegemony in managing the economy, with clear consequences for social rights and the fight against social inequality. This was also accompanied by increasingly undemocratic mechanisms, from the political leadership, to impose a change of course in economic and social policy.
However, a fundamental core of Chavismo’s programmatic unity – the struggle for independence and national sovereignty – remained intact, and that kept Chavismo cohesive despite major differences. Today, I believe Chavismo must be situated within different spheres. There is a Chavismo within the United Socialist Party (PSUV) – no one can dispute that – but I believe there is a broader, and much larger, Chavismo, with a cultural, political, and symbolic identity rooted in a metanarrative that exists outside the PSUV and the Great Patriotic Pole. That sector currently lacks clear leadership and organizational structure, but it retains its values. It may have circumstantial views of the situation, but essentially it continues to uphold the principles that launched this process: sovereignty, participatory and protagonist democracy, democratic pluralism, freedom, political ethics, debate, speaking the truth, and social equality. It also holds a vision of a multipolar world, in solidarity with international struggles. These were, in essence, the core tenets of Chavismo from its inception and remain relevant for a significant portion of the Venezuelan population that is Chavista or was once Chavista.
You have talked about building national unity at this juncture, but also about upholding Chávez and his legacy. Are these two paths compatible?
This is a difficult and painful reflection because the figure and the project of Hugo Chávez have been burdened with a series of deviations. Practices that run completely contrary to the principles and values he defended, and upon which he built the Chavista project. For example, the case of Víctor Hugo Quero and his mother is deeply outrageous (1). It is a truly shameful incident, yet international news outlets report, “Chavismo admits to the disappearance of a detainee,” “Mother of prisoner killed by Chavismo dies.” Is it Chavismo or just a few individuals responsible? What about the men and women who, for over 25 years, laboriously dreamed, built, and dedicated part of their lives to creating well-being and the common good in their communities, to building a national project called “Chavismo”? It is very unfair because Chavismo, as a movement, is being accused of things it did not do. Chavismo is not this or that leader; it is the men and women who gave up the only thing they had – their time, their effort – to build community, a national project, to plant crops, to learn to read and write or to teach others to read and write, to study, and so on.
I stand by Chavismo as the men and women who dreamed, who continue to dream, and who have given their all to build a more humane society. For me, that will continue to be Chavismo. And those of us who have held leadership posts in this process must assume their responsibilities for the good and the bad. But it is unethical to blame a popular movement, a popular ideal like Chavismo, for the mistakes, deviations, and vile acts that some leaders may have committed.
I believe that the call for national unity, to paraphrase [revolutionary communist leader Alfredo] Maneiro, will spring from the most authentic Chavismo, but will transcend it. It will converge with other currents of the left that were not Chavista, with social democratic sectors that broke away from the extremist opposition, and with people who never took a stance on the political conflict the country has experienced in recent decades. It will be the plurality of opinions, of people, of organizations, that will provide the foundation for a necessary movement, which I see as unstoppable and already feel in the streets, in this struggle to regain independence and sovereignty.
Jaua served as Chávez’s vice-president from 2010 to 2012. (Archive)
Note
(1) Victor Quero died in state custody in July 2025 but his family was not notified. His mother, Carmen Navas, continued to search for him until his death was publicly acknowledged in May 2026 after a judge denied an amnesty request. Navas passed away shortly afterward.
Similarly, the Sunday Telegraph is dominated by an image of an emotional Gabriel, and reads: “Arsenal’s Champions League dream dies”. It leads with a story accusing UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer of “watering down” checks on welfare benefits claimants, as new rules come into effect this week which will allow people to receive a Personal Independence Payment (PIP) for four years after their initial assessment, and then a further six years after a review. The paper says claimants face reviews as often as every nine months under the current system. It writes that officials are warning that urgent changes to the welfare assessment system are needed, with the record number of people claiming PIPs costing the British taxpayer £26bn a year.
As Cuba heads into another month of blackouts due to the near-total fuel blockade imposed by the US, many say their lives now revolve around these power outages.
For Ana Rosa Romero, a 70-year-old widow living in a high-rise building, the constant power cuts have transformed her daily life.
BBC’s Will Grant spoke to her about the impact of the blackouts.
Weekly insights and analysis on the latest developments in military technology, strategy, and foreign policy.
In what appears to be the first incident of its kind, a Russian kamikaze drone strayed into Romanian airspace before striking a residential building, injuring civilians. While Russian drones flying into NATO airspace, whether accidental or deliberate, have become a feature of the war in Ukraine, this marks a notable milestone, although the nature of the repercussions remains unclear.
The Russian drone was part of a barrage involved in an overnight attack on Ukraine. It strayed into Romanian airspace before crashing into the roof of a residential building in Galați on the River Danube, in eastern Romania. The Romanian Ministry of Defense assesses that the drone was intended to attack one of several Ukrainian targets in the vicinity of the river border with Romania.
A russian drone carrying explosives, involved in the bombing of infrastructure in Ukraine crashed in Galați, Romania, causing a fire on the roof of a residential apartment building.
Two persons sustained minor injuries and several residents required medical attention, the… pic.twitter.com/P8jzYFrEEp
A senior NATO official confirmed to TWZ that it had detected and tracked the Russian drone, but it entered Romanian airspace only minutes before striking the apartment building. “To put this in context, you are talking about something that is travelling nearly 200km/h [124 miles per hour] over a populated area less than 15km [nine miles] from the border. Nonetheless, we are assessing what more can be done now to optimize Romania and NATO’s network of sensors and shooters to safely neutralize such threats,” the official added.
JUST IN: Images from inside the apartment hit by a Russian drone in Galați, Romania are now emerging. The images shows extensive damage, with the reinforced concrete ceiling completely perforated by the impact and explosion. A mother and her 14-year-old son were injured. pic.twitter.com/BRq9txK3QS
According to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, the Shahed-type drone was involved in Russian strikes on the Odesa region, which borders Romania, targeting civilian container ships. Since the summer of 2023, Russia has embarked on a campaign to attack Ukrainian ports and other facilities on the Danube, with extensive use of drones. Overnight Russian strikes in the wider Black Sea region saw three foreign-flagged merchant vessels attacked, according to Kyiv, one of them being the Turkish-owned Ant, a dry cargo ship that was heading to Turkey from Odesa.
It is indeed necessary to step up pressure on Russia so that this war is not dragged out or expanded. Last night, the Russians carried out a deliberate strike on our southern region – Odesa region, which borders Romania. This was yet another cynical attack on civilian… https://t.co/lOcfhrwQAf
— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) May 29, 2026
A map showing the approximate location of Galați on the River Danube, in eastern Romania, close to the borders with Ukraine and Moldova. Google Earth
The impact sparked a fire, injured two people, and forced the evacuation of several other residents.
The Romanian Ministry of Defense said the drone had been tracked by radar in Romanian airspace.
A Romanian Air Force F-16 fighter. U.S. Army National Guard photo by Staff Sgt. Jaccob Hearn Sgt. 1st Class Jaccob Hearn
There have been some mixed messages as to why the drone was not shot down.
The Romanian Ministry of Defense says that the pilots involved had authorization to engage targets throughout the alert.
President of Romania Nicușor Dan said that the decision not to engage the target was taken “because the conditions did not exist to destroy it without the heightened risk of endangering civilian safety.”
Regardless, Romania summoned Russia’s ambassador today, calling out the “irresponsible escalation” by Moscow.
“We will officially communicate the consequences that this lack of responsibility on the part of the Russian Federation will have for the diplomatic relations between our countries, as well as the next steps at the European level regarding sanctions packages,” the Romanian Foreign Minister Oana Țoiu wrote on X.
L-am convocat pe Ambasadorul Federației Ruse la sediul Ministerului Afacerilor Externe.
Siguranța României este prioritatea noastră absolută.
Avem confirmarea MAPN că drona care s-a prăbușit pe o clădire rezidențială din Galați este de proveniență rusească.
Meanwhile, Romania’s president, Nicușor Dan, said he had instructed the foreign ministry to prepare a package of measures regarding Romania’s relationship with Moscow, “proportionate to this very serious situation.”
Am avut o convorbire cu Secretarul General @NATO, @SecGenNATO , în urma celui mai grav incident de securitate produs pe teritoriul României de la începutul războiului de agresiune al Rusiei împotriva Ucrainei. Am condamnat ferm această încălcare inacceptabilă a suveranității…
Condemnation has also come from other NATO allies.
“I want to condemn this irresponsible act by Russia,” France’s foreign minister, Jean-Noël Barrot, said, adding that the drone had struck “a country of the European Union and a NATO country.”
A NATO spokesperson condemned “Russia’s recklessness” and said the alliance would strengthen its defences against all threats, including drones.
Meanwhile, UN Secretary General António Guterres has called for greater diplomacy, immediate de-escalation and “a full and unconditional ceasefire,” warning of “unknown and unintended consequences” from the escalation and intensification of Russian drone and missile attacks against Ukraine.
Russia’s war of aggression has crossed yet another line.
A Russian drone incursion struck a densely populated area in Romania, injuring civilians.
On EU territory.
We stand in full solidarity with Romania and its people.
As we continue strengthening our security and…
— Ursula von der Leyen (@vonderleyen) May 29, 2026
Romania has also called for the beefing up of its counter-drone capabilities to help prevent similar incidents in the future.
The Romanian Foreign Ministry today said it had asked NATO to accelerate the transfer of anti-drone capabilities in response to the drone strike.
PM @Bolojan: @GuvernulRo strongly condemns Russia’s violation of our airspace. We count on NATO Allies’ support and timely delivery of anti-drone capabilities. We are also focusing on rapid implementation of SAFE.
Romania already hosts several layers of NATO and NATO-linked air defense infrastructure, but most of these are designed to engage ballistic missiles and conventional aircraft, not large numbers of low, slow Shahed-type drones.
Air defense capabilities in Romania include the Aegis Ashore system at Deveselu, the most important NATO missile-defense installation in the region. It is a U.S.-operated land version of the naval Aegis ballistic missile defense system armed with SM-3 interceptors, integrated into NATO’s missile shield.
The U.S. Aegis Ashore site in Romania. U.S. Navy
Romania also operates Patriot PAC-3 systems, which are effective against aircraft, cruise missiles, and some ballistic missiles, but are an expensive option for routine drone interception.
A Romanian Army Patriot missile system during a live-fire exercise at the Capu Midia range in Romania, in November 2023. U.S. Department of Defense/Courtesy photo Tech. Sgt. Kristen Pittman
In addition, the country hosts rotational NATO fighter policing detachments, which provide additional air defense over the Black Sea and provide air policing patrols. Currently, a detachment of U.K. Royal Air Force Typhoons is in Romania as part of Operation Biloxi.
UK heatwave? ☀️
Still not as hot as a Typhoon afterburner on Op BILOXI.🔥✈️
🛫Typhoons from @RoyalAirForce continue to launch on BILOXI, sharpening combat edge alongside allies in support of @NATO enhanced Air Policing mission.
— Defence Operations 🇬🇧 (@DefenceOps) May 29, 2026
It should be pointed out that this is not the first incident in which a Russian drone flying from the Ukrainian side of the border has violated Romanian airspace. Drone wreckage was found in Romania, close to the border with Ukraine, in September and October of 2023, although there was no evidence that the NATO country was deliberately targeted. In December of the same year, NATO fighters deployed in Romania were scrambled to respond to a drone violation, with one of the drones exploding in Romanian territory, although it was not shot down. Since then, there have been multiple other Russian drone incursions, but no reported injuries as a result.
However, the overnight strike in Romania further underscores the potentially lethal risk of the war in Ukraine spilling over from Ukraine and into NATO territory.
It also coincides with Russian threats to step up its sustained assault on Ukraine. Moscow has continued using long-range missiles and drones to target Ukrainian cities and critical energy infrastructure, while Kyiv prepares for further waves of intense attacks.
Earlier this week, Zelensky said he was urging the United States to supply more Patriot systems to help defend against Russian ballistic missile strikes, amid an ongoing shortage of critical air defense systems. Speaking today, the Ukrainian leader said that Ukrainian intelligence has information indicating Russia is preparing a new large-scale attack on Ukraine.
As we have discussed in the past, Russian kamikaze drones heading toward population centers in NATO countries represent an entirely new level of threat to the alliance and one that NATO is currently not well-equipped to deal with.
Police and forensic investigators examine the location of impact over a damaged apartment after a Russian drone struck an apartment building in Galati, eastern Romania. Photo by Daniel MIHAILESCU / AFP DANIEL MIHAILESCU
Considering the intensity of Russian aerial bombardment of Ukraine, and the proximity of NATO borders, it was really only a matter of time until an incident like this occurred.
Already, Romania expanded its no-fly zone along a section of the border with Ukraine to up to 20 miles inside Romania and to a height of 4,000 feet. This was intended as a deterrent against Russian drones from deliberately entering Romanian airspace to reach enemy targets.
TWZ reached out to NATO for details of potential posture changes, and a senior official from the alliance confirmed that a NATO E-3A Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft was launched today to increase air-domain awareness.
A U.S Air Force E-3 Sentry taxis past a NATO E-3A Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft at NATO Air Base Geilenkirchen, Germany. U.S. Air Force photo/2nd Lt. Caleb Wanzer Capt. Caleb Wanzer
The same NATO official told us that one way to avoid similar incidents in the future would be to bring the MEROPS counter-drone system to Romania under NATO command and control.
“Another way is for Romania and other allies to continue the acquisition of more capabilities as part of the Eastern Flank Deterrence Initiative, which integrates sensing, decision-making and precision effects into a resilient, defense-in-depth concept,” the official added.
As you can read about here, MEROPS counter-drone systems, initially used in Ukraine, have also been deployed to protect U.S. troops from Iranian Shahed-136 munitions. The MEROPS is a small, relatively inexpensive drone built specifically to intercept long-range one-way attack drones.
A new system to identify and take down Russian drones is deployed to NATO’s eastern flank
Now that a Romanian residential building has been hit and people injured, this may push the needle further and lead to the more comprehensive deployment of counter-drone capabilities in this country and elsewhere on NATO’s eastern flank.
A provision in a bill before the United States Congress could tie the American and Israeli militaries far more closely together, deepening their cooperation on weapons research, production and technology.
The proposal, titled the “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative,” appears as Section 224 of the House Armed Services Committee’s version of the fiscal year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the annual US defence policy bill.
Recommended Stories
list of 2 itemsend of list
The measure is still at an early stage. The NDAA is passed by Congress each year to set US military policy and authorise defence programmes and spending levels.
If enacted, the provision could mark a major change in one of the world’s closest military relationships, shifting the two countries from a partnership centred largely on American military aid towards one in which their defence industries are more deeply intertwined.
Section 224 would require the US defence secretary to appoint an “executive agent”: a single official to coordinate military cooperation between the US and Israel.
That work would cover joint research and development, the shared production of weapons, and the linking of military systems and data.
“What Congress is trying to do now is find different ways of entrenching the relationship so deep in America’s own defence industrial base that it’s impossible to root it out,” Josh Paul, a former US State Department official and founder of the advocacy group A New Policy, said about the controversial provision.
“A new section of law in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) would give Israel unprecedented access to American technology and would force the United States military to integrate Israeli defence technologies into our own critical military supply chain, giving Israel incredible leverage over America’s own defence priorities,” he added in a video posted on social media on Friday.
The two countries already build missile defence systems together, such as the Iron Dome.
The bill would extend their joint work into many more areas of modern warfare, from artificial intelligence (AI) to drones and cyber operations.
In February, US and Israeli forces attacked Iran together, triggering five weeks of war; Iran struck back at Israel and at US bases in the Gulf before a ceasefire took hold in April.
Israel is also facing genocide allegations in a case brought by South Africa at the International Court of Justice, the UN’s top court, over its war on Gaza.
Decades of support
The bill must first clear the House Armed Services Committee, which is due to take it up in early June, and then pass the full House and the Senate.
It was proposed by the committee’s Republican chairman, Mike Rogers, and its most senior Democrat, Adam Smith, giving it support from both main parties, even as opinion polls suggest growing opposition among American Democrats and some Republicans to further military support for Israel.
The US has supported Israel’s military for decades.
Since 2008, US law has required Washington to protect Israel’s “qualitative military edge”, keeping its forces stronger and more advanced than those of any rival in the region, on the grounds that a small country must rely on better weapons rather than greater numbers.
Under the current aid deal signed during the administration of former President Barack Obama, Washington provides Israel with about $3.8bn a year in military assistance. The 10-year agreement runs through 2028.
Israel is the largest recipient of US foreign aid since 1948, almost all of it now military and worth well over $300bn when adjusted for inflation.
The nature of that support may now be changing. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said recently that he wants to end Israel’s reliance on US military aid within 10 years, saying his country had “come of age”.
Closer cooperation between the two defence industries, rather than cash, would likely fit that goal.
In Colombia’s volatile Catatumbo region, FARC dissidents say they returned to war after a historic peace deal failed to deliver security and social change.
Al Jazeera’s Teresa Bo has exclusive access to the group as it fights rivals for control of territory and lucrative drug trafficking routes.
Paris Saint-Germain held their nerve in a cagey Champions League final to retain the title by beating Arsenal 4-3 on penalties as Saturday’s nail-biting showdown ended 1-1 after extra time, cementing the French side’s status among Europe’s modern greats.
Arsenal defender Gabriel blasted his spot kick over Matvey Safonov’s crossbar at the Puskas Arena in Budapest, his miss confirming PSG as the first club to retain the trophy since Real Madrid completed their three-year reign from 2016 to 2018.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
Long dismissed as glamorous underachievers despite vast resources, the Ligue 1 champions have now forged a dynasty under Luis Enrique, marrying attacking brilliance with resilience to establish themselves as the dominant force in European football.
“It’s stronger than last year because we knew before the match just how difficult it would be to play against Arsenal,” said Enrique, whose side had thrashed Inter Milan 5-0 a year ago to claim Europe’s elite trophy for the first time.
“As a club and a city, it’s incredible to win, and I think we deserved it over the course of the season. The final was a real battle,” added the Spanish coach.
The outcome left Arsenal midfielder Declan Rice devastated but proud as his side finished their European campaign without losing a match, aside from the shootout defeat in the final.
“It’s gutting. It’s devastating to lose a Champions League final on penalties,” he said. “But we try to take a lot of perspective from how far we’ve come as a group.
“An incredible season. Given it absolutely everything up until this point. We took the game to penalties. It’s a lottery.”
Eleven days after celebrating their first Premier League title in 22 years, Arsenal looked set for a maiden triumph on Europe’s biggest stage after Kai Havertz’s sixth-minute opener and a first hour spent smothering PSG’s vaunted attack.
However, the final in the Hungarian capital became chaotic, once PSG’s Ousmane Dembele equalised with a penalty in the 65th minute, the pace turning frantic before exhaustion took the match to a shootout.
Under Enrique, PSG have won the six shootouts they have contested, with the 56-year-old winning 12 of the 13 one-off club finals as coach.
After brushing aside Premier League opposition on their way to the final by eliminating Chelsea and Liverpool, PSG were facing a much sterner test against an Arsenal team playing their second Champions League final after losing to Barcelona in 2006.
Mikel Arteta’s side took the lead when Marquinhos’ clearance bounced off Arsenal’s Leandro Trossard into the path of Havertz, who raced into the box and fired into the roof of the net.
He is the fourth player to score in two different European Cup or Champions League finals with two different clubs.
It was the nightmare scenario for PSG – trailing so early against the best defence in the competition.
Arsenal lived up to their reputation as the best team without the ball and looked perfectly content with the script, doubling up on Khvicha Kvaratskhelia and suffocating the usual danger posed by the Georgian magician on the left flank.
PSG’s Fabian Ruiz was unable to impose his usual rhythm in midfield and, despite monopolising possession for long spells, the French side struggled to carve out clear-cut chances.
By half-time, PSG had attacked 32 times, Arsenal three.
Arsenal, however, were flirting with the boundaries with their challenges and Cristhian Mosquera brought down Kvaratskhelia in the area, with Dembele converting the penalty to equalise with his eighth goal in the competition.
The momentum had shifted.
Jurrien Timber and Viktor Gyokeres replaced Mosquera and Martin Odegaard. Arsenal had a more attacking mindset but were exposed to PSG’s counter attacks and at the end of one of them, Kvaratskhelia sped into the box, only for his left-footed effort to crash onto the outside of David Raya’s post.
After controlling the tempo in the first half, Arsenal played into PSG’s hands as the pace increased significantly, giving too much space to Kvaratskhelia or Bradley Barcola, who replaced the Georgian winger with seven minutes remaining.
In the 89th minute, PSG came close to giving the final an abrupt end as Vitinha’s shot grazed the top of the net. Barcola also shot over the bar after a counter attack, with what would have been the last kick of the game.
With both teams having run out of steam, extra time was a cautious affair and when referee Daniel Siebert blew his whistle, Arsenal had only managed one shot on target.
Arsenal’s Eberechi Eze missed his penalty before Raya saved Nuno Mendes’ attempt. Gabriel had to score to keep the Gunners’ hopes alive but, facing PSG’s end, he fired over.
The French side were left to celebrate being European champions once again, with extra-time substitute Lucas Beraldo’s goal in the shootout proving to be the winner.
Women in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo are disproportionately impacted by Ebola as shortages of protective gear amid funding cuts accelerate the spread of disease. Al Jazeera’s Imogen Kimber reports how these caregivers to the living and the dead are most at risk.
A Death in Paradise icon hasn’t strayed too far from the world of crime and mystery.
Hayley Anderson Screen Time TV Reporter
18:25, 30 May 2026
Death in Paradise is available to watch on BBC One and BBC iPlayer. (Image: BBC)
Death in Paradise fans need to watch this “incredible” drama, especially after this important update.
Death in Paradise legend DS Florence Cassell (played by Josephine Jobert) originally debuted in the BBC cosy crime back in season four before leaving in series eight.
She thankfully returned to Saint Marie and her story ended in season 13 when she happily sailed away with former boss DI Neville Parker (Ralf Little).
For those who are missing watching Jobert on their screens, Death in Paradise fans can now catch her in the Canadian detective drama Saint-Pierre.
The first season has only recently become available on U&Alibi, as well as Sky and NOW, in the UK, after first airing in Canada in January 2025, followed by series two in January 2026.
Now it’s been confirmed that Saint-Pierre will be back for a season three with UK fans expecting the latest two series to soon be made available to them.
Filming for this 12-episode third season will reportedly begin in Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon and Newfoundland, Canada, in July.
As of yet though, there has been no confirmation as to when UK fans will be treated to the second season.
Jobert portrays mysterious Parisian Deputy Chief Genevieve “Arch” Archambault who is forced to work alongside disgraced officer Donny “Fitz” Fitzpatrick (Allan Hawco) after he’s exiled to the small French collectivity.
While the pair initially clash because of their different styles of investigation, they soon realise that they make a great team, delving into a new case every episode.
Scoring an impressive 80% on Rotten Tomatoes, it’s no wonder fans have been praising Saint-Pierre on IMdB.
“Obsessed! Seriously, I’m hooked. Every week, they leave you hanging with a cliffhanger, and I’m just dying!”, a fan commented.
Another described it as a “must watch”, while a third echoed: “The cast are excellent – they have great chemistry.
“Also Saint-Pierre is STUNNING! It’s a character all on its own and the scenery makes me want to visit someday – I didn’t even know it existed!”
Someone else said it was an “incredible series” as another added: “Just love this show! It’s so much more than a police procedural. The chemistry between Fitz and Arch has me hooked!”
Saint-Pierre is available to watch on U&Alibi, Sky and NOW.
Iran has reasserted its control over the Strait of Hormuz, warning that foreign commercial and military vessels will be targeted, if they do not comply with regulations governing passage through the strategic waterway.
The announcement on Saturday came after the United States signalled that President Donald Trump was close to a decision on a potential deal with Iran, but Tehran denied an agreement had been reached.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
“The management of the Strait of Hormuz is exercised with full authority by the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran,” the operational headquarters of Iran’s armed forces, Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, said in a statement reported by Iranian media on Saturday.
“All ships, commercial vessels, and tankers are only required to travel through the designated routes and obtain permission from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps [IRGC] Navy. Any violation of these regulations will seriously jeopardise the security of their traffic,” it added.
Iran also issued a warning to foreign military forces operating in the area, saying any attempt to interfere with maritime management or shipping movements would trigger a response.
On Friday, Trump met with advisers in the White House Situation Room and said a “final determination” on a possible deal with Iran would soon be made. But no statement followed the meeting.
US sources had told the AFP news agency the deal was waiting on Trump’s sign-off, but he made no decision after Friday’s meeting.
Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Esmaeil Baghaei, said on Friday that while messages continue to be exchanged “no final agreement has been reached” on a deal with the US.
US Central Command (CENTCOM) posted on social media that American forces “remain present and vigilant across the region”.
The efforts to reach a deal were thrown into question this week by US strikes on the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas, countered by retaliatory Iranian fire.
Iran’s IRNA state news agency said air defences shot down a drone “belonging to the US-Zionist aggressor enemy” on Saturday, citing a statement from the army.
Trump said his priorities in any deal include Iran agreeing to never develop nuclear weapons, and the reopening of the blockaded Strait of Hormuz.
“President Trump will only make a deal that is good for America and satisfies his red lines,” a White House official told AFP, adding: “Iran can never possess a nuclear weapon.”
Trump ‘betraying diplomacy’
Also on Saturday, Mohsen Rezaei, an adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, said in a social media post that Trump was “betraying diplomacy for the third time” by continuing the US naval blockade in the strait, and making what he described as “excessive demands in negotiations”.
In a social media post on Friday, Trump said Tehran would remove mines from the strait and end its closure of the waterway with “no tolls”, while the US would lift its blockade.
Both countries would coordinate on removing and destroying Iran’s enriched uranium, he said, adding that “no money will be exchanged, until further notice”.
Iran’s Fars news agency, however, cited sources as saying Tehran was demanding “the immediate release of $12bn” in frozen assets before moving to the next phase of negotiations.
On the toll-free reopening of Hormuz, the sources said “no such clause appears in the text of the agreement”, while Trump’s comment on destroying Iran’s nuclear material “is fundamentally baseless”.
Iran’s ISNA news agency cited legislator Alireza Salimi as saying a plan “to implement Iran’s management and sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz will soon be approved by parliament”.
Iran’s Tasnim news agency said the US blockade remains in place, and its ships “are receiving warnings from CENTCOM to stop and not cross the blockade line”.
