remains

Emergency teams are searching in a mountain range of the Spanish countryside for the victims of a train crash that killed at least 41 people Sunday evening. Officials are promising transparency as they investigate the cause of the collision.

After threatening to attack Iran for days in support of protesters challenging the government in Tehran, United States President Donald Trump appeared to dial back the rhetoric on Wednesday evening.

The killings in Iran, Trump said, had stopped, adding that Tehran had told his administration that arrested protesters would not be executed.

Trump did not rule out an attack on Iran, but in effect, negated the rationale for such an attack.

Still, as Trump closes in on the completion of the first year of his second term in office, his track record suggests the possibility of US military strikes against Iran in the coming days remains a real threat.

We take a look:

Maduro abducted – amid diplomacy and limited strikes

Since August, the US had positioned its largest military deployment in the Caribbean Sea in decades.

The US military bombed more than 30 boats that it claimed – without providing evidence – were carrying drugs to the United States, killing more than 100 people in these strikes. For months, Trump and his team accused Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro of leading mass-scale narcotics smuggling operations, again without evidence. Amid the boat bombings, Trump even said that the US might strike Venezuelan land next.

But in late November, Trump revealed to reporters that he had spoken to the Venezuelan leader. A few days later, the call was confirmed by Maduro himself, who described it as “cordial”.

The US then hit what Trump described as a docking facility for alleged drug boats in Venezuela. After that, on January 1, Maduro offered Trump an olive branch, saying he was open to talks with Washington on drug trafficking and even on enabling US access to oil. Trump appeared to be getting what he ostensibly wanted – access to Venezuelan oil and blocks on drugs from the country.

Yet only hours later, US forces targeted the capital, abducting Maduro and his wife on charges of narcotics trafficking and transporting them to the United States.

Iran bombed – when ‘two weeks’ of diplomacy appeared imminent

Venezuela was not the first time Trump launched a dramatic attack at a time when diplomacy appeared to be taking hold.

In June, Iran learned the hard way that Trump’s words and actions do not match.

Amid rising tensions over US accusations that Iran was racing towards enriching uranium for nuclear weapons, Washington and Tehran engaged in weeks of hectic negotiations. Trump frequently warned Iran that time was running out for it to strike a deal, but then returned to talks.

On June 13, he wrote on Truth Social that his team “remain committed to a Diplomatic Resolution to the Iran Nuclear Issue.”

His “entire” administration, he said, had been “directed to negotiate with Iran”.

But barely hours later, US ally Israel struck Iran. Most experts believe Israel would not have attacked Iran without Trump’s approval.

As Israel and Iran traded fire in the subsequent days, Trump faced questions over whether the US would bomb Iran.

On June 20, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt quoted Trump as saying that he would “make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks”.

Far from utilising the full two weeks he gave himself, Trump made his decision in two days.

In the early hours of June 22, US B-2 Spirit bombers dropped fourteen bunker-busting bombs on Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility, buried deep inside a mountain near Qom. The US also bombed nuclear facilities in Natanz and Isfahan using the most powerful conventional bombs in the US arsenal.

The attack shocked many observers, in part because of what appeared to have been an elaborate diplomatic ruse preceding it.

Iran protest calculus: What’s Trump’s plan?

Now, all eyes are on Iran again, where demonstrations against the government have been under way for the past two weeks, before calming down earlier this week.

As the unrest turned deadlier last week, Trump urged Iranians to continue demonstrating.

“Iranian Patriots, KEEP PROTESTING – TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!!… HELP IS ON ITS WAY,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social on January 13, without elaborating on what form that help might take.

But within 24 hours, during a meeting with reporters in Washington, DC, Trump said he had been assured that the killing of protesters in Iran had stopped.

“They’ve said the killing has stopped and the executions won’t take place – there were supposed to be a lot of executions today, and that the executions won’t take place – and we’re going to find out,” Trump said on Wednesday.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, in an interview with Fox TV, also denied that Tehran planned to execute antigovernment protesters. “Hanging is ‌out of the ‌question,” he said.

Which other countries is Trump threatening?

Beyond Iran and Venezuela, longstanding US rivals, Trump’s aggression has increasingly extended towards Washington’s own allies, including Canada and Greenland.

The most striking example is Trump’s eagerness to take over Greenland, a Danish territory, which has evolved from a campaign talking point into a focal element of his administration’s Western Hemisphere strategy.

On January 5, the State Department posted a black-and-white image of Trump on social media, declaring: “This is OUR Hemisphere, and President Trump will not allow our security to be threatened.”

The president has refused to rule out the use of military force, with administration officials openly discussing US interest in Greenland’s strategic location and mineral resources.

Denmark has categorically rejected any sale, while Greenland’s leadership insists the territory is not for sale.

But experts such as Jeremy Shapiro, research director at the European Council on Foreign Relations, argue that Trump uses threats to intimidate adversaries and typically employs force only against weaker targets.

In a paper published last May titled, The bully’s pulpit: Finding patterns in Trump’s use of military force, Shapiro suggested that Trump frequently invokes military threats but often fails to follow through.

According to Shapiro, Trump is more likely to act when threats carry “low escalation risk”, while threats against nuclear-armed or militarily strong states largely serve rhetorical purposes. The most extreme or theatrical warnings, he argues, tend to function as tools of “political signalling rather than precursors to real military action”.

“Trump often deploys grandiose threats but only accepts limited, low-risk military operations. He uses foreign policy as political theatre, aiming threats as much at his domestic base and media cycle as at foreign adversaries,” Shapiro writes.

Calculated unpredictability?

Some analysts believe Trump’s approach offers tactical advantages.

“The intent is to keep opponents off balance, heightening psychological pressure and extracting maximum strategic leverage,” a Pakistani government official told Al Jazeera, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorised to speak to the media. “Even his European allies are not always certain what to expect.”

Others remain sceptical. Qandil Abbas, a specialist on Middle East affairs at Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad, described Trump’s behaviour as erratic, citing his repeated threats against multiple countries.

“Look at his threats against Cuba, or Iran, or Venezuela, and yet this is the same president who also wants to win a Nobel prize and is desperate for it,” Abbas told Al Jazeera.

So is Trump actually pulling back from the prospect of attacking Iran – or is he bluffing?

According to Abbas, Trump’s apparent change in tone might be the result of feedback from US allies in the region “that attacking Iran is not smart”.

Still, Abbas said that “with Israel’s support, I feel he will find a way to strike the country.”

President Lee Jae Myung on Wednesday wrapped up his two-day visit to Japan that raised prospects for closer economic cooperation with Tokyo as well as efforts to test remains of Korean forced laborers.

Lee held summit talks with Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Nara on Tuesday, their second meeting in just over two months, as the two countries face mounting challenges ranging from a volatile trade environment to a complex international order.

This week’s summit came after Lee held summit talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing early last week amid heightened tension between Beijing and Tokyo over Takaichi’s remarks on Taiwan.

China recently imposed restrictions on exports of dual-use items to Japan, raising concerns that it could choke off supplies of rare earth minerals critical to high-tech manufacturing.

Against this backdrop, Lee and Takaichi agreed to move bilateral relations forward through “future-oriented cooperation” in areas including supply chains, artificial intelligence (AI), culture and society.

They also made what Lee described as “small but meaningful progress” on historical issues, agreeing to conduct DNA analysis on remains discovered last August at the Chosei undersea coal mine in Japan’s Yamaguchi Prefecture, where a 1942 flood killed 183 people, including 136 Korean forced laborers.

The issue of the Chosei coal mine was the first item raised by Takaichi during Tuesday’s talks, National Security Adviser Wi Sung-lack said, noting the two leaders agreed to “strengthen humanitarian cooperation related to historical issues.”

The Nara summit signaled a deliberate effort to institutionalize top-level engagement, dubbed “shuttle diplomacy,” as Seoul and Tokyo — key U.S. allies in Asia — navigate diplomacy amid rising regional tensions and supply chain risks.

Concerns had persisted that ties could deteriorate under Takaichi, a conservative leader known for her hawkish views on history, but Lee’s second visit to Japan since August last year has raised cautious optimism that the two sides can find common ground while broadening economic cooperation.

During the summit talks, South Korea reaffirmed its bid to join the 12-member Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), Wi said.

While past efforts to join the multilateral trade pact led by Tokyo were stymied by South Korea’s ban on seafood imports from eight Japanese prefectures following the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, the latest top-level discussions raised cautious hope for progress in upcoming consultations.

Supply chain stability was also a key topic, with the two leaders sharing a consensus on the need to cooperate in establishing stable supply chains, although Wi did not specify whether Beijing’s export controls were directly discussed.

Amid tensions between Beijing and Tokyo, Lee avoided taking sides and instead emphasized the need for Seoul, Tokyo and Beijing to identify common ground for cooperation in Northeast Asia.

The talks also sketched out cooperation beyond trade, with the two sides agreeing to launch working-level consultations on AI and intellectual property rights and to strengthen joint responses to transnational crimes such as online scams.

Takaichi said she would work closely with Lee to promote regional stability and supply chain security, expressing hope that the visit would further elevate bilateral ties.

Security coordination featured prominently as well.

“The two countries reaffirmed their commitment to the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and the establishment of lasting peace, and agreed to continue close coordination on North Korea policy,” Lee said, adding that both sides share the importance of trilateral cooperation among Seoul, Washington and Tokyo.

In the summit that came days after Lee posed selfies together with Xi, optics were deliberately warm.

Lee and Takaichi exchanged gifts, played drums together to K-pop songs and visited an ancient temple in Nara, a carefully choreographed display of rapport.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

The Hunterian Museum in London is a collection of anatomical specimens, both animal and human, and while it’s a fascinating place to visit for some, it warns that many tourists may find it upsetting

Nestled in a leafy London square, encircled by stunning Georgian architecture, stands the 200-old Royal College of Surgeons building. Despite its impressive columns and elaborate exterior stonework, few would guess that behind these historic walls lies one of Britain’s most macabre museums.

The Hunterian Museum houses a vast array of anatomical specimens – both animal and human – guaranteed to fascinate, educate, and shock visitors in equal measure. It also serves as a monument to medical trailblazers, featuring artworks and sculptures that chronicle the lives of those who revolutionised modern surgery.

Many galleries in this free-to-visit attraction boast towering shelves stretching from floor to ceiling, each crammed with jars containing fascinating and extraordinary specimens, reports the Express. Most originate from the animal kingdom, showcasing an array of dissected beings preserved for scientific research.

Yet controversially, the collection also features human remains, including foetuses, potentially making for an unsettling experience unsuitable for those of a sensitive disposition.

A warning on their website cautions: “Viewing human remains can evoke powerful emotions which some visitors can understandably find difficult. Visitors should consider whether visiting the Hunterian is right for them.”

The museum asks that visitors avoid photographing human remains or sharing such images on social media. They continue: “Many of the preparations of human tissue on display in the Hunterian Museum were gathered before modern standards of consent were established. We recognise the debt owed to those people – named and unnamed – who in life and death have helped to advance medical knowledge.”

For decades, heated debate surrounded the exhibition of Charles Byrne’s skeleton, a gentleman renowned for his extraordinary stature, measuring roughly 7 ft 7 in at the time of his death. Even as Charles lay dying, he anticipated that body snatchers would target his remains, leading him to explicitly request burial at sea.

Despite his desperate wishes, his skeleton was acquired by the museum, where it remained on show for more than 200 years. Only in 2023, after many prolonged campaigns, was it finally taken down.

Additional exhibits feature teeth extracted from troops who battled at Waterloo and a pair of false teeth that previously belonged to Winston Churchill. There’s a macabre relic from Britain’s first mummy dissection in 1763, featuring a severed foot preserved under a glass case.

The Evelyn Tables are another eerie yet captivating exhibit. At first glance, they might be mistaken for a piece of modern art hanging on the wall.

However, these are among the oldest anatomical preparations in Europe, created to educate students about the human body. Each wooden slab showcases a different part of the body, such as arteries, nerves, and veins.

These were dissected from a human body, assembled, and then varnished, ensuring their preservation for many years.

But perhaps the most spine-chilling exhibits are the surgical tools used prior to the invention of anaesthesia, when surgery was a gruesome and bloody affair. Seeing an 18th-century amputation kit or a dental set really brings home the sheer terror of undergoing a procedure back then and makes you grateful for modern medicine.

READ MORE: ‘Oldest house in London’ still standing today despite Great Fire of LondonREAD MORE: 109-mile-long tunnel maze hidden beneath city that could save it from climate change

The Hunterian Museum welcomes visitors from Tuesday to Saturday, between 10am and 5pm. Entry is free, but it’s advisable to book a slot online, as it can get busy at peak times.

Have a story you want to share? Email us at webtravel@reachplc.com

Venezuela leader strikes conciliatory tone while renewing claim US wants to topple government to access vast oil reserves.

Venezuela is open to negotiating a deal with the United States to combat drug trafficking, President Nicolas Maduro has said, even as he remained silent on a reported CIA-led strike on his country last week.

The latest statement, made during an interview that aired on Thursday, comes as Maduro has struck a more conciliatory tone towards the US amid Washington’s months-long sanctions and military pressure campaign.

That included, on Thursday, the release of more than 80 prisoners accused of protesting his disputed victory in the 2024 election, the second such release in recent days.

“Wherever they want and whenever they want,” Maduro told Spanish journalist Ignacio Ramonet of the idea of dialogue with the US on drug trafficking, oil and migration in an interview on state TV.

He stressed that it is time for both nations to “start talking seriously, with data in hand”.

“The US government knows, because we’ve told many of their spokespeople, that if they want to seriously discuss an agreement to combat drug trafficking, we’re ready,” he said.

Still, Maduro renewed his allegations that the US is trying to topple his government and gain access to Venezuela’s vast oil reserves through Washington’s months-long sanctions and military pressure campaign.

“If they want oil, Venezuela is ready for US investment, like with Chevron,” he added, referring to the US oil giant, which is the only major oil company exporting Venezuelan crude to the US.

Asked point-blank by Ramonet if he confirmed or denied a US attack on Venezuelan soil, Maduro said: “This could be something we talk about in a few days.”

To date, Maduro has not confirmed a US land attack on a docking facility that allegedly targeted drug boats.

For months, the US has launched numerous strikes on alleged drug smuggling boats originating from Venezuela, in what rights groups have decried as extrajudicial killings. The Trump administration has also imposed a blockade on sanctioned oil tankers entering and exiting Venezuela’s coast.

Tensions further escalated after Trump revealed earlier this week a strike on a docking area for alleged Venezuelan drug boats, in the first known attack on Venezuelan territory of the US campaign.

Trump has not confirmed widespread reports in US media that the attack was a CIA operation or where it occurred, saying only it was “along the shore”.

“There was a major explosion in the dock area where they load the boats up with drugs,” he told reporters at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.

“So we hit all the boats and now we hit the area, it’s the implementation area, that’s where they implement. And that is no longer around.”

The US president has repeatedly threatened ground strikes on drug cartels in the region, which he has labelled “narcoterrorists”. He has claimed, without providing evidence, that Maduro leads a trafficking organisation that aims to destabilise the US by flooding it with drugs.

However, regional experts have noted that Venezuela is not known to be involved in the illicit fentanyl trade, which far and away accounts for the highest number of overdose deaths in the US. Trump has labelled the drug a “weapon of mass destruction”.

Maduro has said the Trump administration’s approach makes it “clear” that the US “seek to impose themselves” on Venezuela through “threats, intimidation and force”.

Maduro’s interview was taped on New Year’s Eve, the same day the US military struck five alleged drug-smuggling boats, killing at least five people.

The latest attacks bring the total number of known boat strikes in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific to 35 and the number of people killed to at least 115, according to numbers announced by the Trump administration.

Venezuelans and Colombians have been among the victims.