options

What are the government’s options on asylum seeker accommodation?

Jack FenwickPolitical correspondent

PA Media Channel migrants step onto the dock from a UK Border Force boat in Dover, Kent. The picture shows several migrants, wearing life jackets, being escorted from a boat by several officials wearing high-vis jackets.PA Media

Where to house asylum seekers has become one of the fiercest topics of political debate since last year’s general election.

Small boat crossings have reached near-record levels and MPs on the Home Affairs Select Committee said the Home Office had squandered billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on asylum accommodation.

The estimated cost of the government’s 10-year asylum accommodation contracts has more than tripled, from £4.5bn to £15.3bn.

Ministers inside the Home Office believe that ultimately this issue can only be solved by increasing removals of failed asylum seekers and deterring people from arriving on small boats in the first place.

But while they attempt to implement policies to achieve those aims, the Home Office still has to find somewhere for the tens of thousands of people seeking asylum to stay.

Arrival

When people arrive in the UK by crossing the Channel on small boats, they are generally sent to a processing centre at Manston in Kent.

The site is located on the former RAF Manston base and was opened by the Home Office in February 2022 as a response to the increasing number of arrivals.

Migrants are supposed to be held there for 24 hours, while officials carry out security and identity checks, but overcrowding has sometimes led to people being forced to stay on the site for weeks.

In late 2022, thousands of migrants were placed in tents at Manston, leading to overcrowding and disease, including diphtheria.

A Home Office inquiry is currently taking place into the conditions at Manston.

The department is also seeking planning approval to improve the site and use it for processing asylum seekers into the 2030s.

Initial accommodation

After leaving Manston, asylum seekers are then sent to initial accommodation provided by the Home Office, while officials decide whether they are eligible for further support.

These are supposed to be centres managed by specialist migrant help staff, but many asylum seekers are instead sent to hotels or hostels straight away.

There are 1,750 places available in initial accommodation and the latest government data showed 1,665 of those places were occupied in June.

Most asylum seekers will then be sent to longer-term accommodation, where they will stay while their asylum claim is being processed.

Flats and HMOs

Under the contracts signed by the Home Office, asylum seekers are supposed to be housed in so-called dispersal accommodation.

These are self-catered properties within communities and are usually local flats or houses in multiple occupation (HMOs), a type of rented accommodation where at least three individuals share the use of a bathroom and kitchen.

The average cost of housing an asylum seeker in dispersal accommodation is £23.25 a night, making it by far the cheapest option.

In 2019, the government signed 10-year contracts with three companies – Serco, Mears and Clearsprings – and tasked them with finding properties that can be used for dispersal accommodation.

But since the number of small boat crossings began to rise significantly in 2022, there’s been a shortage of this type of accommodation.

Finding more of these properties became a big priority for the former Home Secretary Yvette Cooper and the latest government data shows that 66,234 people were in dispersal accommodation in June – around two-thirds of the total number of asylum seekers being housed.

But the three companies tasked with finding these properties can make bigger profits from other types of accommodation – and the contracts drawn up by the Home Office don’t include any penalties for the companies when they fail to hit their targets.

Dispersal accommodation can impact local housing markets by effectively taking flats or HMOs out of general supply, something the Home Office acknowledges would cause frustrations within communities.

Some concerns have been raised that protests targeting this type of accommodation could be difficult to police.

A bar chart showing the number of people in asylum accommodation between December 2022 and June 2025. The numbers rise from about 45,000 to a peak of 56,000 in September 2023 before falling to 30,000 in June 2024. There is a slight rise then before a drop in June 2025 to the current total of about 32,000

Hotels

Hotels were only ever meant to be used as a stop-gap option when there was a temporary shortage of other accommodation.

But increasing numbers of migrants crossing the Channel in small boats has meant hotels have become a regular, expensive and highly controversial feature of the UK’s asylum accommodation system.

They have led to soaring costs for the taxpayer and large profits for the three companies providing the accommodation.

The average cost of housing an asylum seeker in a hotel is £144.98 a night, more than six times the price of dispersal accommodation.

One of the reasons hotels are so much more expensive than other accommodation is because the asylum seekers being housed there are also given food.

Under the contracts drawn up by the Home Office, providers are still paid even if the rooms are vacant.

Asylum hotel use peaked under the Conservatives in September 2023 when 56,042 people were being housed.

Latest government statistics show there were 32,059 asylum seekers being housed in hotels at the end of June – much lower than the peak, but 8% higher than when Labour came to power.

The Home Office removed the need to consult local authorities about hotel use in 2020 and they’ve become lightning rods for protests.

Sir Keir Starmer has pledged to end the use of hotels to house asylum seekers by 2029, but achieving that target will be a tough ask.

Large sites

Both Conservative and Labour governments have experimented with using larger sites to house asylum seekers.

Hundreds of asylum seekers could be placed in disused military sites, as part of efforts to achieve the prime minister’s pledge to end hotel use.

Ministers hope to move asylum seekers into sites in Inverness and East Sussex by the end of next month, with discussions between the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence ongoing about other potential locations.

The Home Affairs Select Committee has said that large sites such as these will not enable the government to drive down costs of asylum accommodation.

The idea is also likely to be highly controversial in the local communities where the sites are chosen, but the Home Office hopes that military sites could act as a deterrent to people thinking of crossing the Channel.

Disused military land has in the past been earmarked for housebuilding, but plans to build on these sites have repeatedly gone awry.

The government has indicated that other disused sites such as empty tower blocks, student accommodation and industrial sites could also be used to house asylum seekers.

What happens next?

The government’s contracts with Serco, Mears and Clearsprings run until 2029, but have break clauses which the government could trigger in March next year.

Home Office ministers wanted to trigger break clauses in the previous set of contracts, but the department hadn’t left itself enough time to plan for an alternative accommodation system.

The housing department has been working with local councils to explore what that alternative system could look like.

But some within the Home Office do not believe that an alternative would be ready by March and as recently as May, it was understood that there was no plan to trigger the break clauses next year.

The Home Office needs to save £1bn from the cost of asylum accommodation by 2029, otherwise it may have to find cuts in other areas of its budget.

Source link

Lewis Crocker: Manny Pacquiao, Conor Benn or Belfast option’s for first title defence

Although that option is viable, it is much more likely Crocker will either face Benn or enjoy another big night in Belfast for a first voluntary defence.

However, much will depend on the outcome of November’s middleweight rematch between Benn and Chris Eubank Jr in terms of when Benn could be ready to return to the ring and drop back to welterweight.

The updated IBF rankings have former light-welterweight champion Liam Paro in the number two position with Donovan, who is understood to be appealing September’s decision at Windsor Park, in third.

A successful outcome for Donovan would most likely see him retain his high ranking and secure a final eliminator against Paro for the mandatory slot.

“Benn is the fight Crocker wants and he is confident he will beat him,” Conlan confirmed.

“That’s all well and good and the numbers are exciting, but you are putting Lewis’ livelihood on hold in hope of what will happen in another fight [Eubank-Benn II] and it doesn’t work like that, so get something booked for Belfast and most likely that’s what will happen next. If they [Matchroom] control the situation with the mandatory, then it can be pushed off and we can do Benn [after a first voluntary].

“There are still a few moving parts to happen, but I think Paro will fight Donovan or Karen Chukhadzhian next.

“Donovan’s team have appealed so his ranking hasn’t moved. That could be good news for ‘Croc’ as his mandatory will be kept on the long finger if Paro is out in the early part of next year. That could give us the opportunity of two voluntaries before we have a mandatory.”

Source link

Ellie Kildunne: England star says R360 among a range of options for future

England’s world champion full-back Ellie Kildunne said she is “open to anything” when questioned whether she would be involved in the proposed new R360 league.

“It doesn’t mean that I’d take it, but I’d like to understand the league a little bit more to see if that’s an opportunity that I’d like to take,” she told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

The 26-year-old was speaking at Bracknell Rugby Club to help launch the Rugby Football Union’s Rugby Fest weekend.

The initiative is aimed at ensuring the legacy of England’s Women’s Rugby World Cup win.

As the Red Roses visit clubs up and down the country, rumours surrounding the future of the club game in men’s and women’s rugby refuse to go away, with the R360 breakaway league consistently in the headlines.

The Daily Telegraph reported on Thursday that Kildunne is a top target for R360, and that it had been told “a significant number” of her England team-mates have already signed pre-contract agreements to join R360., external

Kildunne is currently contracted to Premiership Women’s Rugby side Harlequins, who open the league season on Friday, 24 October against Loughborough Lightening at the Twickenham Stoop.

“I’m just focused on the Harlequins season that I’ve got, and you know this week has been absolutely crazy, so I can’t look too far ahead – I don’t even know what I’m having for dinner tonight,” added Kildunne.

“There’s going to be lots of investment into the game now, lots of changes that people will see and I think that’s the direction that rugby needs to go.

“We’ve made something happen and that’s going to come with talking points and debates.

“This league (R360) is still something we don’t know too much about.”

Source link

Bolivian voters are hungry for change — and disillusioned by the options ahead of election

The campaign billboards adorning the streets of Bolivia for Sunday’s presidential election make grand promises: A solution to the dire economic crisis within 100 days, an end to fuel shortages and bread lines, unity for a divided nation. One vice presidential candidate pledges to “Make Bolivia Sexy Again.”

In their efforts to draw votes, all eight candidates — two right-wing front-runners, a conservative centrist and splintered factions of Bolivia’s long-dominant left-wing — are vowing drastic change, launching searing attacks on the status quo and selling a message of hope.

But for many Bolivians, hope has already hardened into cynicism.

Slogans fail to break through

Promises of quick fixes — like right-wing candidate Samuel Doria Medina’s pledge to stabilize the upside-down economy within “100 days, dammit!” — fall flat. Vandals add extra zeroes to his campaign posters, suggesting a million days might be a more realistic goal.

Tuto, the nickname of Jorge Quiroga, the other right-wing favorite, turns up on city walls with its first letter swapped to form a Spanish insult.

Some signs for left-wing candidate Andrónico Rodríguez, pledging “unity above all” have been defaced to read “unity in the face of lines.”

And few know what to do with the acronym of the governing party candidate, Eduardo del Castillo: “We Are a National Option with Authentic Ideas.” (No, it’s not any catchier in Spanish).

Yet for all their disenchantment with politicians, Bolivians are counting down the days until elections, united in their relief that, no matter what happens, leftist President Luis Arce will leave office after five difficult years.

Inflation is soaring. The central bank has burned through its dollar reserves. Imported goods have vanished from shelves.

“I have no faith in any candidate. There’s no one new in this race,” Alex Poma Quispe, 25, told the Associated Press from his family’s fruit truck, where he slept curled into a ball in the front seat Wednesday for a second straight night, stranded with 50 other trucks in a fuel line en route from farms in the Yungas region to markets in Bolivia’s capital of La Paz.

“The only thing we’re enthusiastic about is Arce leaving.”

New campaigns, old faces

A bitter power struggle between Arce and former President Evo Morales has shattered their hegemonic Movement Toward Socialism, or MAS, party, giving the right-wing opposition its best shot at victory in two decades.

“I’ve seen that socialism has brought nothing good to this country,” said Victor Ticona, 24, a music student, as he left Quiroga’s campaign rally Wednesday. “We have to become more competitive in the world.”

Doria Medina, a 66-year-old multimillionaire businessman, and Quiroga, a 65-year-old former vice president who briefly assumed the presidency in 2001 after then-President Hugo Banzer resigned with cancer, are familiar faces in Bolivian politics. Both have run for president three times before.

While their calls for economic freedom and foreign investment appeal to voters desperate for change, they have struggled to stir up excitement. Nearly 30% of voters are undecided, according to polls.

Doria Medina, a former minister of planning, acknowledged in a recent social media video that “people say I have no charisma, that I’m too serious.”

Quiroga’s association with Banzer, a former military dictator who brutally quashed dissent over seven corruption-plagued years before being democratically elected, has turned some voters off.

“It was a bloody era,” recalled 52-year-old taxi driver Juan Carlos Mamani. “For me, Tuto is the definition of the old guard.”

At the pumps, not the polls

Poma Quispe and his 24-year-old brother Weimar have no idea who’d they vote for — or if they’ll vote at all.

Voting is compulsory in Bolivia, and about 7.9 million people in the country of 12 million are eligible to cast ballots in Sunday’s election. Non-voters face various financial penalties.

Over the last year, fuel shortages have brought much of Bolivia to a standstill. Truckers waste days at a time queuing at empty gas stations around Bolivia, just to keep their vehicles moving.

The diesel arrives on no set schedule, and the rhythm of life is forced to adapt. If the diesel arrives before Sunday, the Poma Quispe brothers will vote.

If not, “there’s no way we’re giving up our spot in line for those candidates,” Weimar Poma Quispe said.

Personal drama over political debate

This year’s election coincides with the 200th anniversary of Bolivia’s independence.

But instead of celebrating, many Bolivians are questioning the validity of their democracy and state-directed economic model. Crowds booed at President Arce during his bicentennial speech earlier this month. His government invited left-wing presidents from across Latin America to attend the event; only the president of Honduras showed.

The lack of enthusiasm among ordinary Bolivians and beleaguered officials seems matched by that of the candidates.

Authorities allowed televised presidential debates — banned under Morales — for the first time in 20 years. The front-runners turned up to just one of them.

Personal attacks overshadowed policy discussions. Doria Medina accused Del Castillo of ties to drug traffickers, while Del Castillo mocked the businessman’s record of failed presidential bids. Rodríguez and Quiroga traded barbs over alleged involvement in extrajudicial killings.

Chasing the youth vote

The median age in Bolivia is 26. For comparison, it is 39 in China and the United States.

Having grown up under the government of Morales and his MAS party, many young Bolivians are restive, disillusioned by current prospects as they become more digitally connected than any generation before them.

Quiroga in particular has energized young voters with his running mate, JP Velasco, a successful 38-year-old tech entrepreneur with no political experience who vows to reverse a brain drain in Bolivia and create opportunities for youth in exploiting the country’s abundant reserves of lithium, the critical metal for electric vehicle batteries, and developing data centers.

Young crowds packed Quiroga’s Wednesday night campaign rally, even as 20-somethings in goth makeup and tight-stretch dresses expressed more interest in the lively cumbia bands than the political speeches.

Others sported red MAGA-style caps with Velasco’s slogan, “Make Bolivia Sexy Again.” Cap-wearers offered varying answers on when Bolivia was last “sexy,” with some saying never, but agreed it meant attractive to foreign investors.

“It won’t just be tech companies coming here, McDonald’s might even come,” Velasco told the crowd, eliciting whoops and howls. “Young people, if you go abroad, let it be for vacation.”

Debre and Valdez write for the Associated Press.

Source link

Run for president? Start a podcast? Tackle AI? Kamala Harris’ options are wide open

Former Vice President Kamala Harris closed a big door when she announced Wednesday that she would not run for California governor. But she left open a heap of others.

Departing presidents, vice presidents, first ladies and failed presidential candidates have pursued a wide variety of paths in the past. Empowered with name recognition and influence but with no official role to fill, they possess the freedom to choose their next adventure.

Al Gore took up a cause in global warming, while George W. Bush took up painting. John Kerry and Hillary Clinton went on to become secretary of State, while Donald Trump fought off prosecutors, launched new business ventures and plotted his return to power. Barack and Michelle Obama grew their foundation, wrote books and started a production company — and both have done podcasts, too — while remaining prominent voices within the Democratic Party.

Of course, Harris could focus all her energy on another run for president in 2028. But how would she do that, and what would she do to remain politically relevant in the meantime? Which other paths might she choose instead?

“She just finished writing a book. She’s finally decided she’s not running for governor. But to be prescriptive about what role she’s going to play next and how it’s going to look would be premature,” said Harris senior advisor Kirsten Allen.

Experts in power and political leadership expect Harris’ next move to be something in the public eye, given she is relatively young at 60 and no doubt wants her last chapter in the spotlight to be something other than her humbling loss to Trump in the 2024 presidential election.

“Even if it isn’t the governorship of California, the idea of wanting something else other than the 2024 election to be the last thing Kamala Harris ever did would be very appealing,” said Gregory H. Winger, an assistant professor of public and international affairs at the University of Cincinnati who has studied former presidents’ lingering influence.

Winger said his research showed those “most active in trying to be influential” in their post-White House years were those whose time in office ended on a sour note, such as failing to win reelection.

“It’s kind of a frustrated ambition that then leads into higher activity,” Winger said — and Harris has that.

In her announcement about not running for governor, Harris was careful to leave her options open — framing her hopes for the future around ideals such as “fighting for the American people.”

She said she is a “devout public servant” who has long believed the best way to make a difference was to “improve the system from within.” But she also said “our politics, our government, and our institutions have too often failed the American people,” and that “we must be willing to pursue change through new methods and fresh thinking — committed to our same values and principles, but not bound by the same playbook.”

Harris said she looked forward talking to more Americans while helping to elect other Democrats.

Within 24 hours, she had announced a book deal for her forthcoming memoir, “107 Days,” which will chronicle her whirlwind 2024 presidential campaign, and her first interview since the election on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” on Thursday night.

Nathanael Fast, director of the Neely Center for Ethical Leadership and Decision Making at the USC Marshall School of Business, said Harris’ talk of “getting back out and listening” is consistent with her wanting to reclaim a prominent national role. That could mean another presidential run, he said, but it could also mean something else — particularly in the short term, where she has work to do recasting people’s perceptions of her.

“If she can create a compelling narrative about who she is, what she’s done, what happened in the last election and where she’s headed next,” Fast said, “she’ll be more likely to succeed.”

Fast said his bet is that she runs for president, but he could also see her going the route of Gore — who, after losing the presidential election, decided to move in a different direction to have worldwide impact by addressing climate change.

“I can imagine someone like Harris taking on artificial intelligence and saying, ‘My whole thing is trying to influence the national conversation around what’s going to happen with AI,’” Fast said.

Artificial intelligence was part of her portfolio as vice president and is a topic Harris cares deeply about, said a source familiar with her thinking who asked for anonymity to speak candidly about her next steps.

Harris also will have to tread carefully as she works to reassert her influence in the Democratic Party, which is still reeling from a second loss to Trump, experts said.

Democrats have struggled to unify the disparate elements of their party and settle on kitchen-table messaging that appeals to voters about the everyday challenges they face, said Sara Sadhwani, a politics professor at Pomona College.

After she lost to Trump, a convicted felon targeted with several other criminal investigations, “Harris exemplifies the inability to thread that needle.”

Whatever Harris does to break through, it won’t be easy in today’s saturated media and political marketplace, which is so vastly different from what other former White House occupants faced.

After he declined to run for reelection in 1928, former President Coolidge wrote a nationally syndicated newspaper column. Today, Harris would be more likely to launch a podcast — but whether it will catch on nationally is anyone’s guess.

Winger said Harris does have massive name recognition, and Fast said she has many of the important forms of “capital” for a leader to continue being successful and influential — including financial and social.

Still, “it’s tough,” Winger said. “It’s a very different media ecosystem just because of how crowded and how fractured it has become.”

Kyle Lierman, who worked for more than six years in the Obama White House, is now chief executive of Civic Nation, a nonpartisan nonprofit that houses several education, gender equity and voter initiatives — including When We All Vote, the voter initiative Michelle Obama launched in 2018.

Lierman said he is excited to see what Harris does next, as it’s likely to show her “best side.”

“When you’re at the White House, you are working on a dozen different topics every day, and you are trying to make as big an impact as possible before the clock runs out,” Lierman said. “And when you leave, you have an opportunity to step back, think longer term, and go deeper on a few issues that you’re particularly passionate about. And I think that’s liberating in some ways.”

Former Sen. Laphonza Butler, a longtime friend of Harris’, said the former vice president might draw from the blueprints laid out by her recent predecessors.

“Whether you’re talking about the Clinton Global Initiative or When We All Vote … or the work that’s happening at the Obama Foundation, I think there’s plenty of examples,” Butler said.

Many former presidents have leveraged their experience in foreign affairs — and existing relationships with foreign leaders — to continue holding sway in international relations, particularly when members of their own party return to power. President Clinton, for instance, used President Carter in that way.

Andra Gillespie, a political scientist at Emory University, said Harris could be “really effective” in bolstering organizations that work for racial justice and to elect women, but said “that’s not what she was organizing her political career around” before the 2024 election and it may not be the path she chooses now.

Gillespie said she read Harris’ statement as indicating that she was most interested in finding a way to force change outside of government. She said she could see Harris — who is already in California, and whose husband Doug Emhoff is an entertainment lawyer — moving into production and podcasts like the Obamas.

Gillespie said she also could see Harris working closely with Howard University, her alma mater in Washington, D.C., on fundraising or building out a new center of study, as Joe Biden did at the University of Delaware.

“She’s still relatively young, and still could have a good 15 to 20 years of active engagement ahead of her,” Gillespie said, “in whatever form she wants that to take.”

Source link

Top tips for dating abroad as single Brits exhaust dating app options at home

A third of Brits have holiday romances, and many are now using dating apps to find love abroad

Couple drinking wine together outdoors at night
Travellers said dating locally can make the experience more enjoyable(Image: Getty Images)

After exhausting all their local dating app options, singletons are now seeking love abroad this summer. A survey of 2,000 solo travellers revealed that two-thirds have reactivated a dormant dating app to find romance overseas. One in five have even chosen their holiday destination based on its dating potential, with a third expressing interest in dating locals.

Among those who have already dated abroad, one in five said they learnt more about the culture when dating a local. However, while one in ten stated that finding a holiday romance is a travel priority – with men more likely than women to continue a holiday romance back home – a third admitted they are great for short-term fun.

romantic couple in love sitting together on rope swing at sunset beach, silhouettes of young man and woman on holidays or honeymoon
Men were more likely to take their holiday romances home(Image: Getty Images)

When attempting to get to know someone local, four out of ten have experienced embarrassing translation issues, accidentally swearing or unintentionally insulting their date.

As a result, to avoid any miscommunication, a quarter have turned to language learning apps to expand their limited knowledge. However, one in ten have had to ghost an interest on dating apps abroad due to roaming costs.

The study by OnePoll.com found that a third have been hit with a higher-than-expected roaming charge when abroad.

Some travellers have faced a bill of over £150 after using their data, while a quarter have paid for extra roaming data to message someone whilst there.

Lewis Henry from iD Mobile, which commissioned the research and offers inclusive roaming as standard across 50 worldwide destinations, said: “Whether it’s sparks in Seville or soul-searching in Santorini, we want our customers to stay connected – for love, fun and everything in between.”

To assist modern holidaymakers in finding the perfect connection, iD Mobile has partnered with TV personality and relationships guru Anna Richardson to provide Brits with practical advice for navigating romance whilst travelling.

“Travellers are shifting away from the idea that holiday romance has to mean something short-lived or superficial. Whether it’s a deep conversation over dinner in Florence or a hike with a local in Croatia, it’s about connection, not just chemistry,” Anna said.

“Flirting abroad can be exciting and memorable, but it’s easy to put your foot in it if you’re not tuned into the local culture. “

ANNA RICHARDSON’S TOP FIVE TIPS FOR DATING ABROAD:

  1. Use apps to your advantage: From dating to translation tools, tech can be a bridge – just always double-check before hitting send to avoid awkward misunderstandings!
  2. Read the room (and the culture): Swot up before diving blindly into an awkward situation. A kiss on the cheek in one place might mean something more elsewhere.
  3. Flirting is about confidence: It’s not all about chemistry. A great connection can start with something simple, like offering local tips or asking for recommendations.
  4. Learn a few local phrases: A little effort goes a long way and shows genuine interest.
  5. Don’t let roaming kill the mood: Ghosting because of mobile charges? Not a good look! Choose a plan that enables you to stay connected without worry.

Source link

Russia-Ukraine war: What are ‘frustrated’ Trump’s next options with Putin? | Russia-Ukraine war News

United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov for a second time in two days on Friday, with the war in Ukraine the focal point of their huddle. They had met for 50 minutes on the sidelines of the ASEAN summit in Malaysia on Thursday.

While campaigning for re-election, US President Donald Trump had promised to end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours of taking office.

But more than four months later, the prospects of a ceasefire appear as remote as ever, with Russia launching a fierce bombardment of Ukraine in recent days.

After the Thursday meeting, Rubio told reporters that Trump was  “disappointed and frustrated that there’s not been more flexibility on the Russian side” to bring an end to the war in Ukraine.

So has Trump’s view of the war changed – and what are his next options?

Has Trump’s position on Russia shifted?

Rubio’s comments come at a time when Trump has increasingly been publicly critical of Putin, after previously accusing Ukraine of not wanting peace.

“We get a lot of b******t thrown at us by Putin. He’s very nice all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless,” Trump said on Tuesday.

Since February, the US has held separate talks with Russia and Ukraine, and brokered direct talks between them in May in Istanbul for the first time since the early months of Russia’s full-fledged invasion in 2022.

But while Putin has offered brief pauses in fighting, he has not accepted the US proposal for an unconditional 30-day ceasefire. Ukraine has accepted that proposal. Russia argues that Ukraine could use the truce to remobilise troops and rearm itself.

When asked by reporters this week whether he would act on his frustration with Putin, Trump responded: “I wouldn’t be telling you. Don’t we want to have a little surprise?”

However, experts caution against concluding that Trump was ready to act tough against Russia.

“Western media is full of commentary on what it calls Trump‘s ‘changing stance’ on Putin. But as yet, there is no reason to think that anything has changed at all,” Keir Giles, a senior consulting fellow at the London-based Chatham House think tank, told Al Jazeera.

“There is a wave of optimism across the world that this might finally lead to a change in US policy. But, on every previous occasion, this has not happened.”

Indeed, after the Thursday meeting between Rubio and Lavrov, both sides suggested that they were willing to continue to engage diplomatically.

Arming Ukraine to fight off Russia

In early July, the Trump administration announced a decision to “pause” arms supply to Kyiv. A week later, he reversed this decision.

“We’re going to send some more weapons. We have to. They have to be able to defend themselves. They are getting hit very hard now,” said Trump on July 8.

On Thursday, Trump told NBC that these weapons would be sold to NATO, which will pay fully for them. NATO will then pass them on to Ukraine.

“We’re sending weapons to NATO, and NATO is paying for those weapons, a hundred percent,” Trump told NBC, adding that the US will be sending Patriot missiles to the alliance.

Trump said this deal was agreed on during the NATO summit in The Hague in June.

Trump had also frozen aid to Ukraine in February, after a falling out with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy following a rancorous meeting in the White House. Trump accused Zelenskyy of talking the US into “spending $350 Billion Dollars, to go into a War that couldn’t be won”.

Trump resumed the supplies weeks later. Between January 2022 and April 2025, the US has provided Ukraine with about $134bn in aid, according to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy.

Trump’s MAGA [Make America Great Again] base has been critical of the funding that the US provides Ukraine.

Following Trump’s announcement that the US will resume sending weapons to Ukraine, several conservative Americans have responded with disappointment.

“I did not vote for this,” wrote Derrick Evans on X on July 8. Evans was one of Trump’s supporters who stormed the US Capitol on January 6, 2021 and was arrested, to be pardoned by Trump in January this year.

Conservative social media duo Keith and Kevin Hodge wrote on X on July 8: “Who in the hell is telling Trump that we need to send more weapons to Ukraine?”

Sanctioning Russia

When asked on July 8 about his interest in a Congress bill proposing additional sanctions on Russia, Trump responded, “I’m looking at it very strongly.”

Since the war in Ukraine started in 2022, the US and its allies have imposed at least 21,692 sanctions on Russian individuals, media organisations, and institutions across sectors such as the military, energy, aviation, shipbuilding and telecommunications.

However, while these sanctions have hit Russia’s economy, it has not collapsed the way some experts had predicted it would in the early months of the war.

In recent months, Zelenskyy has repeatedly requested his allies in the West to tighten sanctions on Russia, to put pressure on Putin to end the war.

Most recently, Zelenskyy posted on X on Friday following a Russian drone attack in Kharkiv: “Sanctions must be strengthened. We are expecting the adoption of a new sanctions package. Everything that will put pressure on Russia and stop it must be implemented as quickly as possible.”

A bipartisan Senate bill sponsored by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham aims to levy tariffs on countries that import oil, gas and uranium from Russia.

In 2023, crude petroleum, petroleum gas and refined petroleum constituted nearly 54 percent of total Russian exports, according to the Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC).

According to the OEC, China and India buy a bulk of Russia’s oil and gas products.

In 2024, Russian oil accounted for 35 percent of India’s total crude imports and 19 percent of China’s oil imports. Turkiye also imports Russian oil, with as much as 58 percent of its refined petroleum imports sourced from Russia in 2023.

But the West has not weaned itself off Russia, either.

In 2024, European countries paid more than $700m to buy Russian uranium products, according to an analysis by Brussels-based think tank Bruegel, based on data from the European Union’s statistical office, Eurostat.

In late March this year, Trump expressed anger with Putin and threatened “secondary tariffs” on any country that buys Russian oil if a ceasefire deal is not reached, but these tariffs were not imposed.

“If a new sanctions bill does pass, and the United States does impose costs on Moscow for the first time during the current administration, this would be a radical departure from Trump’s consistent policy,” Giles said.

“It remains to be seen whether Trump will in fact allow this, or whether his deference to Putin will mean he continues to resist any possible countermeasures against Moscow.”

Walking away from the conflict

On April 18, US Secretary of State Rubio said his country might “move on” from the Russia-Ukraine war if a ceasefire deal is not brokered.

“We are now reaching a point where we need to decide whether this is even possible or not,” Rubio told reporters in Paris after talks between American, Ukrainian and European officials.

“Because if it’s not, then I think we’re just going to move on. It’s not our war. We have other priorities to focus on,” Rubio continued.

On the same day, Trump echoed Rubio’s statements to reporters. However, Trump did not say that he is ready to walk away from peace negotiations.

“Well, I don’t want to say that, but we want to see it end,” Trump said.

More diplomacy

The second day of talks between Rubio and Lavrov, however, suggests that the US has not given up on diplomacy yet.

Rubio told reporters on Thursday that the US and Russia have exchanged new ideas for peace in Ukraine. “I think it’s a new and a different approach,” Rubio said, without offering any details of what the “new approach” involved.

“I wouldn’t characterise it as something that guarantees a peace, but it’s a concept that, you know, that I’ll take back to the president,” Rubio added.

Following Rubio and Lavrov’s meeting on Thursday, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a news release that the US and Russia had “a substantive and frank exchange of views on the settlement in Ukraine” and will continue constructive dialogue.

The statement added: “[Russia and the US] have reaffirmed mutual commitment to searching for peaceful solutions to conflict situations and resuming Russian-US economic and humanitarian cooperation.”

Source link

Ukraine’s European backers mull over their options after the U.S. pauses weapons shipments

In the windswept gardens of a Danish chateau, President Volodymyr Zelensky and some of Ukraine’s main European backers weighed options Thursday for filling the gap after the Trump administration paused weapons shipments to his country.

The U.S. move affects high-demand munitions, including Patriot missiles, the AIM-7 Sparrow air-to-air missile and shorter-range Stinger missiles. They are needed to counter incoming missiles, bring down Russian aircraft or counter drone attacks.

But they are in short supply, none are cheap, and some simply can’t be sourced elsewhere.

“We count on the continuation of American support because there are some items which Europe … doesn’t have for today,” Zelensky told reporters in Aarhus, Denmark, as a military helicopter hovered above and security personnel watched nearby woods.

Chief among them: Patriot missile systems and interceptors. “This is crucial,” he said.

Russia’s new push to capture more territory has put Ukraine’s defenses under severe strain, with the war now in its fourth year. Russian missiles and drones are battering Ukrainian cities. U.S.-led efforts to find a peace settlement have stalled.

It’s still unclear even to Zelensky what the White House intends for the weapons shipments. “I hope that maybe tomorrow, or close days, these days, I will speak about it with President Trump,” he said.

Europe’s reason to act

Many in the European Union are keen to step up. They see Russia’s invasion as a threat to their own security. Officials have warned that President Vladimir Putin could try to test Europe’s defenses in three to five years.

“All of us hope that the U.S. will continue the support for Ukraine,” Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said, flanking Zelensky. “But if there are any gaps, then I personally believe that we should be willing to fill in.”

Denmark — a key Ukraine backer — has just taken over the EU presidency for six months.

“The war in Ukraine has never only been about Ukraine. This is a war about the future of Europe,” she said. Most EU countries are members of NATO, which has just agreed that allies should invest 5% of the gross domestic product in defense.

Russia is the chief threat that warrants such spending, although Trump did cajole the Europeans and Canada into agreeing on the figure, which will require them to spend tens of billions of dollars more over the next decade.

Sourcing defense funds

Since the Trump administration warned that its security priorities lie elsewhere and that Europe must fend for itself, the European Commission’s priority has been to find extra money.

Commission President Ursula von der Leyen launched the EU’s big funding gun with $176 billion that countries, including Ukraine, can use to make joint purchases of priority weapons.

The EU’s executive branch also has loosened the rules on countries running up debt if they use the money for defense purposes. It hopes that hundreds of billions of extra euros could be made available, if members use the opportunity to spend more.

Then there are sanctions against Russia. EU nations are working on yet another raft of measures, but they are getting harder to agree on. It now falls to Denmark to try to chaperone the latest sanctions through.

“Russia is on the brink of recession,” noted von der Leyen, standing next to Zelensky. “Russia’s overheated war economy is coming to its limits. So for us, it is important to increase the pressure so that [Putin] comes to the negotiation table.”

Investing in Ukraine, the Danish way

Frederiksen’s government has led the way in investing in Ukraine’s defense industry, which can produce arms and ammunition more quickly and cheaply than elsewhere in Europe. She believes it’s the most effective way to help.

She also recently invited Ukrainian companies to set up shop on safer ground in Denmark, and the first companies could start production there in September. Danish officials are urging their European partners to follow suit.

Ukraine estimates that about 40% of its defense industrial capacity could be capitalized on if more European money were spent there.

Security and EU membership

Frederiksen said that helping Ukraine to join the EU is a security priority, but Hungary stands in the way. Prime Minister Viktor Orban insists that Ukraine should remain a buffer zone between Russia and NATO countries.

EU membership is meant to be a merit-based process, and Denmark has said that “all political and practical means” will be used to persuade Hungary — a small EU country and the only one standing in Ukraine’s way — to lift its veto.

Zelensky said Thursday that Ukraine has made significant progress in aligning with the EU’s rules despite the war, and called for the first phase of membership negotiations to begin as soon as possible.

“Sometimes it’s just difficult to be together in one building, all the government [and] the parliamentarians because of the attacks,” he explained.

Less palatable options

Calls are mounting for the Europeans to use Russian assets that they froze after the full-scale invasion in 2022 to help Ukraine. At the end of March, about $320 billion worth — the bulk of the assets — was being held by Belgian clearing house Euroclear.

The interest earned on those assets is being used to fund a $50-billion scheme set up by the Group of Seven powers to keep Ukraine’s economy afloat.

Some European leaders worry that confiscating Russia’s assets would deprive Ukraine of those profits — estimated at more than $3.5 billion a year. They fear it would also be fraught with legal obstacles and could harm the reputation of the euro single currency on international markets.

Another possibility might be for the Europeans to buy weapons directly from the United States but asked Thursday about that possibility — as well as the confiscation of Russian assets — neither Frederiksen nor von der Leyen would comment.

Cook writes for the Associated Press.

Source link

Contributor: Tehran has only bad options. Trump and Netanyahu have golden opportunities

Following the U.S. attack on Iran’s primary nuclear facilities at Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan, Tehran faces nothing but bad options. Militarily, Iran can escalate the conflict by attacking U.S. forces and allies in the region, as it did on Monday with missile attacks on U.S. bases in Qatar and Iraq. Iran could also close the Strait of Hormuz, withdraw from the nuclear nonproliferation treaty or even attempt a rapid “breakout” run to a bomb with its residual capabilities. Each of these options virtually assures an American military response that goes far beyond Iran’s nuclear program, possibly leading to a targeted campaign to topple the regime, the Islamic Republic’s greatest nightmare.

A more likely military response would therefore be for Iran to respond by continuing to attack Israel — as it did just hours after the U.S. strike — in an attempt to turn the conflict into a war of attrition that Israel can ill afford. Israel could escalate to try to end the war more swiftly and avoid prolonging losses.

Diplomatically, Iran can return to negotiations but rebuff President Trump’s demand for an “unconditional surrender,” whose terms he had not spelled out. In reality, these would likely include the complete dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear and missile programs and significant curbs to its regional role, along with long-term inspections and more. Should Tehran rebuff these demands, it would greatly increase the risk of further American military action, including against the regime itself — targeting military and civilian leaders and infrastructure, not just nuclear sites.

Alternatively, it can essentially accede to Trump’s demands, in which case it avoids direct American intervention and the war ends, but Iran loses its ultimate security guarantor — the nuclear capability — and virtually all of its leverage to seek any concessions in further international talks. The regime would also appear so weak that the probability of a domestic uprising would increase exponentially.

Whichever option Iran chooses, the very future of the Islamic Republic has never been in greater peril. Accordingly, the prospects for a dramatic positive transformation of the Middle Eastern strategic landscape have never been greater.

The decades-long American effort to establish a regional coalition of Arab states and Israel, to contain Iran, will be given a significant boost, as the former gains confidence to do so in the face of a greatly weakened Iran and resurgent U.S. in the region. The dangers of proliferation, at least in the Middle East, might be greatly reduced. Israel will have demonstrated — albeit this time only with critical American assistance — that the “Begin doctrine” (Israeli determination to take all means necessary to prevent a hostile regional state from developing nuclear weapons) still applies. Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the three most likely proliferators in the region after Iran, will have little reason to pursue nuclear weapons.

Russia’s and China’s inability to provide their Iranian ally with any practical backing during the war stands in stark contrast to the U.S. and Israel and is particularly galling for Iran because of its strong support for the Kremlin during Russia’s war in Ukraine. Moscow and Beijing will suffer a significant reduction in their regional standing, accruing to Washington’s benefit. The Middle East will once again be considered a clearly American-dominated region, in which Russia and China will have to tread more carefully.

There are some in the U.S. who fear Mideast conflicts distract American attention from the competition with China — the only nation approaching the economic influence of the U.S. today — and Russia. But taking a direct role in this Iran-Israel conflict has not diverted American focus from Moscow and Beijing. On the contrary, it has significantly strengthened Washington’s global stature compared with both countries. China will be more hesitant to attack Taiwan now that the U.S. has demonstrated willingness to bomb aggressors against American allies.

An Israel whose enemies have been dramatically weakened, and which no longer faces an existential threat from Iran, would be in a far better position to make progress on the Palestinian issue, beginning with an end to the war in Gaza. Indeed, it would not be far-fetched to assume that Trump, always transactional, may have made this a precondition for his support for Israel in the war. Saudi-Israeli normalization will be back on the table.

Netanyahu has prepared for this moment for 30 years, for the opportunity to put an end to the only existential threat Israel continues to face. From the reviled leader whose administration allowed the Oct. 7 fiasco and various outrages in domestic affairs, he now stands to be remembered as one of Israel’s great heroes. Moreover, a favorable outcome to the war may very well save him from what otherwise appears to have been a looming electoral defeat — which could have been followed by jail time, given the corruption charges he faces.

The bigger question is whether Netanyahu — whose deep understanding of Israel’s overall strategic circumstances no one has ever doubted — will wish to use this opportunity to crown his legacy not just with saving Israel from an existential military threat, but also from an almost equally severe demographic challenge to its own future as a Jewish and democratic state. Fordo may be gone; the Palestinians remain. He would truly cement his standing in history if he ended the Gaza war and paved the way to a resolution of the Palestinian issue.

Both Netanyahu and Trump deserve credit for taking daring action, and they must be prepared to continue doing so. This is not the time to be fainthearted but to continue pressing the advantage. They have engaged in a classic case of coercive diplomacy, the use of military force for diplomatic ends, and must see it through to the desired end: a diplomatic agreement with Iran that ensures, with an inspections regime of unprecedented intrusiveness, that it can never again develop nuclear capabilities for military purposes, puts severe limits on its missile capabilities and curtails its malign regional role.

Even with a tentative cease-fire now in place, achieving an agreement of this sort will not be easy. The Iranians are unlikely to fully accede to American demands unless they truly feel that they have their backs to the wall, and even then, they are unusually effective negotiators. Persistence, focus and attention for detail, not known to be Trump’s forte, will now be called for. A historic opening has been made; it must not be squandered.

Chuck Freilich, a former Israeli deputy national security advisor, is a senior fellow at Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies. Colin P. Clarke is the director of research at the Soufan Group, a security and intelligence consulting firm based in New York City.

Source link

U.S. braces for response as Iran weighs its options

Fallout from President Trump’s historic gamble to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities reverberated across the Middle East Sunday, as Washington braced for an unpredictable response from a cornered but determined Islamic Republic.

While the Iranian government downplayed the impact of the U.S. attack, noting the depths of its nuclear know-how built over decades of study, U.S. military officials said its precision strikes against Iran’s three main nuclear facilities caused “extremely severe damage and destruction.”

A senior Israeli official told The Times that Jerusalem was so satisfied with the operation that it was prepared to suspend hostilities if Iran ends its missile salvos against Israeli territory.

“We are ready to be done,” the Israeli official said, granted anonymity to speak candidly.

As the dust settled, the sun rose and satellite imagery emerged of the wreckage, the main question among Trump administration officials became how Tehran would respond — both militarily, against U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf and around the world, as well as with the remnants of its nuclear program, with so much of it destroyed.

Tehran’s nuclear-armed allies, in Russia and North Korea, have been critical of the military campaign, with former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev raising the prospect of Moscow giving Iran a nuclear warhead in response to the attacks.

The Israeli official dismissed that idea, alluding to direct talks with Moscow over the Iranian program. “We are not concerned,” the official said.

President Trump addresses the nation Saturday night about the U.S. military strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites.

President Trump addresses the nation Saturday night about the U.S. military strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites. He is accomapnied by Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

(Carlos Barria / Pool via Associated Press)

Trump’s military action, dubbed “Operation Midnight Hammer,” was a contingency years in the making, prepared and much feared by Trump’s predecessors over two decades as a desperate last resort to a nuclear Iran.

Ever since Tehran resumed its fissile enrichment program in 2005, Republican and Democratic presidents alike have warned that the Islamic Republic could never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. But a constellation of diplomatic talks and complex agreements have failed to dissuade Tehran from a fundamental principle of a “right to enrich” uranium — near to weapons grade — on its own soil.

Despite the dramatic nature of the U.S. air raid, few in Washington expressed an appetite for a prolonged U.S. war with Iran and echoed Israel’s interest in a truce after assessing its initial operations a success. Vice President JD Vance denied that the United States was “at war” with Iran on Sunday, telling CBS that the nation is, instead, “at war with Iran’s nuclear program.”

But the prospect of another full-scale U.S. war in the Middle East, made palpable by the weekend strikes, shook Capitol Hill on Sunday, compelling Democrats who have long advocated a tough approach to Iran to push for a vote to restrict Trump under the War Powers Act.

More than 60 members of Congress, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, both of New York, called on the Trump administration to seek congressional authorization for any further action. At least one Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, joined in the call.

The Pentagon said that seven B-2 Spirit stealth bombers deployed a total of 14 Massive Ordnance Penetrators — 30,000-pound bombs known as “bunker busters,” for their ability to destroy facilities buried deep underground — against Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.

The U.S. operation followed an Israeli campaign that began last week with strikes against Iranian air defenses and nuclear facilities, scientists and research facilities, as well as against military generals, ballistic missile launch pads and storage depots.

While the United States and Israel believe that Saturday’s strikes were a strategic victory, some concern remains that Iran may have removed critical equipment and materiel from its site in Fordow — an enrichment facility that had been burrowed into the side of a mountain — to an undisclosed location before the U.S. operation began, the Israeli official said.

“That remains a question mark,” the official added, while expressing confidence that Israeli intelligence would be aware of any other significant nuclear facilities.

Addressing the nation on the attacks on Saturday night, Trump warned Iran that U.S. attacks could continue if it refuses to give up on its nuclear program.

“There will be either peace, or there will be tragedy for Iran, far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days,” Trump said, flanked by his vice president, national security advisor and secretary of defense. “Remember, there are many targets left. Tonight’s was the most difficult of them all, by far, and perhaps the most lethal. But if peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill. Most of them can be taken out in a matter of minutes.”

Satellite image shows the Natanz enrichment facility in Iran after U.S. strikes.

Satellite image shows the Natanz enrichment facility in Iran after U.S. strikes.

(Maxar Technologies via Associated Press)

Across the region Sunday, the question paramount on observers’ minds was what shape Iran’s response would take.

Iranian officials downplayed the strikes’ impact, acknowledging damage to nuclear facilities but that the know-how remained intact.

“They [the United States and Israel] should know this industry has roots in our country, and the roots of this national industry cannot be destroyed,” said Behrouz Kamalvandi, spokesman of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, according to a Sunday interview with the semi-official Tasnim News Agency.

“Of course, we have suffered some losses, but this is not the first time that the industry has suffered damage. … Naturally, this industry must continue and its growth will not stop.”

Hassan Abedini, the deputy political director of Iran’s state broadcaster IRIB, said the three targeted nuclear sites had already been emptied some time before the attacks and that they “didn’t suffer a major blow because the materials had already been taken out.”

Other officials, including leaders in the targeted areas in Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow, reassured residents there was no nuclear contamination as a result of the strikes and that they could “go on with their lives,” according to a statement Sunday from government spokesperson Fatemah Mohajerani.

The U.S. attacks drew swift pleas for restraint from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, both of which issued statements calling on all parties to de-escalate. Iraq, meanwhile, said the U.S. escalation “constitutes a grave threat to peace and security in the Middle East,” according to an interview with its government spokesman on Qatari broadcaster Al-Jazeera.

Oman, a key mediator in the negotiations between Tehran and Washington, was more scathing, expressing what it said was its “denunciation and condemnation” of the U.S.’s attacks.

In Europe, as well, governments urged caution and affirmed support for Israel.

“We have consistently been clear that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon and can no longer pose a threat to regional security,” France, Germany, and Italy, known as the E3, said in a statement. “Our aim continues to be to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.”

The last significant face-off between Iran and the United States happened during Trump’s first term, when he ordered the assassination of top Iranian commander Gen. Qassem Suleimani in 2020.

Satellite image shows a close view of the Isfahan nuclear technology facility in Iran after U.S. strikes.

Satellite image shows a close view of the Isfahan nuclear technology facility in Iran after U.S. strikes.

(Maxar Technologies via Associated Press)

That attack spurred predictions of a furious retaliation, with fears of Tehran deploying its missile arsenal or activating its network of regional militias to attack U.S. forces and interests across Washington’s footprint in the region. Instead, Tehran reacted with little more than an openly telegraphed ballistic missile barrage on a U.S. base in Iraq.

Iran’s options are even more limited this time. Much of that network — known as the “Axis of Resistance” and which included militias and pro-Tehran governments in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Gaza, Afghanistan and Yemen — lies incapacitated after more than 20 months of Israeli attacks.

Allies such as Russia and China, though issuing condemnations of the U.S. attack, appear to have little appetite for involvement beyond statements and offers of mediation. And how much remains of Tehran’s missile capacity is unclear, with the Israeli official estimating roughly 1,000 ballistic missiles – half of their capacity before the most recent conflict started – remaining available to them.

Nevertheless, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps warned that the United States should expect “regrettable responses.”

“Instead of learning from repeated failures, Washington effectively placed itself on the front lines of aggression by directly attacking peaceful installations,” said a statement from the Guard Corps on Sunday. It hinted that its targets would include U.S. military presence in the region.

“The number, dispersion, and size of U.S. military bases in the region are not a strength, but have doubled their vulnerability,” the statement said.

The United States has more than 40,000 stationed in the region, according to Pentagon figures, and has bases in at least 10 countries in the region, not to mention a significant presence at sea.

Yet experts say the likeliest scenario would involve disruptions to shipping lanes, with Iran leveraging its control of the Strait of Hormuz, an oil transit chokepoint handling a fifth of the world’s energy flows, that is 30 miles wide at its narrowest point; or calling on Yemen’s Houthis to intensify their harassment campaign of merchant vessels on the Red Sea.

It a situation in which Iran has experience: During its conflict with Iraq in the eighties, Tehran engaged in the the so-called “Tanker War,” attacked hundreds of Iraqi ships near Hormuz and entering into direct confrontations with the U.S. Navy.

Shippers are already girding themselves for disruptions. But Danish shipping giant Maersk said it was continuing to use the Strait of Hormuz for the time being.

“We will continuously monitor the security risk to our specific vessels in the region and are ready to take operational actions as needed,” Maersk said in a statement.

Wilner reported from Washington, Bulos from Beirut.

Source link

Escalate to de-escalate? What options does Iran have to end Israel war? | Israel-Iran conflict News

Iran has no clear off-ramps to end its war with Israel, which could soon drag in the United States and lead to a new quagmire in the Middle East, analysts told Al Jazeera.

Since June 13, Israel has killed at least 240 Iranians, many of them civilians. Top Iranian military leaders and nuclear scientists have been among the dead.

Israel has struck Iran’s state television station, hit a hospital, targeted apartment blocks, and damaged the country’s air defences.

In response, Iran has fired barrages of ballistic missiles at Israel, targeting military and security installations, and hitting the Haifa oil refinery, residential buildings, and a hospital. At least 24 people have been killed in Israel as a result of the attacks.

Israel aims to destroy Iran’s nuclear programme and potentially go as far as bringing about regime change, analysts say.

These goals make it difficult for Iran to navigate a quick end to the conflict. Iran’s official position is that it will not negotiate while under attack, fearing it will be forced to fully surrender to US and Israeli terms.

Iran may instead have to hope that US President Donald Trump can be persuaded to rein in Israel, which may be in his interest to avoid getting entangled in a far-away war, even if the US leader has recently appeared to favour striking Iran, and has reiterated that Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.

“If the United States recognises the urgency of de-escalation and manages to persuade Israel to halt its military campaign, then – given the mounting costs of war for Iran and the fact that Iran’s primary goal is to stop, not expand, the conflict – it is highly likely that Iran would agree to a ceasefire or political resolution,” said Hamidreza Aziz, an expert on Iran for the Middle East Council for Global Affairs think tank.

Few viable options

In theory, Iran could return to the negotiating table and sign a deal while under fire.

However, Iran would be forced to entirely give up its nuclear programme, enabling its enemies to then aggressively pursue regime change without fear of consequence, analysts previously told Al Jazeera.

This is an unlikely scenario, according to Reza H Akbari, an analyst on Iran and the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia Program Manager at the Institute for War and Peace Reporting.

“[Iran’s nuclear] program continues to remain a leverage for Iran, which enables them to even engage with the US. Giving it up would be a shocking development which I don’t foresee for the time being,” he told Al Jazeera.

The US and Iran had already engaged in five rounds of negotiations before Israel instigated the conflict.

The two sides had reached an impasse when Trump demanded that Iran give up its entire nuclear programme, which every country has an “inalienable right” to use for peaceful purposes, according to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which Iran is a signatory to.

Trump has since warned Iran to quickly surrender to a deal or face even more dire repercussions, hinting at regime change.

Iran has few good options, said Negar Mortazavi, an expert on Iran with the Center for International Policy (CIP).

She believes Iran has little to lose by retaliating against Israel, but also notes that the strategy would not necessarily give Tehran a way out of the conflict.

“If Iran does not retaliate after each attack, [Iranian officials] think [the Israeli attacks] will get harder and I think they’re correct,” Mortazavi told Al Jazeera. “But every time [Iran] retaliates, they give Israel the excuse to attack them again.”

Pressuring the US?

Over the last year, Iran’s regional influence has suffered major setbacks, leaving it geopolitically vulnerable.

Iran had long relied on its ally, the Lebanese armed group Hezbollah, to provide deterrence from direct Israeli attacks, but Hezbollah was significantly weakened after fighting an all-out war against Israel last year.

In addition, Iran lost another ally when Syria’s former President Bashar al-Assad was toppled in December 2024.

Iran could still direct attacks against US bases and personnel through a web of Iranian-backed armed groups in the region, particularly in Iraq, said Barbara Slavin, an expert on Iran and a distinguished fellow at the Stimson Centre think tank.

She believes Iranian-backed groups in Iraq could fire “warning shots” to try and exploit US public opinion.

Trump’s nationalist “America First” base remains staunchly opposed to any US involvement in wars abroad, which they view as unrelated to their domestic concerns.

And anti-interventionist sentiments are likely to increase if US troops are put in harm’s way as a result of any attacks related to the conflict with Iran.

“The thought of Americans dying in this would make it even more controversial for [the US] than it already is,” Slavin told Al Jazeera.

Iran could also make Americans feel the impact of the war economically. It has threatened to attack commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz, which would affect global trade and increase oil prices. But Slavin said this move would badly hurt Iran’s economy, too.

Slavin added that Iran also relies on commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, which lies between Iran and Oman and is one of the most important shipping routes in the world, to export oil. Instead, Slavin said that Iran’s best option was to contain the war with Israel and wait out the conflict, arguing that any manoeuvre to escalate against US personnel, even as a warning, is a risky gambit.

Trump’s administration, which includes many war hawks, has explicitly warned Iran against targeting its assets or soldiers.

Iran is also wary of giving the US any easy pretext to directly enter the war on behalf of Israel, Akbari said.

“Iran’s leadership knows that drawing the US further into the war could be catastrophic for both the regime and in terms of industrial damage. [It would risk destroying] everything Iran has built over the last 40-plus years,” Akbari said.

Strategic calculus

Iran’s formal position is to inflict significant political, military and material cost on Israel for instigating the war.

This position was echoed by Hassan Ahmadian, an assistant professor at Tehran University, who suggested Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may stop the war if Israelis feel the impact of a crisis he instigated.

“Iranians are quite confident that they can inflict enough retaliatory pain to make Israel stop [its attacks],” Ahmadian told Al Jazeera.

It is unclear how much damage Iran is doing to Israel’s military infrastructure since the latter bars the media from reporting such information.

Furthermore, it’s hard to assess how long Iran can sustain a war against Israel.

But Israel itself may struggle to attack for a protracted period without the US, said Slavin.

She referenced media reports that Israel is running low on defensive interceptors, which could make it more vulnerable to long-range strikes by Iran.

The challenges facing both foes could prompt them to end the fighting sooner rather than later – at least that appears to be what Iran is betting on.

“Right now, Iran is trying to hunker down and somehow get through this,” Slavin said.

“No outside power will save Iran. It’s up to them [to save themselves],” she told Al Jazeera.

Source link

Analysis: What options does Iran have in its conflict against Israel? | Israel-Iran conflict News

Iran has now withstood three days of Israeli attacks, which have killed more than 120 Iranians, including several members of its military leadership.

But its own response has been to hit back in a manner that Israel has never had to experience – with Iranian missiles causing devastating damage in Israel’s biggest cities – including Tel Aviv and Haifa.

How much damage both sides have caused – and in many cases what sites have exactly been hit – is unclear, with accurate facts hard to come by due to the information war that has accompanied the military conflict.

It is also hard to know how many missiles and munitions both sides still have in their stockpiles, and how long Israel and Iran can sustain this fight.

What we do know is that Iran is believed to have the largest missile programme in the Middle East, with thousands of ballistic missiles available with varying ranges and speeds. At the current rate, Iran could likely carry on attacking Israel for weeks – enough time for Israel to experience significant damage, which its population is not used to after years of only really being exposed to attacks from weaker armed groups in the Gaza Strip, Lebanon and Yemen.

Iran is also revealing how effective its more advanced missiles can be. The Haj Qassem missile, used for the first time against Israel on Sunday, was able to evade Israeli air defences, and footage from Israel clearly shows the difference in power and speed compared to the older missiles that Iran had been using in its earlier barrages.

Of course, Iran does not have an unlimited amount of these more advanced missiles, and ultimately will have to ration their use, but coupled with its more standard missiles, and thousands of drones, Iran has enough military ability to cause Israel damage – and confound those who believe that Iran does not have the strength to continue the fight in the short term.

Avoiding a US fight

Israel’s Iron Dome is being severely tested by Iran’s missile barrages, but it has been able to lean on its principal ally, the United States, to provide assistance in intercepting the attacks.

The US, led by President Donald Trump, has insisted, however, that it is not a party to the current conflict between Israel and Iran, and has threatened that the consequences will be severe if Iran does attack US interests in the region, which include military bases dotted throughout the Middle East.

For Iran, any attack on US bases or personnel is a worst-case scenario that it wants to avoid. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has typically made cautious moves and will not want a direct fight with the US, or to give an excuse for Washington to add its own offensive military might to Israel’s.

A joint Israeli-US attack would likely have the ability to destroy Iran’s most well-protected nuclear sites, and give the Israelis a far stronger position.

It would also likely involve attacks against US bases located in countries – such as Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkiye – that are not direct enemies of Iran, and which Tehran will not want to bring into the conflict. These countries are also valuable to Iran as potential mediators.

But Iran has other options. It has has repeatedly threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, which lies between itself and Oman, immediately stopping the transit of millions of barrels of oil a day. Oil prices – which have already briefly shot up to a high of $78 per barrel on Friday before falling back – would likely rise higher than $100 if that were to happen, experts believe.

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz is a strong card the Iranians have to play, and is a possibility in the short term should the fighting continue.

Off-ramps

But ultimately Iran will be looking for an off-ramp that would end a conflict that has the potential to escalate into a regional war against two nuclear powers – Israel and the US – and cause untold damage to its own economy, with the possibility of domestic unrest as a result.

Iran will also know that while Israel will have its own limit on how much fighting it can endure, the support of the US gives it the ability to replenish munition stocks easier than Iran can.

The Iranian government has already made it clear that it will reciprocate if Israel stops its attacks, and is willing to return to nuclear talks with the US. “Once these [Israeli] attacks come to a stop, we will naturally reciprocate,” Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Sunday.

This, however, depends on the US and its unpredictable president. Trump will need to put pressure on Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to stop, and it is unclear whether the US president is willing to do so.

Trump’s rhetoric on the conflict is constantly changing. On one hand, he has repeated calls for an end to the fighting, while at the same time threatening Iran.

Iran also knows that Trump is not someone who can be trusted or relied on. The US was involved in the deception prior to Israel’s attack last week, with the Americans maintaining the pretence that nuclear talks with Iran would go ahead on Sunday despite secretly knowing that Israel was planning to attack.

Still, an American-brokered agreement is the likeliest option Iran has to restrain Israel and end a conflict that has shown Iran’s strength, but will be increasingly difficult for it to sustain.

Source link

Bellamy happy for Gabriele Biancheri to explore international options

“I like people having options, it’s healthy,” Bellamy said.

“He’s not ready for our squad yet. It’s something he’d like to go and have a look at, but I like to think we have done our work as well.

“At the end the decision will be his. He knows where we are and where he is. He’s not ready for first-team football with us at this moment.

“It’s his decision. I’ve known him since he was very young and I know his family really well. Whatever he does will be the right thing for him, it’s not a problem.”

Canada boss Jesse Marsch has praised Biancheri and compared him to his highly rated Lille striker Jonathan David.

The former Leeds boss told Canadian reporters last week: “He’s a dynamic player. He’s very good around the goal. You can see he’s an intelligent player.

“He’s a version of Jonathan David. He’s not exactly the same player but he’s a striker that can play up on the backline and is also good at coming underneath and connecting plays and being part of the build-up phase.

“I’ve had good conversations with Gabe and his family. He has several options to think about in what country he wants to represent.

“I think it’s really important that the family feels the connection to Canada.”

Source link

6 doctors on Biden’s cancer diagnosis and his treatment options

President Biden’s weekend announcement that he has an “aggressive” form of prostate cancer that has metastasized to his bone sparked the usual sympathy from supporters — and sharp suspicions among detractors.

The announcement comes amid fresh reporting on Biden and his inner circle hiding the degree to which his mental acuity was slipping during his presidency and campaign for reelection last year, and the advanced stage of his cancer drew immediate accusations from the right that the former president was also hiding problems with his physical health.

President Trump said he was surprised the cancer “wasn’t notified a long time ago,” suggested the public wasn’t being properly informed and said that “people should try and find out what happened.”

The Times spoke to six doctors who are experts in prostate cancer. They said the information Biden’s office has shared about his condition is indeed limited, but also that many of the assumptions being made publicly about the progression of such cancers, the tests that can screen for them and the medical guidelines for care among men of Biden’s advanced age — 82 — were simply off base.

The cancer

In its statement Sunday, Biden’s office said the former president was seen last week “for a new finding of a prostate nodule after experiencing increasing urinary symptoms,” and on Friday was “diagnosed with prostate cancer, characterized by a Gleason score of 9 (Grade Group 5) with metastasis to the bone.”

Dr. Mark Litwin, chair of UCLA Urology, said that description indicated Biden has a more advanced and aggressive form of prostate cancer than is diagnosed in most men, but that it was nonetheless “a very common scenario” — with about 10% of such cancers in men being metastatic at diagnosis.

Dr. Howard Sandler, chair of the Department of Radiation Oncology at Cedars-Sinai, agreed.

“It’s a little unusual for him to show up with prostate cancer that’s metastatic to bone at first diagnosis, but not extraordinary,” he said. “It happens every day to elderly men.”

That’s in part because of the nature of such cancer, the modern screening guidelines for older men, and the advanced treatment options for such cancer when it is found, the doctors said.

Prostate cancer in small, slow-growing amounts is prevalent among men of Biden’s age, whether it’s causing them problems or not. Most prostate cancers can be slowed even more dramatically — for years after diagnosis — with medical intervention to block testosterone, which feeds such tumors.

For those reasons, many doctors recommend men stop getting tested for prostate-cancer-related antigens, through what’s known as a PSA test, around age 70 or 75, depending on the individual’s overall health.

That advice is based in part on the idea that finding a slow-moving prostate cancer and deciding to act on it surgically or otherwise — which many alarmed patients are inclined to do when they get such news — can often lead to worse outcomes than the cancer would have caused if simply left alone. That includes impotence, incontinence and life-threatening infections.

Also, if an older patient does start experiencing symptoms and is found to have a more advanced prostate cancer, modern treatments are capable of stalling the cancer’s growth for years, the doctors said — often beyond the point when those patients are statistically likely to die from something else.

Even when older patients are tested and show somewhat elevated PSA levels, it is not always of immediate concern, and they are often told to just keep an eye on it, Litwin said. Simply put, doctors “typically don’t get too exercised about a diagnosis of prostate cancer in an 82-year-old,” he said.

Dr. Sunil Patel, a urologic oncologist and an assistant professor of urology and oncology within the Brady Urological Institute at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, said that’s because the average life expectancy for an American man is under 85.

“And so most men at that time, at 75, they’re like, ‘OK, well, if it’s not going to kill me in the next 10 years, I’m going to leave it alone,’” Patel said. “That’s a really shared decision between the patient and the physician.”

When advanced, aggressive prostate cancers are found, as with Biden, the prognosis — and treatment plan — is of course different, the doctors said. “He is for sure going to need treatment,” Litwin said. “This is not the type that we can just observe over time like we often do.”

But that doesn’t mean Biden’s doctors dropped the ball earlier, he and others said.

The diagnosis

Biden’s office has not said whether he was receiving PSA screenings. A letter from Biden’s White House physician in February of last year made no mention of PSA testing, despite other recent presidents’ medical assessments including that information. Biden’s aides did not respond to requests for comment.

The doctors The Times spoke to had no special insight into Biden’s medical care, but said his diagnosis did not make them feel any less confident about the caliber of that care or suggest to them any nefarious intent to hide his condition.

For starters, “it would be considered well within the standard of care” for Biden to have forgone testing in recent years, given his age, Sandler said. “Certainly after 80.”

Litwin said he believes Biden probably was still tested, given his position, but that doesn’t mean he was necessarily hiding anything either. Some forms of aggressive prostate cancer don’t secrete antigens into the blood at levels that would be flagged in a PSA test, while others can grow and even metastasize rapidly — within a matter of months, and between routine annual screenings, he said.

Patel said he has personally found “very aggressive disease” in patients who had relatively normal PSA levels. “I don’t think anyone can blame anyone in terms of was this caught too late or anything like that,” he said. “This happens not too infrequently.”

Dr. Alicia Morgans, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, a genitourinary medical oncologist and the director of the Survivorship Program at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, agreed. Even if a patient is diligent about getting screened annually, “there will be some cancers that arise between screening tests,” she said.

Morgans said things gets even more complicated as men get older, when their PSA number may increase and start getting monitored before it is considered a clear indicator of cancer.

“Maybe it’s up a while. It was not cancer before, it hasn’t really changed that much. Now it has become cancer. It’s not the fault of anyone,” she said. “You can do everything right and things like this can happen.”

The treatment

Biden’s office said his cancer appeared “to be hormone-sensitive, which allows for effective management.”

The doctors The Times spoke to were relatively bullish about Biden’s short-term — and even medium-term — prognosis. “It’s not curable, but it’s highly treatable,” Morgans said.

“Without meaning to sound glib, there’s never been a better time to have metastatic prostate cancer in the history of medicine,” Litwin said — in part thanks to Biden’s own cancer “moonshot” initiative and the funding it sent to institutions such as UCLA, which has helped develop new drugs.

“There are numerous, very effective treatments for a patient in his situation,” Litwin said.

The standard and most likely course of care for Biden will be ADT, or androgen deprivation therapy, which involves a pill or shot that will shut down testosterone production, the doctors said.

“Now, an 82-year-old doesn’t have the same testosterone production as a 22-year-old anyway, so there’s not that far to go. But we shut it off,” Litwin said. “And by shutting it off, it cuts out the principal hormone that feeds the prostate cancer. That alone can be very, very effective.”

Dr. Geoffrey Sonn, urologic oncologist and associate professor of urology at Stanford Cancer Center, said Biden’s cancer is serious, but the ADT treatment “will make prostate cancer cells shrink down, stop growing, at least temporarily, in the vast majority of guys.”

“That is, it’s not a permanent fix, in that those cells will eventually figure out a way to grow even with low levels of testosterone,” Sonn said. “But that can take several years, and sometimes longer.”

Recent studies have shown that adding additional medications to an ADT regime can extend life even further, Sonn said, to “four, five, seven, 10” years or more after a metastatic prostate cancer diagnosis.

Dr. Mihir Desai, a urologist with Keck Medicine of USC, said with modern advancements, prostate cancer is just different than other cancers.

“If you find, say, colon cancer or pancreatic cancer or liver cancer are metastasized, then the deterioration is fairly fast and the outcomes are very poor,” he said. But with previously untreated metastatic prostate cancer, “there are many lines of treatment that can, if not cure it, certainly keep it under control for many years, with good quality of life.”

Sandler, who focuses on radiation oncology, said ADT treatment can cause loss of bone density or muscle mass, so Biden will likely be encouraged to stick to a fitness regimen or take medications to counter those effects.

He may also receive radiation to more heavily target specific pockets of cancer, including where it has metastasized to the bone, but that would depend on the number of metastatic sites, Sandler said — with radiation more likely the fewer sites there are.

“If there’s cancer all over the place, then there’s probably no benefit,” he said.

Source link

Captaincy options for Gameweek 36: Dream Team bosses putting their faith in Erling Haaland

DREAM TEAM managers are putting their faith in Erling Haaland (£7.8m) ahead of Gameweek 36.

Not only is Manchester City’s No9 the second-most popular recruit this week, he’s currently the most selected captain.

Erling Haaland in Manchester City uniform, featured in The Sun Dream Team.

4

Mr PopularCredit: Dream Team

Mohamed Salah (£6.8m) has been the most popular skipper almost every week since he established a healthy lead at the top of the rankings but many gaffers are reverting to Haaland because Pep Guardiola’s side are one of just four teams with two fixtures to fulfil this Gameweek.

There’s the small matter of the FA Cup final against Crystal Palace this Saturday before a Premier League meeting with Bournemouth at the Etihad on Tuesday night.

The Norwegian poacher returned from injury against Southampton last weekend and mustered just two points but his overall record of 30 goals and 352 points remains highly impressive.

Rotation is the lingering spectre that haunts almost every Man City asset and Haaland may be particularly susceptible having just returned from a spell on the sidelines, with Omar Marmoush (£4.8m) a more than competent understudy.

But it goes without saying that Haaland is capable of earning enough points to justify the captain’s armband in just 15 minutes if everything clicks, such is his goalscoring pedigree.

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND - MAY 08: Mason Mount of Manchester United celebrates with Bruno Fernandes after scoring their first goal during the UEFA Europa League 2024/25 Semi Final Second Leg match between Manchester United and Athletic Club at Old Trafford on May 08, 2025 in Manchester, England. (Photo by Alex Livesey - Danehouse/Getty Images)

4

Will Fernandes come through for Man United again?Credit: Getty

There’s no shortage of options for Dream Team bosses who want to take on Haaland in Gameweek 36.

Bruno Fernandes (£7m) has been a near-permanent inclusion among the captaincy candidates in the second half of the campaign and with good reason.

Manchester United’s captain averages eight points-per-game having notched 19 goals and 19 assists in all competitions this term.

Ruben Amorim has said that his team selection to face Chelsea this evening will not be overly disrupted by preparations for Wednesday night’s Europa League final.

If we are to take the Red Devils’ boss on his word then Fernandes is surely in line to start against both the Blues and Spurs this coming Gameweek.

Eberechi Eze of Crystal Palace celebrates scoring a goal.

4

Not to be overlookedCredit: Getty

Elsewhere, Eberechi Eze (£5.1m) is a tempting option as someone who would provide a key point of difference.

Crystal Palace’s No10 is the most-popular transfer target ahead of today’s 6pm deadline but not currently among the most selected captains.

Eze excelled in Gameweek 35 with an 18-point haul at Tottenham’s expense and is therefore well placed to provide healthy returns again with Man City and Wolves in his sights.

However, it’s hard to predict Palace’s starting line-up on Tuesday night as they don’t have much to play for in the league.

If the Eagles triumph at Wembley then Eze and friends may still be partying by the time they’re due to host Vitor Pereira’s side.

Aston Villa players celebrating a goal.

4

WildcardsCredit: Getty

Lastly, we’ll include Ollie Watkins (£4.4m) and Morgan Rogers (£4.3m) in the captaincy candidates.

Aston Villa only have one fixture this coming Gameweek but it might be a profitable one.

The Villains are due to host Spurs this evening and there’s every chance Ange Postecoglou will name a weakened XI to prioritise the Europa League final.

The North Londoners haven’t got the tightest defence at the best of times – they’ve shipped 82 goals in all competitions this season! – and so Villa’s most prominent attackers could thrive against a second-string outfit with other things on their mind.

Make sure to select your captain (and vice captain) before 6pm today!


Score Predictor

Play Score Predictor with Dream Team this season!

  • FREE to play
  • £250 weekly prize
  • Predict scores of five selected Premier League fixtures and earn points for accuracy
  • Most points wins weekly cash prize
  • PLAY NOW

Source link