security

China said on Tuesday it does not seek a “sphere of influence” in the Pacific, as Foreign Minister Wang Yi defended Beijing’s growing engagement with Pacific island nations following criticism over a recent missile test in the South Pacific.

The remarks came during talks in Beijing with Solomon Islands Foreign Minister Rick Houenipwela, as regional tensions continue to intensify amid strategic competition between China and Western allies.

China Rejects Geopolitical Motives

Wang Yi said China’s cooperation with Pacific island nations is based on mutual respect and shared development rather than geopolitical ambitions.

He stressed that Beijing’s partnerships come without political conditions and are not imposed on other countries. Wang also said Pacific island states are independent and sovereign nations that should not be treated as any country’s “backyard” or be subject to outside interference.

China reaffirmed its willingness to expand cooperation with the Solomon Islands in areas including green energy, healthcare, and climate change.

Missile Test Sparks Regional Concerns

The meeting followed China’s recent test launch of a missile carrying a dummy warhead from a nuclear powered submarine into the South Pacific.

The test drew criticism from several regional governments, including the Solomon Islands, which questioned both the timing and the message sent by the launch.

Solomon Islands Prime Minister Matthew Wale described China as “a good friend” but said the missile test was “not something a friend does,” while reaffirming his country’s commitment to strengthening ties with Australia.

The launch also coincided with the signing of a new mutual defense agreement between Fiji and Australia, highlighting growing security cooperation among Pacific nations.

Pacific Becomes Strategic Battleground

The Pacific has become an increasingly important arena for geopolitical competition as China expands its diplomatic, economic, and security engagement across the region.

Meanwhile, Australia, the United States, New Zealand, and other partners have stepped up investment, defense cooperation, and development assistance in an effort to maintain their influence among Pacific island countries.

Many Pacific governments continue to pursue a balanced foreign policy, seeking economic cooperation with multiple partners while avoiding alignment with any single major power.

Why This Matters

China’s latest comments underscore the growing diplomatic contest for influence in the Pacific, where infrastructure investment, security partnerships, and climate cooperation have become central to regional politics. The region’s strategic location and maritime significance make it increasingly important in broader competition between China and Western allies.

Future Outlook

China is expected to continue expanding economic and development cooperation with Pacific island nations, particularly in renewable energy, healthcare, and infrastructure. At the same time, Australia and its partners are likely to deepen security and development initiatives across the region. As strategic competition intensifies, Pacific governments will continue balancing relationships with competing powers while seeking investment and support that align with their national priorities.

With information from Reuters.

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett told lawmakers Tuesday that a sharp increase in threats targeting her and other justices is increasingly encroaching on their personal and family lives.

During a rare appearance by justices before Congress, Barrett said she had to wear a bulletproof vest home a few years ago, something she struggled to explain to her 12-year-old son.

“I didn’t expect that performing this service would put me in the position of explaining to my children what a bulletproof vest was, why I had to wear one,” she said.

She and Justice Elena Kagan testified before a House appropriations panel in support of a request to increase security funding for members of the nation’s highest court.

Judges around the country have seen a rise in threats of violence and intimidation. Barrett’s home was also targeted by a swatting call to police in May.

The hearing comes two weeks after the conservative-majority court finished handing down a series of major opinions, including a decision that increased President Trump’s power over federal regulatory agencies and another that rejected his wide-ranging tariffs, sparking harsh personal criticism.

It’s the first time justices have testified before Congress since 2019, and the two justices are facing wide-ranging questions about the court’s work.

Security is central to the Supreme Court’s budget request

The Supreme Court requested a total of $228 million for next fiscal year, a roughly 10% increase over the year before. About $18 million of that is for maintaining the building and grounds.

Much of the requested increase, $14.6 million, would go to expanding personal protection for justices, with six more agents for each.

An additional $2 million would fund an off-site residential security post aimed at making emergency responses faster, as well as increasing the number of Supreme Court police officers.

The U.S. Marshals Service, responsible for protecting judges, reported 564 threats in the government fiscal year that ended in September, an increase from the year before.

That total includes threats to the hundreds of federal judges around the country, though the nine-member Supreme Court has not been immune.

In May, Barrett’s security detail worked with police to quickly deal with the swatting incident, a fake 911 call designed to provoke a police response. Last year, her sister was the victim of a bomb threat in Charleston, S.C., police said. No bomb was found.

In 2022, shortly after the leak of a draft opinion overturning the Roe vs. Wade abortion decision, a would-be assassin was arrested near the home of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh with weapons and zip ties. Threats to the Supreme Court increased after that leak and have continued to grow, Kagan said.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has condemned the threats to all U.S. judges, saying during a speech in March that criticism of judicial opinions is understandable, but personally directed hostility is “dangerous, and it’s got to stop.”

Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press.

July 14 (UPI) — Two Supreme Court Justices are planning to testify before Congress Tuesday about the Court’s budget ask for extra security amid growing threats.

Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett plan to appear before the House Appropriations subcommittee that approves funding for the Court to discuss the request for a $16.6 million budget increase to improve security for the justices at work and home. But questioning could veer toward several recent controversial decisions the Court made in its 2025-2026 term.

The budget increase requested is $20.6 million for fiscal year 2027. It asks for $14.6 million to give each justice six more security agents and 25 extra officers at the Supreme Court building, The Washington Post reported. The request also includes $2 million for a residential security office to coordinate home security.

It will be the first time Court justices have gone before Congress since 2019.

Supreme Court justices regularly face personal attacks from politicians and the public who may be displeased with their decisions.

Barrett’s home was “swatted” in May, when a caller reported gunshots at her home to lure police there. In October, a woman was sentenced to eight years in prison for planning to kill Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Chief Justice John Roberts spoke out in March against personal attacks on judges after President Donald Trump criticized the justices for striking down his tariffs.

“Personally directed hostility is dangerous and has got to stop,” Roberts said during a speech in Houston.

Sending justices to Congress has become rare. Until 2011, at least one justice had appeared before Congress every year. Since then, there have been only three appearances.

The death of United States Senator Lindsey Graham has created fresh uncertainty over the future of Washington’s support for Ukraine at a critical stage in the war with Russia. Graham was one of Kyiv’s strongest advocates in Congress and one of the few Republican lawmakers with direct access to President Donald Trump, allowing him to influence White House policy on sanctions, military aid, and strategic cooperation.

While many lawmakers have pledged to continue Graham’s initiatives, analysts say replacing his unique political influence will be difficult. His death comes as Ukraine faces intensified Russian attacks, renewed debates over military assistance, and uncertainty over whether Congress will approve tougher sanctions on Moscow.

Who Was Lindsey Graham for Ukraine?

For more than two decades, Lindsey Graham was one of the Republican Party’s leading foreign policy voices. Since Russia’s full scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, he emerged as one of Kyiv’s most consistent supporters in Washington.

Unlike many lawmakers, Graham maintained a close personal relationship with both President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.

He visited Ukraine 10 times during the war, regularly met Ukrainian officials, and publicly argued that continued United States support was essential for European security and for deterring authoritarian powers worldwide.

His greatest political advantage was his ability to communicate directly with Trump at times when many other Republican supporters of Ukraine struggled to influence the president.

The Russia Sanctions Bill

One of Graham’s most important priorities was the Sanctioning Russia Act, legislation designed to significantly increase economic pressure on Moscow.

The bill seeks to punish countries that continue purchasing Russian:

Its objective is to reduce Russia’s energy revenues, which remain a key source of funding for its military campaign.

Although the legislation gained 85 bipartisan co sponsors in the Senate, it remained stalled because of resistance from the White House.

Just one day before his death, Graham announced that he had finally secured an agreement with the Trump administration to move the legislation forward.

Many senators now hope Congress will pass the bill both as a strategic measure against Russia and as a tribute to Graham’s legacy.

Military Aid Could Face Greater Challenges

Beyond sanctions, Graham consistently advocated stronger military assistance for Ukraine.

He supported:

• Patriot air defense systems
• Missile production cooperation
• Expanded weapons transfers
• Long term security commitments
• Intelligence cooperation

His lobbying helped improve relations between Kyiv and Trump during periods of political tension.

Last year he also played a central role in negotiating a critical minerals agreement that gave the United States preferential access to future Ukrainian mineral projects in exchange for investment.

More recently, Trump announced that Ukraine would receive licenses to manufacture Patriot interceptor missiles domestically, an initiative Graham strongly supported.

However, Ukraine continues to emphasize that immediate deliveries of defensive weapons remain more urgent than future production capacity.

Why Graham Was Difficult to Replace

Analysts argue that Graham’s influence extended far beyond committee hearings or public speeches.

He served as an informal bridge between:

• Congress and the White House.
• Republicans and Democrats.
• Kyiv and the Trump administration.

Few Republican lawmakers enjoyed comparable access to Trump.

His ability to persuade the president privately often proved more valuable than public congressional debates.

This influence became especially important as many Republicans adopted a more cautious approach toward supporting Ukraine after Trump’s return to office in January 2025.

Several other senior Republican supporters of Ukraine, including former Senate leader Mitch McConnell, are also preparing to leave Congress, further reducing Kyiv’s network of experienced allies.

Will United States Policy Change?

Despite concerns, Graham’s death does not automatically mean a reversal of United States policy toward Ukraine.

Several factors suggest continued support:

Strong bipartisan backing

The Russia sanctions legislation already enjoys overwhelming bipartisan support in the Senate.

Institutional momentum

Military cooperation between Washington and Kyiv now involves long term industrial partnerships, intelligence sharing, and defense production agreements that extend beyond any single politician.

Trump’s recent policy shift

In recent weeks Trump has adopted a noticeably more supportive tone toward Ukraine.

He has endorsed licensed production of Patriot interceptors and appears increasingly willing to allow Congress to vote on tougher sanctions against Russia.

Nevertheless, uncertainty remains.

Without Graham acting as an intermediary, disagreements between Congress and the White House could become more difficult to resolve.

Political Reactions

President Volodymyr Zelenskiy described Graham’s death as a personal loss, noting they had remained in constant contact and met twice during the senator’s final visit to Ukraine.

Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen and several Republican lawmakers have proposed passing the Russia sanctions bill as Graham’s legacy, with some suggesting it should even bear his name.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune also called passage of the legislation an appropriate tribute to Graham’s decades of public service.

Why This Matters

Lindsey Graham represented something increasingly rare in Washington’s polarized political environment: a Republican with both strong pro Ukraine views and significant influence over President Trump.

His death removes one of Kyiv’s most effective advocates at a time when the war is entering another difficult phase. While institutional support for Ukraine remains substantial, personal relationships often play an outsized role in shaping United States foreign policy, particularly under the Trump administration.

Whether Congress can maintain bipartisan momentum without Graham may influence not only future sanctions but also military assistance and broader diplomatic engagement with Ukraine.

Analysis

Graham’s passing is unlikely to produce an immediate shift in United States policy, but it could gradually reshape the political dynamics surrounding Ukraine. His influence was rooted less in his legislative position than in his personal relationship with President Trump, allowing him to bridge the gap between a White House that has often been skeptical of deeper involvement in Ukraine and a bipartisan coalition in Congress seeking stronger action against Russia.

The sanctions bill may still pass because of its broad bipartisan support and the symbolic significance it has acquired following Graham’s death. However, future military assistance could face greater political hurdles. Weapons transfers and funding packages require sustained presidential backing, and without Graham serving as an intermediary, advocates for Ukraine may find it harder to persuade Trump during moments of disagreement.

At the same time, the institutional relationship between Washington and Kyiv is now far more developed than it was in the early years of the war. Joint defense production, intelligence cooperation, and long term industrial partnerships have created strategic ties that extend beyond the influence of any individual lawmaker. These structures provide a degree of continuity even as political leadership changes.

Looking ahead, the direction of United States policy will depend less on finding a direct replacement for Graham and more on whether other Republican leaders choose to embrace his internationalist approach or align more closely with voices advocating reduced American involvement overseas. The outcome will shape not only Ukraine’s military position but also the credibility of Western efforts to sustain long term pressure on Russia.

With information from Reuters.

Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi is travelling to the United States for talks with President Donald Trump, in what will be his first foreign trip since taking office in May.

During this week’s meetings, al-Zaidi is expected to sign agreements in energy and trade while also boosting investment with US companies.

Iraqi government spokesman Haider al-Aboudi told reporters on Sunday the visit to Washington, DC, will mark a shift in the countries’ relations “from a framework of crisis management to a strategic economic partnership”.

The focus, he said, would not be about striking a “temporary” agreement but about establishing “a durable, long-term partnership that serves the shared interests of both countries”.

Al-Aboudi said oil would be “a top priority” during the visit as the Iraqi government seeks to increase production and find alternative export hubs to lessen the consequences of any future closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

Iraq was one of the countries badly hit by the shutting down of the critical waterway in recent months due to the US-Israel war on Iran, as about 90 percent of its 3.4 million barrels per day (bpd) of exports passes through it.

Al-Aboudi said Iraq’s proposal to establish an energy and development fund with the US would be on the table to finance any projects that would be agreed upon, especially in the energy sector.

Al-Zaidi had previously said the fund would initially be structured in oil exports of 500,000 bpd with the goal of increasing to as much as two million bpd.

The prime minister has also said Iraq seeks to increase oil production to seven million bpd over the next three years, up from its current output of about 4.5 million bpd.

“Iraq is in need of such kind of cooperation, especially with a partner like the United States to enhance and strengthen its capacity, particularly in the energy, oil, gas, electricity, and petrochemicals sectors,” said Abdulrahman Almashhadani, an Iraqi economic expert and professor.

“However, the critical question remains whether Iraq can provide a safe and stable environment that would encourage US companies to come to Iraq,” he said. “This issue is sensitive and unresolved; it largely depends on the government’s ability to deliver on its commitments to restrict weapons to state control.”

Large delegation

Sources told Al Jazeera the Iraqi delegation to the US comprises more than 70 people, including key ministers, the head of the central bank, the national security adviser, lawmakers and businessmen.

A well-informed source said meetings with US administration officials and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have also been planned. According to the source, who asked not to be named, Iraq is seeking to secure an IMF loan of up to $8bn.

A separate well-informed source told Al Jazeera that the disarming of pro-Iran Iraqi armed factions and restricting weapons under state authority, as well as Baghdad’s relationship with Tehran, are expected to be among the issues the US side will raise during the visit.

In his first speech in parliament as prime minister, al-Zaidi had promised that the state would have control over weapons in a country where paramilitary groups, including many supported by Iran, have been powerful since the 2003 US-led war on Iraq.

Some armed factions said they would abide by the prime minister’s declaration, but others – particularly the powerful ones that launched missiles and drones at US facilities during the war on Iran – rejected it.

In a statement released hours before al-Zaidi’s trip to Washington, the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, an umbrella group of Iran-backed armed groups in the region, including Iraq, rejected the prime minister’s visit and its outcomes.

“We will not give a blank cheque for all government policies. We warn against replacing military occupation with an economic occupation that is even more dangerous,” the statement said.

“The option of defending Iraq and its legitimate interests will remain on the table,” it added.

Al-Zaidi has said his government is eager to implement a 2024 deal made with the US-led coalition’s military mission in Iraq to end its presence as combat forces by the end of September.

Some of the factions that rejected the prime minister’s disarmament statement said they would wait to see what happens on September 30 and then act accordingly.

Ehsan al-Shammary, a professor of international studies at Baghdad University, said the economic initiatives and the backing that al-Zaidi is seeking from Trump during Monday’s talks would inevitably be overshadowed by the issue of Iran’s influence in Iraq.

Ultimately, he added, it is the issue that will determine the success or failure of a “very important” visit that could “redefine” bilateral relations and “give it a push”.

“Al-Zaidi has little room for manoeuvre. He should choose either to align with the United States or move closer to Iran,” said al-Shammary. “I do not believe Washington is willing to accept a divided sphere of influence in Iraq alongside Tehran. That is why the prime minister’s task appears to be almost impossible.”

An airport has revealed an easy trick for a shorter wait at airport security

Holidaymakers can cut down the time they spend waiting at airport security using a little-known trick. The travel hack was shared by Manchester Airport, and it could be perfect for families ahead of the busy summer holidays.

According to Manchester Airport, there’s an easy way to reduce your queue time if you’re allowed to choose which lane to wait in. Posting tips for passengers online, the travel hub shared an ‘Ultimate Airport Guide’ on its website. There are various tips, covering everything from the best shoes to wear and how to decorate suitcases for maximum visibility.

In the ‘at the airport’ section of the guide, there’s a hack that could help passengers fly through security using ‘reverse psychology.’ Manchester Airport said: “If given the choice of security lanes, pick the left. Most passengers are right handed and will subconsciously prefer the right, making the left a little quieter.”

The airport added that customers can also pay to upgrade to FastTrack for a faster experience. “For just a few pounds, you can purchase FastTrack tickets to use the priority lane and avoid the queues before Security on your way out and Passport Control on your way in.” Many airports offer a similar experience, allowing passengers to pay to use FastTrack.

Elsewhere, London Stansted Airport offers the same security advice for passengers. The airport retierates: “If given the choice of security lanes, pick the left.”

The tip could be especially helpful when many passengers are travelling at the same time, such as during the school summer holidays. However, it’s worth noting that passengers don’t always get to choose their lane.

Nonetheless, they can help speed up the process by avoiding accessories that are difficult to remove. This makes the process faster for everyone.

Offering advice online, London Stansted Airport said: “To prepare your outfit for security, wear shoes that you can take off and put on easily. Avoid fiddley belts or fastenings in your clothes and excess jewellery. Try and keep your pockets empty of non-essentials.”

Despite this, passengers might still want to pack a few layers for later in their journey. The airport recommends packing items such as jumpers, which are easy to take on and off when the temperature changes.

The travel advice said: “Temperatures aboard flights can vary so wearing a few removable layers is advised. An extra jumper can always be used as a pillow if nothing else.”

European shares were little changed on Friday but remained on track for their first weekly decline in five weeks as weakness in technology stocks and renewed tensions between the United States and Iran dampened investor sentiment.

The pan-European STOXX 600 index edged 0.1% lower to 640.28 points by 0849 GMT, with losses in technology companies offsetting gains in most other sectors.

The benchmark index is poised to end a four-week winning streak after investors reassessed lofty valuations in artificial intelligence-related stocks while monitoring escalating geopolitical risks in the Middle East.

Technology stocks remain under pressure

The technology sector fell 1.3% on Friday as investors continued taking profits following months of strong gains driven by enthusiasm for artificial intelligence.

The sector also remained focused on the closely watched U.S. stock market debut of South Korean memory chip maker SK Hynix after its $26.5 billion share sale.

Among European chip-related stocks:

• Soitec fell 3.3%.
• BE Semiconductor Industries declined 1.6%.
• ASML dropped 2.3%.

“The large swings we’re seeing in technology stocks suggest investors remain under stress amid elevated valuations,” said Ipek Ozkardeskaya, senior market analyst at Swissquote Bank.

“Attention is now turning to SK Hynix’s U.S. debut, which could help gauge broader appetite for AI-related stocks and influence sentiment across the sector.”

Iran tensions weigh on market sentiment

Investor caution also reflected renewed uncertainty in the Middle East after Iranian forces targeted U.S. military infrastructure in Gulf states following fresh U.S. strikes on Iran.

The latest escalation further weakened the fragile three-week-old ceasefire and renewed concerns over potential disruptions to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important energy trade routes.

Higher oil prices and possible supply disruptions have raised concerns about inflation, particularly in energy-importing Europe, where markets are closely watching the implications for economic growth and European Central Bank policy.

Telecoms and travel outperform

Despite weakness in technology, most sectors in the STOXX 600 traded higher.

Telecommunications stocks led gains, rising 1.4%, after Vodafone surged nearly 11%.

The rally followed an announcement by UAE telecoms group e& that it would sell its stake in Vodafone to the family investment group of French billionaire Xavier Niel.

Travel and leisure stocks gained 0.8%, supported by strength in airline shares.

British budget carrier EasyJet jumped 14% after agreeing in principle to a £5.7 billion ($7.65 billion) takeover approach from Apollo Global.

Steel stocks rally on broker upgrades

European steelmakers outperformed after J.P. Morgan adopted a more positive view of the sector.

The investment bank upgraded ArcelorMittal to “neutral” from “underweight,” lifting its shares 5%.

Austria’s Voestalpine climbed 6%, while Germany’s Salzgitter surged 10.3% after both companies received double upgrades to “overweight.”

Other movers

Wealth manager St. James’s Place was among the session’s biggest losers, falling 8.5% after reports that Sovereign Wealth, one of its largest partner firms, was in talks to join a Swedish wealth management group.

Future outlook

Markets are expected to remain focused on two key drivers in the coming days: whether the renewed U.S.-Iran hostilities escalate further and whether SK Hynix’s U.S. debut reinforces or weakens investor confidence in the AI-driven technology rally.

With geopolitical risks pushing oil prices higher and technology valuations facing increased scrutiny, analysts expect volatility across European equities to remain elevated in the near term.

With information from Reuters.

China’s successful submarine-launched ballistic missile test into the southern Pacific this week was more than a routine military exercise. It provided Beijing with a rare opportunity to validate one of the most sensitive aspects of its nuclear deterrent its ability to command, communicate with and potentially deploy nuclear-armed submarines while remaining undetected.

The test, carried out on Monday, involved a ballistic missile launched from a strategic nuclear-powered submarine and has drawn close scrutiny from regional governments and defence analysts. While Chinese officials described it as a standard military drill conducted in accordance with international law, experts say it marks another step in China’s effort to build a more credible and survivable nuclear force.

Why submarine missile tests matter

Unlike land-based nuclear missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) are designed to ensure a country can retaliate even if its territory comes under nuclear attack. This “second-strike capability” forms one of the central pillars of nuclear deterrence.

Analysts say the test was not solely about assessing missile performance. It also allowed Chinese military leaders to evaluate the complex command-and-control systems needed to operate nuclear submarines while they remain hidden beneath the ocean.

Maintaining secure communications with submarines without revealing their position is among the most technically demanding aspects of any nuclear arsenal.

Collin Koh, a security expert at Singapore’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, said Beijing would likely have been evaluating communications, operational procedures and submarine performance alongside the missile itself.

A key part of China’s nuclear modernization

Regional defence experts believe the missile was launched from one of China’s Type-094 nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), although Beijing has not officially identified the vessel.

China has steadily expanded its nuclear capabilities over the past decade, developing what military planners describe as a complete “nuclear triad”—the ability to launch nuclear weapons from land, sea and air.

The submarine component is viewed as increasingly important because it offers a survivable retaliatory force if China’s land-based missile sites were destroyed during a conflict.

According to previous U.S. defence assessments, China has already begun near-continuous deterrence patrols using its SSBN fleet, joining the United States, Russia, Britain and France in maintaining an at-sea nuclear capability.

Challenges remain

Despite the progress, experts note that China’s submarine force still faces significant operational hurdles.

To threaten the continental United States with its most advanced JL-3 submarine-launched missile, Chinese submarines would likely need to leave the relative protection of the South China Sea and enter the wider Pacific Ocean, where they could be tracked by U.S. and allied anti-submarine forces.

Military analysts say American and allied navies closely monitor Chinese submarines using surveillance aircraft, underwater sensor networks and naval patrols.

China is also developing a quieter next-generation ballistic missile submarine that could improve its ability to operate undetected.

Regional reaction

The launch prompted criticism from several regional governments.

The United States said China had provided only limited advance notification before the launch and expressed concern over Beijing’s rapidly expanding nuclear arsenal. Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Taiwan also voiced concern following the test.

China rejected the criticism, insisting the exercise complied with international law and was intended solely to safeguard national security and strategic stability.

Beijing has repeatedly argued that its nuclear modernization remains defensive and consistent with its longstanding policy of not being the first to use nuclear weapons.

Analysis: A signal beyond the missile

The importance of this test extends beyond the missile itself. It demonstrates Beijing’s growing confidence in the sea-based leg of its nuclear deterrent, an area traditionally dominated by the United States and Russia.

The exercise also reflects China’s broader military modernization strategy under President Xi Jinping, which prioritizes survivable nuclear forces capable of guaranteeing retaliation under any scenario. Even if operational challenges remain—particularly the ability of Chinese submarines to evade increasingly sophisticated Western tracking systems—the test suggests China is moving closer to a fully credible second-strike capability.

Strategically, the launch sends multiple messages. Domestically, it showcases advances in China’s military technology. Regionally, it reinforces Beijing’s determination to protect its security interests. Internationally, it signals that China’s nuclear forces are becoming more sophisticated, mobile and resilient, adding another layer of complexity to strategic competition with the United States and its allies in the Indo-Pacific.

With information from Reuters.

There is almost no landscape across the West African Sahel that cannot be accessed from the back of a motorcycle. That is why terrorists operating in the region prize them so highly. In various terror operations, motorcycles are used not only as vehicles, but as weapons, and even as a form of currency.

In April, terrorists abducted five residents from their farms in Anka, Zamfara State, in Nigeria’s North West, and demanded a ₦3.8 million ransom. After the affected families managed to raise the money and paid it, the abductors issued another demand: they were to return with motorcycles before the hostages would be released. 

“They told the families that they would kill the victims if they did not bring a motorcycle,” Ciroma Ade* said. He was tasked with travelling to parts of Sokoto, or somewhere else, to buy the motorcycles and deliver them to a location that would be communicated to him later, in his experience, usually around Gurusu Forest between Anka and Gusau. 

It was not the first time he had made the run. Over time, he unintentionally became a ‘middleman’ in the motorcycle ransom economy. He was also one of its victims. In 2024, he bought motorcycles to secure the release of many of his relatives. Buying a ransom vehicle is never straightforward because the region is now more conscious of its purchase, and many vendors will no longer sell the vehicle in that part of the country. 

Sometimes the terrorists arrange for an anonymous ‘middleman’ to travel far, often to the trading hubs in Kano, to source motorcycles on their behalf. Ciroma has his own networks. He knows which traders to approach in Sokoto or Zuru, in Kebbi State, despite the growing difficulty of buying the machines. 

Over the years, he has repeatedly relied on those contacts to secure abducted villagers, including many of his relatives. Once the motorcycles were purchased, the terrorists would arrange a meeting point for delivery. He did the same this time. Most of the time, the hostages returned alive. The terrorists appeared to understand the continuing value of keeping captives alive; they were useful leverage for future negotiations. 

This time was different. The victims were killed anyway.

An emerging trend has taken hold across parts of northern Nigeria. Terrorists have created a self-sustaining system in which motorcycles have become a form of ransom. Each abduction helps replenish the very machines used to carry out the next one. The motorcycle has become both the means of violence and its reward.

HumAngle learned that terrorists in the region frequently use commercially available motorcycles, especially Honda models, for their durability, availability, and suitability for rough terrain. They ride them into battle, use them to swarm a target, and conduct large-scale operations like mass abductions. 

Ciroma, for one, knows this too. As one of the reluctant middlemen who helped bring ransom motorcycles into the system, he believes his community has become both a source of motorcycles for terrorists and one of the least safe places in the country.

While researching how motorcycles have become inseparable from conflict in the Sahel, I could not find many stories that told the tales of war from the motorcycle’s perspective. Almost every day brings reports of non-state armed groups using motorcycles to attack villages, ambush troops, abduct civilians, or simply move from one place to another. Yet the motorcycle itself rarely occupies the centre of those stories. 

Conflict reporting understandably focuses on bloodshed, casualties, military operations, and the growing sophistication of insurgents’ weaponry. Compared with assault rifles, rocket launchers, or improvised explosive devices, motorcycles appear almost mundane. But this overlooks one of the constants of modern insurgency.

Across Nigeria’s conflict theatres, and much of the wider Sahel, the motorcycle is present regardless of the group, geography, or operation. It functions simultaneously as a transport, a logistics platform, an escape vehicle, and a weapon. There should be a literature that treats it as the protagonist rather than merely part of the scenery.

This is what we are attempting to do. 

Ciroma had just returned from the cemetery, where he and other villagers buried five people killed by the terrorists, when he heard that a journalist wanted to know about the motorcycle ransom economy. He spoke passionately about the suffering of his community. 

During his final assignment, he deliberately delayed delivering the motorcycles until every option had been exhausted. After the victims were killed, he sold the motorcycles and distributed the proceeds back to their families. 

As he told members of his community, he wanted nothing more to do with the “thieves”, including playing a part in the supply chain that sustained them.

If soldiers were willing to follow the motorcycle tracks into the forests, he said, he would guide them himself. He knew the routes. He knew the delivery points. Together with the local vigilantes, they could reach the camps where he had previously delivered motorcycles. “They could clear the thieves out,” he said. 

The rider 

Back in Abuja, I needed more perspective if I was going to write this story. 

I left my estate and approached a commercial motorcyclist waiting by the roadside. He eyed me suspiciously. He wanted no association with terrorists, even if it meant nothing more than answering a journalist’s questions.

Standing nearby was another rider, Musa Abba. He waved me over, introduced himself, and agreed to speak, but only off camera. I asked him what it felt like to ride his bike every day. 

“There is no place I cannot reach with this machine,” he said. 

Musa trusts his motorcycle more than anything else. He kicked the engine to life and gestured for me to climb on. He had decided the interview would be better conducted while we were moving.

As I settled in behind him, my thoughts drifted, not to motorcycles, but to horses. I found myself thinking about how civilisations across the ancient world discovered the extraordinary power of a mounted rider. Horses became indispensable: first for farming and transport, then, most significantly, for war. They were the all-important multipurpose machines of their age.

They could hardly have imagined that one day a two-wheeled machine would replicate the power of a cavalry many times over. Perhaps they wondered about it. Back then, even with other machines of war, such as the horse-drawn cart, the camel caravan, and eventually some mechanised infantry, the role of the rider in battle remained central.

Motorcycles have inherited that role.

Some recent research has begun to recognise this. Analysts have documented the emergence of a ransom economy in which insurgents increasingly demanded motorcycles instead of cash. Communities are taxed to replace bikes lost during military operations. The most in-depth literature was compiled by the Global Initiative, an international think tank that interviewed people across the West African Sahel and found that motorcycles were stolen and trafficked over the years to sustain transnational criminal operations in Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, and the Republic of Benin.

Not much was said about Nigeria in the report. However, the Nigerian Army has, in press statements, documented the seizure of thousands of motorcycles in counterinsurgency operations in Nigeria. Beyond those records, evidence also lies along the routes connecting illicit smuggling and trafficking hubs, with networks tracing back to the organised trans-Saharan trade from the 8th to the 16th centuries. Today, those same corridors still carry motorcycles used for smuggling and for slipping along clandestine routes that let riders avoid conventional roads and border checkpoints.

The motorcycle is now so woven into life across West Africa, the Sahel, and the Lake Chad Basin that the mobility it provides sustains entire communities, and many people in the lower and middle classes cannot imagine life without it.

As we continued the ride, Abba said, “When it is time to work, the only road I cannot enter is a place I am not allowed to work.” 

The war machine

How does a bike measure up to the cavalry? Scottish engineer James Watt coined the term ‘horsepower’ in the late 18th century, defining one horsepower as the daily output of a strong working horse. In reality, a horse sustains only about half that output over the course of a day. 

I wondered whether the rider ever feels limited by terrain, and what it must feel like to have such command of the road. 

“Surely you cannot climb rocks with it,” I said in Hausa, pointing at a hill we were riding past. “There is no place I cannot reach with this machine,” he repeated over the soft rush of wind. “Wannan karfe ne,” he continued. This is metal. 

His Hausa made the argument sound more emphatic.

“It is not like rubber-rubber,” he went on, referring to the flashier plastic-bodied motorcycles. “A bike like this,” he said, gesturing at his motorcycle, “is the most durable of them all. You don’t need to maintain it much, and it doesn’t consume as much fuel as most other brands. You can change the oil just once in a while if you like. It can go anywhere, enter almost anywhere, and its second-hand value is even better than rubber-rubber [brands].”

Abba went on and on about what makes a motorcycle valuable in everyday life, and in doing so, he laid out exactly what makes it valuable to a terrorist across the conflict zones of Nigeria.

Measured by sustained power output, a Honda CG125 delivers roughly the equivalent of about 16 working horses. By that measure, a single terrorist on a motorcycle is riding with the power of about 16 horses at a time. 

What we found

Over months of work, we built a database by measuring hundreds of military operations conducted over the past decade, logging every reported incident of motorcycle seizure and the count attached to it. Between February 2015 and November 2025, the Nigerian Army reportedly seized at least 2,607 motorcycles across 300 separate encounters. Taken together, this aggregated press data describes the logistical philosophy of the terror groups that the troops fight. 

The seizure records also reveal distinct phases. At various points, different armed groups appear to have dominated motorcycle use, and there were periods when almost every operation reported by the military involved recovering bikes. Yet the headline figure of 2,607 motorcycles over ten years tells only part of the story.

In the early years of military engagement in the insurgency, the totals were driven by a handful of major discoveries, followed by long runs of tens of operations, each yielding only a single vehicle. These recoveries were not sustained by patrol pressure; they came when a campaign stumbled on a cache. 

Over time, however, the army evolved its tactics. It pushed deeper into the terror enclaves in the forests, adopting specialised strategies, including the so-called strangulation strategy of the late 2010s, which was designed to starve the groups of the fuel and resources that kept their motorcycles running, and in many ways they set up the clearance operations that produced the few thousand vehicles in the record.

The earliest phase of this campaign against the motorcycle is unclear in the data. In late 2015 and 2016, at the peak of the Boko Haram insurgency, motorcycles were still being treated as secondary characters in the war. At the time, Boko Haram could field a 15-gun-truck convoy against a Forward Operating Base in Borno, sustain multi-wave assaults with machine guns and specialised Type-36 hand grenades in a single engagement, and then publish videos of the attack to showcase its strength and firepower.

Counterinsurgency reports from the period mention motorcycles only in passing. The focus was on weapons recovered, fighters neutralised, and territories retaken. But the bikes grew more prominent as larger caches began to appear in the record around 2017. Most seizure events still involved a single motorcycle, but occasionally the numbers jumped to a few or to a large cache, almost always the product of a one-off encounter or an ambush on a terrorist base. 

As the military expanded its operations deeper into the forest to dislodge the groups, recoveries increased, especially in the northeastern region. I designate this as the first of two eras of riders, as the aggregated data reveal the core role of motorcycles in the wars.

The era of riders

On Feb. 17, 2016, soldiers of the 7 Division Garrison, on a clearance mission, entered Gulumba in Bama Local Government Area in Borno State. They found what they described as a small city where they had expected a makeshift camp. Inside were medical supplies stored in a field hospital, a sizable market, two logistics trucks, a grinding machine, and an industrial 100KVA Mikano generator. The most important find, though, was the transport garage of 180 motorcycles and 750 bicycles. In a single operation, at least 930 potential combatants were denied transport that day.

The period between 2016 and 2017 belonged to Boko Haram’s riders. Operation Lafiya Dole, a counterinsurgency operation of the Nigerian government, alone accounts for 57 per cent of all seizures in the dataset, with 1,792 motorcycles across 96 records, almost all recovered during camp-clearance operations in Borno. That works out to an average of 19.7 motorcycles per recorded operation. 

Viewed over the full 2015–2025 period, the distribution of motorcycle seizures tells the story of two distinct conflicts. The first peaks in 2016; the second begins to emerge after 2022. 

The defining year is 2016. Alone, it accounts for almost half of all motorcycles recorded in the dataset: roughly 1,300 bikes recovered across just 86 records, an average of 17 per record, far above any other year. This was the peak of Operation Lafiya Dole’s deepest push into Boko Haram’s territorial strongholds in Borno, where large-scale camp clearances dismantled the insurgency’s mobile logistics in bulk. 

The pattern continued into 2017. Although the database contains only 10 records for that year, it accounts for 331 bikes, carried almost entirely by a single cache of 301 bikes recovered at Njibulwa, an insurgent enclave in Borno State.

After that, the numbers collapsed. Between 2018 and 2022, annual recoveries averaged just 49 motorcycles. 

The second era of riders

Then there was another uptick in 2023, but it is a different case from 2016. This time, the centre of gravity shifted westwards. Kaduna led the increase, accounting for 88 recovered motorcycles, mostly linked in military reports to “terrorists”. The change reflected the growing prominence of motorcycle-riding armed groups in north-western Nigeria from around 2020 onwards.

Unlike the Boko Haram years, recoveries were no longer dominated by massive camp clearances. Instead, the database settles into a consistent pattern of around five to eight motorcycles per record, with a steady climb. The groups they were recovered from were labelled by the security forces as “bandits”, not Boko Haram. 

After 2022, the number of seizure records rose sharply, even as the number of motorcycles recovered in each operation remained relatively low. Instead of discovering large transport depots, security forces were finding motorcycles in small clusters during repeated engagements. Operation Shaaran Daji became the leading source of recoveries in the northwestern region, signalling that the motorcycle had become embedded not in large insurgent camps but in dispersed, highly mobile armed networks. 

The informal motorcycle networks through the Sahel

There are dirt roads in the desert that cross international borders and run through the Sahel’s sands, following routes that have connected communities for centuries. Many trace the arteries of the trans-Saharan trade, linking illicit hubs of smuggling and trafficking through networks first established hundreds of years ago. These pathways did not disappear as modern states emerged across the Sahel. Instead, they evolved alongside them. Most still exist today, at least as part of a broader web of formal and informal routes connecting contemporary roads to historical trading corridors that continue to facilitate cross-border movement.

Consider the recent ruins of Metele, which is comparatively recent than the historical networks, a Borno town brought down to rubble by the Boko Haram insurgency and abandoned for years, and crumbling into building blocks. After a decade of silence, the one thing that has only grown more visible is the roads, and in particular the ones made by motorcycle tracks. These have deepened with continued use, suggesting activities likely by insurgents operating in the area. 

Metele and hundreds of villages in northern Borno around it have been abandoned, leaving only insurgent camps and military bases that occasionally clash in the parts where these routes link them. Yet the old roads have only grown deeper, and new paths have opened across the empty ground, as seen in the satellite imagery below.

Let’s follow the Metele tracks eastward and see where it leads. It runs for about eight kilometres of the bike route, crossing onto the shore of an island in Lake Chad, and continuing from there across the flat terrain of the island, with many sub-tracks splitting off toward different corners, while the main track presses on east, along the shore and onto a much larger island with road networks also branching off on every side and onto other islands. We stop here because this island matters for a particular reason. Among its thousands of tracks sits a largely isolated compound in the island’s north.

In May 2026, US forces, working with Nigerian Army intelligence, carried out an airstrike on that compound and killed a senior ISWAP commander, Abu Bilal Al-Minuki. The site was geolocated using video of the strike released by United States Africa Command (AFRICOM). 

Al-Minuki served as a liaison between ISWAP’s various commands across the Lake Chad Basin and the wider Islamic State organisation. Different factions of the group operate on multiple fronts, with administrative functions carried out in locations such as this island. Senior commanders often gathered in secluded places like these, whether in forest compounds in Sambisa or in camps scattered across the islands of Lake Chad.

When fighters enter Nigeria, they may arrive by boat from neighbouring islands, or blend in with ordinary travellers using the road network. Once inside the theatre of conflict, however, the motorcycle becomes the preferred means of movement. It allows commanders to visit training camps, inspect fighters on different fronts, and travel rapidly between operational bases.

These tracks travel far and wide, meeting at certain points across the Sahel. They run north into Lake Chad, or northwest toward the Niger Republic. Cross-border routes make neighbouring communities, places like Diffa in Niger, feel as close as the other side of the street. The motorcycle gives its riders command at border crossings, and they hardly worry about checkpoints on official roads unless they intend to attack the location and run into state forces on either side. 

Here, the border itself counts for far less. This indistinguishable, landlocked frontier has been reshaped by centuries of informal movement, by daily life that transcends the very idea of nationality. These places have long borne the brunt of regional security forces unable to fully command the area, and in a geography this vast, with so many options and pathways, smuggling and trafficking are barely a challenge.

The network of informal motorcycle routes is still more intricate. Some lead into the ruins of the hundreds of villages, like Metele, abandoned across the area. The ruins of Metele is within 50 kilometres of the nearest fringe of communities where people still live. The tracks also connect to minor and major roads leading to inhabited areas, giving the motorcycles access for incursions. 

Eventually, these routes connect to every community in the region. Across the flatlands of Metele and Lake Chad through the desert of the border country, the motorcycle is highly effective, and this is why it is such a powerful weapon in the typical insurgent arsenal, despite the secondary attention it tends to receive next to the AK-47s and rocket launchers recovered alongside it in a raid.

The forest route 

You will rarely hear about motorcycle–riding terrorists being caught at a military checkpoint, on their way to an operation or simply travelling. For anyone who knows the terrain, there is often no need to cross a major road on most journeys in the region. 

The forests of Sambisa, Kyumbana, Mando, and the Mandara Mountains welcome the tyres of the war machine. HumAngle has previously reported on fighters travelling, moving, even migrating to another state through the interconnected, ungoverned forest reserves of the region, which give them multi-state reach and the ability to turn up in almost any part of the country.

Once through the forests and the mountain wilderness of the northeastern region, riders reach the other end of the country, though not necessarily in one go. They drop down now and then onto the main road, sometimes to refuel; there are reports of the military intercepting them and warning filling stations not to serve them. They settle for a while in certain towns, or in camps near towns, using the towns as supply bases before picking up the trail back into the wilderness and on toward their destination. 

The machines are useful throughout the journey, should they wish to travel from the northeast to the northwest. In 2022, HumAngle reported how fighters from the forests of the northwestern region, such as the Birnin Gwari and Kamuku forests, often travel through towns, stopping at communities where they are repeatedly reported to assault local residents, particularly women, often sexually, before continuing toward an operation elsewhere. The very sight of them on their bikes has already terrified those communities into compliance with whatever they demand. It has become a kind of tradition in Kaduna, in Niger, and even in Kwara State when these riders come into town.

From this end, too, groups like the Lakurawa have been reported riding into Nigeria. Locals often describe them as Arab-looking non-Nigerians entering through the porous borders in the northwest, and a similar pattern is evident along the Lake Chad Basin on the other side of the north. Recent reporting has confirmed the group as a faction of the Islamic State operating in West Africa, and in Nigeria in particular. 

They move through the Sahara along a network of ancient routes and illicit hubs where trafficking and underground resources are available to anyone on the road. This underworld of hubs and crossings is what lets riders pass between countries.

The Sahel underworld

When the collapse of Muammar Gaddafi’s regime released Libya’s vast weapons stockpiles into the region, it was this same illicit Sahelian underworld that carried many of those weapons into West Africa, including Nigeria.

Before he was killed, the terrorist kingpin Halilu Sububu was reported to ride with his gang across this terrain, loaded with gold sourced from the artisanal mining pits they controlled, and to return to Nigeria with weapons traded for that gold. Those weapons became the lifeblood of banditry in the country’s northwestern region and made Sububu the chief arms supplier to the various groups there. 

His advantage was not simply access to weapons, but access to the routes. He reportedly knew how to travel to the Sahel and return with arms without significant interference. His command of the motorcycle corridors enabled his network to move across borders with relative ease. The same routes connected him to weapons originating from the post-2011 Libyan arms outflow, and even allowed combat vehicles acquired by his organisation to be delivered through the network.

Critical transit and logistics networks span multiple border regions across the Sahel and West Africa, including the Burkina Faso–Côte d’Ivoire border, the Côte d’Ivoire–Mali–Burkina Faso tri-border area, and the Ghana–Burkina Faso frontier, where Hamile, Tumu, and Bawku serve as key crossing points. Further north, Ansongo in Mali, Arlit and Agadez in Niger, and numerous settlements across the Mali–Niger–Burkina Faso tri-border region function as centres for acquiring, consolidating, and redistributing illicit resources.

Perhaps the most famous network that leads into northern Nigeria is the one from Libya. It crosses through illicit hubs and artisanal mining sites, most of which are controlled by armed groups. The network of arms smuggling runs from Libya, usually from the desert oasis of Sabha; the journey flows through Fazzan in southern Libya and crosses the infamous Salvador Pass into the Republic of Niger, where illicit hubs and mining networks link to Sokoto, Borno and Zamfara states, connecting through Niger Republic routes from Agadez, Maradi, Tahoua, following ancient trade routes that continue to shape movement today.

These hubs share a profile of remote geography, thin state presence, weak governance, and established illicit trade networks that move goods and people across borders.

Motorcycles rule in this terrain.

Of middlemen and motorcycle bans 

We met another middleman, Abu Dogara*. Unlike Ciroma, he was not interested in sharing his experience, as his job still leaves a bad taste in his mouth. He answered mostly with short replies, with the occasional long clarification about the details of his involvement in the motorcycle ransom economy. 

Earlier, we talked about the middlemen: the mostly anonymous intermediaries who know how to secure the motorcycle for victims’ families when all other options are lost. Abu was a middleman, at least until terrorists abducted his sister-in-law. He wanted me to understand that the last time he was on the job, he had not dealt with the terrorists himself. They had taken his younger brother’s wife, so it was his brother who spoke to them. He had played the same role as always, travelling to buy the motorcycles.

As awareness of the terrorists’ reliance on motorcycles has grown, buying one anywhere near the axis has become increasingly difficult. Most of the people we spoke to about sourcing a ransom vehicle named far-off places like Kano, Kebbi, and even Lagos. This is part of what has driven the rise of the anonymous middleman, sometimes known to the kidnappers, and sometimes hired by the victim’s family. 

Abu travelled to Sokoto to buy the bikes. He searched and found nothing. An issue he hadn’t faced before. But finally, he met a vendor with a single one in stock, a Honda, exactly the kind the kidnappers wanted. The vendor let him have his last one, but warned that they were getting harder and harder to find in the area.

Across northern Nigeria, state governments have introduced strict motorcycle bans and usage restrictions to counter-terrorism and “banditry”. Niger State went so far as to ban motorcycle sales outright, specifically targeting high-capacity models such as Hondas, which are frequently demanded as ransom. Elsewhere, the measures range from outright commercial bans to localised movement restrictions, all intended to disrupt terrorist logistics. Katsina and Zamfara states have also introduced night-time curfews and complete movement bans in forested areas.

Abu does not like to dwell on the last job. He remembers only that the motorcycle cost more than ₦2 million, and that finding it was painfully difficult. At one point, he even asked his brother to persuade the kidnappers to accept cash instead. They refused. In the end, the Honda he bought in Sokoto secured his sister-in-law’s freedom. 

In Kano and Kebbi, the approach moved away from banning sales altogether, focusing instead on restricting how the bikes can be ridden to stop criminals from using them for quick getaways and remote logistics. Many sources we spoke with named Kano, Kebbi (Zuru), and Sokoto as sources for the machines, with Kano and Kebbi most consistently described as the last resort.

The machine they cannot beat 

To replace the motorcycles seized by the troops, terrorist groups tax the very communities near where those seizures take place. In one incident, terrorists taxed a community that had narrowly escaped a planned terror attack, saved only because soldiers happened to be in the village at the time. In another, one kingpin abducted a district head and party chieftain in a village in Zamfara, saying that his confiscated motorcycles were the reason for his actions, and he must be compensated.  

The military, meanwhile, has continued its effort to take this logistics core out of play. Beyond the strangulation strategy and the more than 2,600 confiscated motorcycles, different state security forces have also made a show of their counter-insurgency, such as setting whole sets of captured bikes ablaze to send a message, and recording large-scale successes in neutralising entire gangs and seizing hundreds of machines at a time. The groups have only pushed back harder, embedding motorcycles into ransom negotiations to secure both the financing and the means to replace whatever war machines they lose.

Across much of Nigeria’s North, attacks launched from the back of a motorcycle are becoming more common. The country is still dealing with motorcycle-facilitated crises at both extremes. It is the one insurgent tactic the Nigerian security forces have not been able to beat. Not with trenches on the battle fronts of the northeastern region, nor in the communities across the country where these raids have become a regular part of recent reporting.

The Nigerian Army has itself adopted motorcycles for parts of the same war. Boko Haram deserters recruited to support counterinsurgency operations ride ahead of advancing troops on motorcycles, scouting for ambushes, improvised explosive devices, and landmines. The machine has become indispensable to both sides.

For many survivors, the sound of a motorcycle engine will always bring up the worst of their memories.

The names of the middlemen have been changed to protect their identities.

Turkey emerged as one of the biggest diplomatic winners from the NATO summit in Ankara after President Donald Trump lavished praise on Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, promised to lift U.S. sanctions and signalled openness to restoring Turkey’s access to the F-35 fighter jet programme.

The public display of warmth contrasted sharply with Trump’s criticism of several NATO allies during the summit and highlighted improving U.S.-Turkey relations after years of tensions.

Turkey rolls out high-profile welcome for Trump

Turkey spared little effort in welcoming Trump to Ankara.

The visit featured a red, white and blue aerial display by Turkish jets, while a newly opened airport terminal was named after the U.S. president. Erdogan personally greeted Trump at the airport before the two leaders walked together, exchanged warm remarks and held talks ahead of the summit.

Trump later described Erdogan as a close friend and repeatedly praised the Turkish leader during the two-day gathering.

Trump says Erdogan convinced him to attend

For Turkish officials, securing Trump’s attendance was itself considered a diplomatic achievement.

Trump, who has frequently criticised NATO and questioned the alliance’s value, said he attended the summit because Erdogan was hosting it.

Erdogan welcomed the remarks after the summit.

“It was valuable that Trump emphasised the importance he places on myself and our friendship,” Erdogan said.

US signals shift on sanctions and F-35 fighter jets

The most significant outcome for Ankara was Trump’s indication that he intends to remove U.S. sanctions imposed after Turkey purchased Russia’s S-400 missile defence system in 2019.

Trump also said he was willing to consider allowing Turkey back into the F-35 stealth fighter programme, although he later clarified that he had not made a final decision.

If implemented, both moves would reverse major elements of U.S. policy that had severely strained bilateral relations during Trump’s first presidency.

Congress and Russia remain potential obstacles

Despite Trump’s promises, significant hurdles remain.

U.S. lawmakers have previously insisted Turkey cannot participate in the F-35 programme while retaining the Russian-made S-400 system, making congressional approval uncertain.

Turkey could also face complications with Russia because agreements governing the S-400 purchase include end-user obligations that may limit Ankara’s options.

As a result, the announcements currently represent political commitments rather than guaranteed policy changes.

Erdogan strengthens Turkey’s position inside NATO

The summit reinforced Turkey’s ambition to play a larger role within NATO.

As the alliance’s second-largest military, Turkey has increasingly promoted itself as an indispensable security partner while seeking greater participation in European defence initiatives.

Trump also publicly defended Erdogan against criticism from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who opposed potential U.S. sales of F-35 fighter jets to Turkey.

The episode underscored Ankara’s growing diplomatic influence within the alliance.

Trump overshadows summit with disputes involving allies

While relations with Turkey improved, Trump generated fresh tensions elsewhere during the summit.

He threatened to halt U.S. trade with Spain over defence spending disputes and repeated claims regarding Greenland, drawing criticism from fellow NATO members.

Despite those disagreements, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte later described the summit as demonstrating alliance unity.

Human rights concerns receive limited attention

The summit also highlighted how Turkey’s strategic importance has reduced public Western criticism over democratic issues.

The gathering took place amid arrests of opposition figures, journalists and a prominent comedian in Turkey, prompting questions about democratic freedoms.

Rutte reiterated that democracy includes freedom of expression, free media and the right to protest.

Opposition figures argued Erdogan’s increasingly close relationship with Washington reflects growing political dependence on the United States, while critics contend Western governments have become less vocal about human rights as Turkey’s military and geopolitical importance has grown.

Future outlook

The NATO summit could mark a turning point in U.S.-Turkey relations if Trump’s pledges on sanctions relief and the F-35 programme translate into policy. However, congressional resistance, Turkey’s continued possession of the Russian S-400 system and wider geopolitical considerations remain significant obstacles. Ankara is also expected to continue pushing for greater influence within NATO and broader participation in European defence initiatives.

Analysis

The NATO summit marked one of the strongest public displays of U.S.-Turkey relations in years, with President Donald Trump using the gathering to signal a willingness to reset ties with Ankara after years of friction over Turkey’s purchase of Russia’s S-400 missile defence system. For President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, simply hosting Trump and receiving repeated public praise from him represented a significant diplomatic victory that reinforced Turkey’s strategic importance within the alliance.

Trump’s promises to lift sanctions and reconsider Turkey’s return to the F-35 fighter jet programme address two of Ankara’s longest-standing demands. However, turning those pledges into reality will be far more difficult. U.S. law and congressional opposition remain major obstacles, particularly while Turkey continues to possess the Russian-made S-400 system. Moscow could also object if Ankara takes steps that undermine agreements linked to the missile purchase.

The summit also highlighted a broader shift in Western priorities. During previous U.S. administrations, especially under Joe Biden, democratic backsliding and human rights concerns were central issues in relations with Turkey. This time, those concerns received relatively little attention as NATO focused on defence spending, military cooperation and regional security, reflecting Turkey’s growing value as a defence producer and a key NATO member on the alliance’s southeastern flank.

Trump’s warm embrace of Erdogan contrasted sharply with his confrontational approach toward several other NATO allies, including Spain and Denmark. That dynamic allowed Turkey to emerge from the summit with enhanced diplomatic standing even as broader alliance tensions persisted.

Whether this diplomatic momentum produces lasting policy changes will depend on decisions in Washington after the summit. If sanctions are eased and progress is made on the F-35 issue, bilateral ties could enter their most constructive phase in years. If congressional or legal barriers prevent those moves, however, the summit may ultimately be remembered more for its symbolism than for delivering concrete strategic gains.

With information from Reuters.

NATO leaders emerged from their summit in Ankara relieved that U.S. President Donald Trump reaffirmed Washington’s commitment to the alliance, but European officials acknowledge that relations with the United States remain fragile and expect further periods of uncertainty.

While the gathering ended on a positive note, diplomats say the alliance continues to face questions over Trump’s long-term approach to NATO, burden sharing and Europe’s security.

Summit ends on a more positive note

The two-day summit began amid fresh tensions after Trump criticized several allies, announced he wanted to cut off U.S. trade with Spain, and revived disputes over defense spending.

However, the atmosphere improved significantly by the end of the meeting.

Trump endorsed the summit declaration reaffirming NATO’s Article 5 mutual defense commitment, praised the unity among allies, and approved a license allowing Ukraine to manufacture Patriot missile interceptors.

European leaders viewed those moves as an important signal that Washington remains committed to the alliance despite months of increasingly strained relations.

Trump also described the summit as one filled with “love,” easing fears that the gathering could end in open confrontation.

European allies remain cautious

Despite the improved tone, European governments are preparing for continued volatility in transatlantic relations.

Officials note that Trump’s approach toward NATO has often shifted rapidly, creating uncertainty over U.S. security commitments.

Recent disputes have included Trump’s renewed interest in Greenland, criticism of allies during the Iran conflict, and repeated suggestions that European members should assume greater responsibility for their own defense.

Many European capitals believe maintaining strong ties with Washington remains essential despite these disagreements.

Without U.S. military capabilities, officials fear NATO’s ability to deter Russia would be significantly weakened.

Rutte emphasizes America’s central role

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte stressed that the United States remains the alliance’s indispensable military power.

He noted that the U.S. economy accounts for roughly half of NATO’s combined economic strength and that American military capabilities remain unmatched within the alliance.

According to Rutte, NATO’s credibility and deterrence against Russia remain intact despite recent political tensions.

Not everyone shares that optimism.

Some former U.S. defense officials argue that repeated political disputes have already damaged perceptions of alliance unity and provided Moscow with opportunities to question NATO’s cohesion.

Several European diplomats privately acknowledged that while the summit avoided a major crisis, it did little to erase concerns created over recent months.

Defense spending helps ease tensions

One factor that helped calm relations was Europe’s significant increase in defense spending.

Trump has long argued that NATO members rely too heavily on the United States for their security.

Ahead of the summit, NATO officials highlighted large increases in military spending by European members and Canada, presenting the figures as evidence that Trump’s pressure has produced tangible results.

Alliance officials also emphasized billions of dollars in new defense procurement agreements announced during a defense industry forum held before the summit.

The deals covered surveillance aircraft, transport planes, drones and other military equipment worth more than $50 billion.

The announcements were intended to demonstrate that allies are translating higher defense budgets into concrete military capabilities.

NATO counters criticism over Iran conflict

Alliance officials also sought to push back against Trump’s criticism that NATO members failed to support the United States during the conflict with Iran.

Officials argued that, with the exception of Spain restricting U.S. access to military facilities, most allies honored existing agreements governing American military operations.

Those efforts were designed to reassure Washington that European allies remain reliable security partners even when political disagreements arise.

Pentagon review adds fresh uncertainty

Despite the summit’s relatively positive conclusion, uncertainty remains over America’s future military posture in Europe.

The Pentagon has already reduced some of the forces allocated to NATO defense plans and recently launched a review of approximately 80,000 U.S. troops stationed across Europe.

The review has fueled concerns that Washington could further reduce its military presence on the continent as European governments work to strengthen their own defense capabilities.

European leaders seek fewer flashpoints

Several officials suggested NATO may reduce the frequency of high-profile leaders’ summits to avoid repeated political confrontations.

Plans for a NATO leaders’ meeting in Albania next year have reportedly been put on hold as alliance members reassess the format of future gatherings.

Some diplomats believe limiting opportunities for public disputes could help preserve alliance unity while allowing practical cooperation to continue behind the scenes.

Why the Ankara summit mattered

The Ankara summit represented an important test of NATO’s ability to manage internal political differences while maintaining collective security.

Turkey, as host nation, sought to strengthen its standing within the alliance and improve relations with Washington, while NATO leadership worked to keep attention focused on defense cooperation rather than political disagreements.

Although tensions remain, the summit demonstrated that both the United States and European allies continue to recognize the strategic importance of NATO amid Russia’s war in Ukraine and growing global security challenges.

Future outlook

The immediate crisis surrounding the Ankara summit may have eased, but European governments expect relations with the Trump administration to remain unpredictable.

Future disagreements over defense spending, U.S. troop deployments, support for Ukraine, trade disputes and broader geopolitical issues are likely to continue testing alliance unity.

For now, NATO leaders appear determined to strengthen Europe’s military capabilities while keeping the United States firmly engaged, recognizing that preserving transatlantic cooperation remains central to the alliance’s long-term security strategy.

With information from Reuters.

Iran said on Thursday it had targeted U.S. military infrastructure across the Gulf in retaliation for fresh American strikes on Iranian territory, marking the latest escalation in a conflict that is increasingly testing a fragile ceasefire brokered just weeks ago.

The renewed exchange of attacks came as Iran prepared to bury its late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei at the holy city of Mashhad following a week of nationwide funeral processions.

Although oil prices eased after surging on fears of wider disruption, investors and governments remained focused on whether the latest violence represented a temporary escalation or the beginning of a broader collapse of efforts to end the conflict.

Iran retaliates after U.S. strikes

Iranian armed forces said they targeted U.S. military facilities in neighbouring Gulf states after American forces struck military infrastructure across Iran’s southern coast and eastern provinces.

According to Iranian officials quoted by state media, the latest U.S. attacks killed 14 people and wounded 78 others across five provinces on July 8 and 9.

The semi-official Fars news agency reported that one strike hit a railway bridge used for trade links with Russia and China.

Explosions were also reported on Thursday morning in Bushehr province, home to Iran’s only operational nuclear power plant, though authorities did not immediately provide details on the cause.

Gulf military installations targeted

Iran’s military said it launched drone and missile attacks against several U.S.-linked military facilities across the Gulf region.

According to Iranian state media, the targets included:

• U.S. Patriot missile systems in Kuwait
• An early-warning installation in Qatar
• A U.S. military fuel storage facility in Bahrain

Kuwaiti authorities said their air defences intercepted a cruise missile, three ballistic missiles and ten drones. Officials reported one person was injured by falling debris.

Qatar, which hosts the largest U.S. military base in the Middle East, called for restraint and urged all sides to return to diplomatic negotiations.

During a phone call with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani also condemned attacks on commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.

Strait of Hormuz remains at the centre of tensions

The latest military confrontation follows attacks on commercial tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important energy shipping routes.

The U.S. military said Wednesday’s strikes were designed to protect international navigation after blaming Iran for attacks on three commercial vessels.

Although Tehran has not officially claimed responsibility for those attacks, analysts say Iran has increasingly used pressure around the Strait of Hormuz as leverage in negotiations with Washington.

Before the war began in late February, roughly one-fifth of global oil supplies passed through the narrow waterway.

Iran has since exercised significant control over maritime traffic in the strait, giving it considerable strategic influence over global energy markets.

The U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) said American forces struck around 90 Iranian military targets.

According to CENTCOM, the operation targeted:

• Air defence systems
• Coastal surveillance infrastructure
• Missile and drone storage facilities
• Naval assets
• Military logistics centres along Iran’s coastline

“The United States is holding Iran accountable for recent unjustified aggression against commercial shipping and civilian crews freely navigating a vital international waterway,” CENTCOM said.

President Donald Trump defended the operation on Wednesday, writing on Truth Social: “This is in retribution for yesterday’s bombing of ships by Iran. If it happens again, it will get much worse.”

Trump says ceasefire agreement is effectively over

While attending the NATO summit in Ankara, Trump said he believed the memorandum of understanding signed with Iran to halt the fighting had effectively collapsed.

Asked whether the agreement remained in force, Trump replied:”It’s a very interesting question. To me, I think it’s over. I don’t want to deal with them.”

He later added that even if another agreement were reached, he doubted Tehran would honour it.

Despite the renewed military exchanges, Trump said he did not expect the confrontation to develop into another prolonged war.

“Anything that happens is going to be over very quickly… and will only make it safer, including for oil,” he told reporters.

Iran vows continued retaliation

Iranian officials condemned the latest U.S. military operation as another breach of understandings reached after the ceasefire.

Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf warned Washington that future attacks would receive a military response.

“The U.S. has yet to learn that bullying and breaking its commitments no longer come without a cost,” he wrote on social media.

“The Strait of Hormuz will be reopened only under Iranian arrangements, not through U.S. threats.”

Oil markets remain on edge

Oil prices retreated on Thursday after jumping sharply a day earlier, as traders assessed whether the latest fighting would significantly disrupt Gulf energy exports.

Shipping also remains under close watch.

One of the vessels struck this week the Qatari LNG tanker Al Rekayyat remains stranded off Oman after suffering an engine-room fire following a projectile strike.

Industry sources said its liquefied natural gas cargo appears secure and that the immediate risk of explosion remains low.

Future outlook

The latest exchange of strikes has significantly weakened confidence in the U.S.-Iran ceasefire, even if neither side appears ready for a return to full-scale war.

Attention is now focused on whether further attacks occur around the Strait of Hormuz, where any prolonged disruption could quickly tighten global energy supplies and drive oil prices higher.

Diplomatic efforts led by Gulf states are likely to intensify, but Trump’s declaration that the interim agreement is “over” and Iran’s vow to continue retaliating have raised doubts over whether negotiations can still produce a lasting settlement.

With information from Reuters.

Published on
09/07/2026 – 13:31 GMT+2

In a draft regulation obtained by Euronews and due to be presented in September, the European Commission plans to tighten access to the EU market by allowing public authorities to exclude foreign companies that present risks of interference from public procurement.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The draft proposal comes amid heightened geopolitical tensions, with concerns over data leaks from sensitive public services to Beijing and Washington and as well as the weaponisation of the EU’s dependence on rare earths and technology products from China.

The draft document proposes that “public buyers shall take appropriate measures, where relevant at any stage of the procurement procedure, from planning and market consultation to contract award and execution, to ensure the protection of the security and public safety interests of the Union.”

The document adds that risks to security or public safety in a public contract may arise from firms whose “ownership, control, or financing structure” bears “risks of undue interference or influence over it,” as well as companies whose “exposure to third-country legislation […] may compel disclosure of sensitive information or interference with contract performance.”

Finally, public buyers would be allowed to introduce a European preference in public procurement, although the draft regulation would not make it compulsory.

Such provisions could confirm the EU’s protectionist shift towards a “Made in Europe” strategy, which the EU executive already proposed last March for strategic sectors such as clean technologies, the automotive industry and energy-intensive industries.

The risks of foreign interference and data transfer have become more acute in recent years, with the US and China both adopting legislation allowing them to request that companies under their jurisdiction transfer data stored in the EU.

Some European governments are already taking steps to mitigate these risks. In April, the French government ended its contract with Microsoft to protect French health data, and in June, it replaced US tech company Palantir with French company ChapsVision for the processing of sensitive information held by the the country’s domestic intelligence service, the Directorate General for Internal Security.

Over the last few years, several EU countries, including Germany, France, Italy and Denmark, have also cancelled or denied public contracts to the Chinese telecoms giant Huawei over security concerns.

The draft regulation also seeks to protect “critical infrastructure, critical supply chains, critical technologies or essential services, resilience against physical, cyber, or hybrid threats, and prevention and protection against risks of their disruption including due to harmful strategic dependencies on third-country suppliers.”

Last year, China cut off the EU from exports of rare earth minerals, which are essential for green technologies and the defence sector. It also stopped the Dutch-based Nexperia, owned by China’s Wingtech, from importing Chinese chips essential to the EU’s car industry.

Turkey renewed its push for greater defence cooperation within NATO on Wednesday as President Tayyip Erdogan urged alliance members to remove restrictions that limit defence-industrial collaboration among allies. Ankara has long argued that political disagreements should not prevent NATO members from working together on defence projects, particularly as Europe seeks to strengthen its military capabilities in response to growing security threats.

The appeal comes as NATO leaders gather in Ankara for a summit focused on increasing defence spending, expanding military production and reinforcing the alliance amid continued tensions with Russia and instability in the Middle East.

Erdogan calls for equal defence cooperation

Addressing NATO leaders at the opening of the summit, Erdogan said restrictions on defence cooperation between allies should be removed.

“Restrictions among allies on defence cooperation, especially in the defence industry, must be lifted,” he said.

He warned that excluding NATO members that are outside the European Union from European defence initiatives could create unnecessary divisions.

“At a time when a model of cooperation based on common sense and reason is possible, excluding allies that are not members of the (European) Union would lead to artificial divisions in Europe,” Erdogan said.

Turkey seeks greater role in European defence

Turkey has repeatedly sought participation in European defence initiatives, including the Security Action for Europe (SAFE) funding programme, which aims to strengthen the continent’s defence industry.

Despite possessing NATO’s second-largest military and becoming a major producer and exporter of defence equipment, Ankara has largely remained outside several Europe-led security projects because of political disputes with some EU member states.

Turkish officials argue that NATO allies should cooperate more closely regardless of EU membership.

Trump signals possible policy shift

Erdogan’s appeal came a day after U.S. President Donald Trump indicated Washington could ease some longstanding tensions with Ankara.

During a meeting with Erdogan on Tuesday, Trump said he intended to lift U.S. sanctions imposed on Turkey and would decide whether to allow Ankara back into the F-35 fighter jet programme.

Turkey was removed from the programme after purchasing Russia’s S-400 air defence system in 2019, a move that triggered U.S. sanctions and strained relations between the two NATO allies.

Any decision to reverse those measures is expected to face opposition in the U.S. Congress.

Turkey pledges higher defence spending

Erdogan said Turkey remains on track to meet NATO’s target of spending 5% of gross domestic product on defence by 2030.

He announced that Ankara had allocated an additional $24 billion to its Steel Dome integrated air defence project, which is intended to strengthen both Turkey’s national security and NATO’s collective air and missile defence capabilities.

The Turkish president also called on alliance members to assume greater responsibility for Europe’s security while preserving NATO unity.

Future outlook

Turkey is expected to continue pressing for full participation in European defence initiatives as NATO members expand military spending and industrial cooperation. Whether European governments are prepared to ease political objections remains uncertain, while any U.S. decision on sanctions relief or Turkey’s return to the F-35 programme is likely to face congressional scrutiny. The outcome could shape Ankara’s role in NATO’s evolving defence architecture in the coming years.

With information from Reuters.

South Korean President Lee Jae Myung and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store held talks Wednesday on ways to deepen cooperation between their countries in areas such as security and technology.

The two leaders met on the sidelines of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization summit in Ankara, Turkey, where Lee is participating as the leader of one of the alliance’s partner countries.

In his opening remarks, Lee stressed the importance of cooperation and exchanges between the two countries at a time of growing instability in the global security environment.

The South Korean president noted that against such a backdrop, South Korea and Norway are deepening their ties into a mutually beneficial relationship in the areas of the economy, industry, culture and defense.

“During today’s bilateral talks, I would like to discuss in depth how and in what areas we can further deepen our relations,” Lee said.

The Norwegian prime minister noted that the two countries have made progress in bilateral ties since last year, referring to what he described as important decisions in the defense industry that he said would help elevate bilateral ties into a strategic partnership.

In January, South Korea’s Hanwha Aerospace Co. secured a large-scale deal to supply Norway with Chunmoo artillery systems and guided missiles.

The Norwegian prime minister noted the two countries have witnessed progress in cooperation on security, trade and technology, and said he hoped to use Wednesday’s meeting to discuss ways to further deepen their ties.

Lee expressed hope that the two countries would further strengthen cooperation in advanced defense technologies and the broader defense industry, building on Norway’s trust in South Korean weapons systems, presidential spokesperson Kang Yu-jung said later.

The president cited new renewable energy, shipbuilding and maritime affairs as areas in which he hopes South Korea and Norway could achieve tangible cooperation, according to Kang.

Lee also called for the Norwegian government’s cooperation with a South Korean delegation currently visiting Norway to secure additional supplies of Norwegian mackerel, a staple food in South Korea.

Kang said the Norwegian prime minister also voiced hope for stronger cooperation in the maritime and energy sectors, as well as for elevating bilateral ties to a higher level by strengthening cooperation in key areas.

In addition, the two leaders agreed to exchange visits at mutually convenient times while pledging to continue close communication on ensuring peace and stability in the international community, Kang added.

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.

Relations between North Korea and Japan remain deeply strained due to historical grievances, North Korea’s nuclear and missile programmes, and growing regional security tensions. In recent years, Japan has significantly increased defence spending and accelerated military modernisation in response to North Korea’s missile launches and China’s expanding military presence.

Tokyo has adopted a new national security strategy that includes acquiring long range strike capabilities, expanding missile defence and strengthening cooperation with the United States and other regional partners. Japan says these measures are necessary to deter growing security threats, while North Korea and China have criticised them as evidence of Japan moving away from its post World War Two defensive posture.

The latest remarks come as North Korea also continues expanding its own naval capabilities and developing new missile systems.

North Korea accused Japan on Tuesday of transforming its military into an offensive force, claiming Tokyo’s overseas military ambitions are now a reality rather than a hypothetical threat.

A commentary published by the state run Korean Central News Agency criticised Japan’s defence modernisation programme, pointing to plans to develop unmanned submarines, expand long range missile capabilities and acquire advanced weapons from the United States.

The comments come amid growing military activity across East Asia as regional powers continue strengthening their armed forces.

The KCNA commentary argued that Japan is abandoning its long standing policy of maintaining forces solely for self defence.

It claimed Tokyo is developing unmanned submarines capable of carrying torpedoes and naval mines that could be deployed near neighbouring coastlines to conduct pre emptive attacks during a conflict.

The report portrayed these developments as evidence that Japan is shifting toward a more offensive military posture.

Japan’s Foreign Ministry did not immediately comment on the allegations.

North Korea also highlighted Japan’s efforts to strengthen its missile capabilities.

According to the commentary, Tokyo is pursuing domestically developed long range missiles, a new ballistic missile with a reported range of up to 3,000 kilometres, upgraded anti ship missiles and hypersonic glide weapons.

The report also criticised Japan’s acquisition of United States made Tomahawk cruise missiles as part of its broader military modernisation programme.

Japan has argued that these capabilities are intended to strengthen deterrence against growing regional threats.

The criticism comes as North Korea continues expanding its own military capabilities.

State media recently reported that leader Kim Jong Un observed the launch of a strategic cruise missile and inspected weapons systems aboard the newly built 5,000 tonne destroyer Kang Kon.

Kim has instructed that the vessel enter operational service within two months as part of efforts to strengthen North Korea’s naval combat capabilities.

Pyongyang has also commissioned another destroyer, the Choe Hyon, and announced plans to construct additional warships, including larger 10,000 tonne vessels.

The exchange of criticism reflects broader security tensions across Northeast Asia.

Japan has strengthened defence cooperation with the United States and regional partners while increasing military investment in response to North Korea’s expanding nuclear and missile programmes and China’s growing military activities.

North Korea has responded by accelerating weapons development, conducting missile launches and modernising its naval forces, further contributing to regional strategic competition.

The latest comments highlight the increasingly confrontational security environment in Northeast Asia, where military modernisation by one country is often cited by others to justify their own defence expansion.

As Japan strengthens its deterrence capabilities and North Korea continues developing advanced weapons, the risk of heightened regional tensions and military competition is likely to remain elevated.

North Korea

Seeking to strengthen its military capabilities while criticising Japan’s expanding defence posture.

Japan

Modernising its armed forces in response to growing regional security threats.

United States

Supporting Japan’s defence strategy as part of its broader Indo Pacific security framework.

South Korea

Closely monitoring military developments involving both North Korea and Japan.

Regional Neighbours

Watching the evolving security balance as military competition intensifies across Northeast Asia.

Regional attention will remain focused on Japan’s continuing defence modernisation and North Korea’s naval expansion, including the planned deployment of its new destroyers.

Any additional missile tests, military exercises or defence announcements by either country are likely to be closely monitored by neighbouring governments and could further shape the security dynamics of the Indo Pacific region.

With information from Reuters.

Sudan has been engulfed in a devastating civil war since April 2023, when fighting erupted between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF). The conflict has displaced millions of people, triggered one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises and led to widespread allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Al Obeid, one of Sudan’s largest and most strategically important cities, has become the latest flashpoint as the RSF intensifies military operations around the city. The situation has raised fears of a repeat of the violence witnessed in Al Fashir in North Darfur, where fierce fighting, civilian casualties and widespread reports of abuses drew international condemnation.

Against this backdrop, the United Nations Human Rights Council has moved to increase international scrutiny by launching an urgent inquiry into alleged violations committed during the escalating violence.

The United Nations Human Rights Council on Monday adopted a resolution condemning escalating violence by Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces in Al Obeid and authorising an urgent investigation into alleged human rights abuses committed during the fighting.

The motion, introduced by the United Kingdom with support from 14 other countries, was adopted by consensus, although China distanced itself from the decision over concerns about country specific investigations conducted without the consent of the government concerned.

The inquiry will seek to document alleged violations as international concern grows over the deteriorating humanitarian and security situation in the city.

Diplomats warned that the situation in Al Obeid could mirror previous atrocities reported elsewhere in Sudan.

Britain’s Human Rights Ambassador Eleanor Sanders urged the council to prevent a repeat of the violence seen in Al Fashir, warning that similar patterns of attacks against civilians must not be allowed to recur.

South Africa also backed the resolution, describing the situation as a critical warning and expressing concern that the RSF was employing tactics similar to those previously documented during operations in Darfur.

The mounting international concern reflects fears that the conflict around Al Obeid could rapidly escalate into another large scale humanitarian disaster.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights recently warned that a catastrophe is unfolding around Al Obeid.

According to the Human Rights Office, investigators have documented reports of summary executions, kidnappings, torture and widespread sexual violence in areas surrounding the city.

The findings add to a growing body of evidence gathered by United Nations agencies and international human rights organisations documenting alleged abuses committed during Sudan’s civil war.

The Rapid Support Forces have consistently rejected previous allegations, arguing that the accusations are politically motivated and making similar allegations against rival forces.

The newly approved investigation is intended to independently gather evidence, establish facts and improve accountability for alleged violations of international humanitarian and human rights law.

Although the Human Rights Council does not possess judicial authority, its investigations often provide evidence used by international courts, sanctions bodies and future accountability mechanisms.

The inquiry may also increase diplomatic pressure on parties to the conflict while drawing greater international attention to the humanitarian crisis unfolding in Sudan.

While the resolution was adopted without a formal vote, China stated that it did not support investigations targeting individual countries without their approval.

Beijing has consistently argued that international human rights mechanisms should respect national sovereignty and avoid what it considers politically selective investigations.

Despite China’s position, the resolution received sufficient backing from council members to proceed.

The investigation signals growing international concern that Sudan’s conflict is entering another dangerous phase marked by escalating violence against civilians.

Independent documentation of alleged abuses could strengthen future efforts to pursue accountability while increasing international pressure for humanitarian access and renewed peace negotiations.

The inquiry also demonstrates the Human Rights Council’s willingness to respond quickly when there are warnings of possible mass atrocities.

United Nations Human Rights Council

Launching an urgent investigation into alleged abuses and monitoring developments in Al Obeid.

Rapid Support Forces

Facing renewed international scrutiny over allegations of serious human rights violations, which the group denies.

Sudanese Armed Forces

Continuing military operations against the RSF while remaining a central party to the conflict.

Civilians in Al Obeid

Confronting increasing risks from escalating fighting, displacement and humanitarian hardship.

Seeking greater accountability, humanitarian access and diplomatic efforts to reduce violence.

China

Maintaining its opposition to country specific human rights investigations conducted without state consent.

The Human Rights Council will begin organising the urgent inquiry, with investigators expected to collect evidence, interview witnesses and monitor developments around Al Obeid.

Meanwhile, international attention will remain focused on whether fighting intensifies around the city and whether diplomatic efforts can prevent another humanitarian catastrophe similar to those witnessed elsewhere in Sudan.

The Human Rights Council’s decision reflects growing concern that events in Al Obeid are following a pattern already witnessed elsewhere in Sudan’s civil war. The repeated references by diplomats to Al Fashir suggest the international community fears another episode of mass civilian suffering before meaningful intervention becomes possible.

The inquiry itself will not stop the fighting, nor does the Human Rights Council possess enforcement powers. Its primary significance lies in documenting evidence that may later support international legal action, targeted sanctions or future accountability mechanisms. Such investigations also serve as an important warning to armed groups that alleged violations are being monitored by the international community.

The decision also highlights the persistent divisions within the United Nations over country specific investigations. China’s decision to distance itself from the resolution reflects a broader debate between protecting state sovereignty and responding rapidly to alleged mass atrocities. Similar disagreements have shaped international responses to conflicts in Myanmar, Syria and other crisis zones.

For Sudan, however, the immediate challenge remains humanitarian rather than diplomatic. Continued fighting around Al Obeid threatens to worsen displacement, restrict humanitarian access and expose more civilians to violence. If the conflict follows the trajectory seen in other parts of the country, the consequences could further deepen what is already one of the world’s largest humanitarian emergencies.

Ultimately, the inquiry represents an effort to ensure that alleged abuses are documented while there is still an opportunity to deter further violations. Whether it contributes to greater accountability or influences the conduct of the conflict will depend largely on developments on the ground and the willingness of the international community to translate its findings into concrete action.

With information from Reuters.

The Iranians have come out on top after the conflict. They have demonstrated themselves as a pure and united nation by not dividing into small factions during the recent militarily confrontation with the United States and Israel. The Americans and Israelis were seemed to be launching a shock and awe strategy against the Iranians to overwhelm them and easily bring down their regime. 

However, they were unable to accomplish their task, resulting in social pressure from within the United States, as 61% people were not in favor of launching a war of choice against Iran while the escalation concluded in huge financial setbacks for both the U.S and Israel.

According to John Kiriakou – the former CIA officer, Trump was told by the Israeli Prime Minister that they could easily topple the regime of Iran due to prevailing social unrest at that time. But the Iranians remained intact and united, rallying behind their government. This shattered Americans and Israelis ambitions.

On the day Americans and Israelis launched an unprovoked aggression against Tehran, Iran imposed a closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which made Iran to maintain upper hand throughout the confrontation and sustain its position against the enemy.

Strait of Hormuz was open before 28^th February, but during the war it was observed that the United States presented its closure as a cause of war, whereas it was obviously a consequence of the war. In addition to this context, Tehran laid a lot of mines in the waters of the Strait of Hormuz to hinder the flow of maritime trade across the strait.

From the beginning, the Iranians adopted a military strategy called Mosaic Defense, in which they decentralized their defense system, dividing their military into 31 factions which were able to take any decision on spot without asking from the central command of Tehran. This gave their military to take sudden military decisions and hit military targets as per their choice. This strategy significantly helped the Iranians hold the upper hand in the conflict, maintain their position, and stand firm against their enemy.  

The Iranians also pursued the strategy of asymmetric warfare, attacking with cheap Shahed-136 drones and using different types of missiles to overwhelm the enemy. They used drones of worth around  20000 to 50000 $ while the Americans and Israelis were using expensive defensive equipment of worth 1 million to 4million dollars.

Iran fought Americans forces using a strategy called horizontal warfare, broadening the conflict across the Middle East by attacking Americans bases in the region and making the region increasingly vulnerable and unstable for the other countries there. This helped Iran consolidate their hard power in the region.

Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) eliminated the most expensive radars of the US situated in different countries of the region. They blew up AN/FPS-132 and AN/TPY-2 Radar systems of the US in Qatar and Jordan respectively. 

Along with that, they decimated American 5^th fleet headquarter in Bahrain, which held 75% of the US military power in the region, resulting in heavy losses for Washington. Furthermore, Iran inflicted pain on more than dozen American bases in the Middle East. 

It was seemed that Tehran converted this war into a war of attrition by slowly weakening the Americans over time. They were fully prepared for this protracted war but it did not go in favor of the United States, as Washington was unable to afford a protracted war at lot. 

Therefore, President Trump was increasingly perceived as pursuing a deal with Tehran over time, emphasizing that a deal was in progress and would be reached soon.  As a result, president trump had to sign a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Tehran on 17^th June 27, 2026 to save the world economy from another Great Depression.

The extent which Washington achieved its objectives remain open to debate. These goals included the overthrow of the regime, the de-weaponization of Iran, and the weakening of the country’s strategic potential.  

According to the U.S political scientist Robert Pape, Iran has emerged as the fourth center of power, following the US, China, and Russia. It was obvious that Iran had been preparing for possible military misadventure by the U.S and Israel since 1979. 

One of the crucial steps that Iran took after the Islamic revolution was the creation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) parallel to its national army. Consequently, it had huge leverage over the US and Israel during overall confrontation.

Moreover, this military confrontation between the U.S and Iran gave huge advantage to Tehran, making its position stronger in the regional politics and globally. Resultantly, Tehran has achieved what it had been unable to gain over the last 47 years. It successfully gained the removal of sanctions, the release of its $24B frozen assets, dominance over the Strait of Hormuz, and recognition as a regional power. Apart from that, it still retains its regional proxies and ballistic missile program. 

While the Americans and Israelis miscalculated the war, assuming that they could win a quick and decisive victory by decapitating the regime. For that they orchestrated a plan to quickly topple the regime through a shock-and-awe campaign and they wanted to place people on the top that were subservient to them. However, the Iranian military emerged as a key deterrent against the adversary and made the pursuit of Washington’s objectives complicated.

Until not so long ago Latin America had been considered a quiet region, located far from the world’s superpower main strategic confrontations, with sporadic but crucial moments that helped to shape the international order as we know it today. The Cuban Missile Crisis is the clearest example: it became the starting point for a series of agreements and treaties on nuclear and strategic security, involving both the US and the Soviet Union at first, and later extending to other actors of the international community, from Europe, Asia and Latin America, which became the first region free from nuclear weapons after the signing of the Treaty of Tlatelolco in 1967, 5 years after the crisis. After this episode, the region’s relevance seemed to fade, and Latin American countries appeared condemned to a destiny of surfing between weak political cohesion internally and relatively stable economies, even as most of its governments remained closely aligned with Washington on foreign policy matters.

It was precisely during this period of perceived irrelevance that China began building its presence in the region, very gradually and over the course of a little more than two decades. Washington largely ignored this process, even as it became clear that the Asian giant was becoming the largest trading partner for several South American countries, such as Peru and Brazil, and in many cases also the main investor in their economies. This neglect was not born of ignorance: it reflected, instead, a confidence that local governments would remain compliant regardless of who was investing in them. President Trump’s first term illustrates this well. Despite isolated clashes with the governments of Mexico and Venezuela, these episodes looked minor when compared to the “tariff wars” waged against the EU and China. In fact, the only time Trump ever set foot in the region during his entire first term was in November 2018 when he attended the G20 Forum in Buenos Aires. Significantly, there was a planned short visit in Colombia after this event, but I was cancelled. This was widely read at the time as a confirmation that Latin America remained a low priority for Washington’s foreign policy agenda, more due to the expectable compliance of local governments than ignorance of the importance of the region as a resource base capable of fueling US power projection in other regions.

It was only during Trump’s second term that American foreign policy has shifted towards the Western Hemisphere, attributing strategic importance to the region and setting the objective to maintain a near-absolute dominant presence, involving both economic and military dimensions, as is stated in the latest National Security Strategy of 2025.

By the time this shift was formalized, China’s footprint in the region was already deep and country-specific. In Brazil, China had been the largest trading partner since 2009; bilateral trade hit a record $171 billion in 2025, with China accounting for 27.2% of Brazil’s total foreign trade, besides, EV plants and a still planned bi-oceanic railway linking Brazil to Peru’s Pacific coast were being negotiated as part of the Chinese investment strategy in both countries. In Argentina, China became the primary supplier of mobile network infrastructure, part of a broader Chinese push into Latin American 5G and data-center markets. And in Peru, China invested around $1.3 billion in the strategic port of Chancay, a deepwater facility that entered full operation stage in November 2024, and set a new phase for trade between China and South America, bypassing the traditional deepwater ports located in the US, like the ports of Oakland and Stockton. Reinforcing this, China pledged in May 2025, at the CELAC forum ministerial meeting in Beijing, to ramp up its regional engagement even further. These were not isolated transactions but a structural presence, one that the 2025 National Security Strategy now identifies strictly as the rival foothold it intends to dislodge.

Now, within this context in 2026 the declared shift of interests proved it wasn’t merely rhetorical. The year started with the launching of Operation Resolve, when a group of American special military forces conducted a military raid and captured President Nicolás Maduro and his wife in Caracas, transporting them to New York to face narcoterrorism charges. Trump declared that the US was now “in charge” of Venezuela until a transition takes place. This meant in practice that the US would hold control over the country’s oil exports, which during the first four months after Maduro’s capture were estimated at $8 billion, but the data on how much oil has been sold, the revenue from it and the use given to those funds remains secret. The main importers of Venezuelan oil during this period were the United States (43 percent), India (26 percent, part of the strategy to reduce Indian import of Russian oil), and Spain (8 percent). This episode, condemned by critics as a return to the old days of imperialism, set the tone for the rest of the year: a hemisphere where Washington would use military force, tariffs, and other mechanics for pressuring countries to sign economic deals where American core interests prevail.

An example of this is the new and controversial Trade and Investment agreement signed by the United States and Argentina in February of this year. According to the text, Argentina shall adapt the regulatory framework to implement US trade standards and prioritize American direct investment in the country, while the counterpart shall “try to review its tariffs” and “consider supporting investment financing”. Milei’s government has justified this as the price for ideological loyalty and continued financial support after the $20 billion credit line that helped to stabilize the local currency (peso) last year.

On the other hand, Brazil took the opposite path: rather than just seeking accommodation to this policy, the government of Lula da Silva accelerated diversification, finalizing the long-delayed EU-Mercosur agreement in January, deepening trade with China and signing a memorandum of understanding with aims for further strategic partnership with Russia. Notably, the US has implemented another mechanism of pressure here, condemning the imprisonment of former president Jair Bolsonaro and holding a meeting with his son Flavio Bolsonaro, who will participate in the presidential elections this October. This gives clear signs of indirect support for this far-right candidate, following the regional trend with Milei in Argentina and Keiko Fujimori in Peru.

Peru, meanwhile, illustrates a third pattern and an interesting case, because alignment here is imposed less by negotiation than by sheer state fragility. Amid a presidency turning over for the ninth time in a decade, the US State Department warned in February that China’s control over the Chancay megaport threatens Peru’s sovereignty, following a Peruvian court ruling that exempted the port from national oversight. Peru’s case pictures a scenario where both counterparts keep pushing for concessions and more privileges. Under the government of José María Balcázar, the ninth president in 10 years, the country has been involved in the controversial purchase of 12 F-16 jetfighters with a cost of around $3.5 billion. On April he postponed the official ceremony where this deal was supposed to be signed arguing that it would have to be the responsibility of a new president, the decision was met with pushback, both internally, with declarations from the Ministry of Defense and in the US Embassy, with ambassador Bernardo Navarro declaring “If you deal with the U.S. in bad faith and undermine U.S. interests, rest assured, I, on behalf of [President] Trump and his administration, will use every available tool to protect and promote the prosperity and security of the United States and our region.” After this, with both internal and diplomatic pressure, the deal was signed on the 17th of April.

Taken together, these cases suggest the current US approach to Latin America is not fueled by a single ideological logic, but by transactional calculations that value compliance and heavily punishes resistance, exploiting weaknesses here and there and aiming to these policy goal indifferently to whether the country in question is led by a right, left or ideologically undefined government. What seems quite clear is that the decades of quietness in Latin America have ended, not necessarily because the region has changed, many of the deep challenges for development are still present, but because the rivalry that once defined the Cuban Missile Crisis has returned, this time fought over trade tariffs, infrastructure and technology access rather than missiles.

Syria has completed the formation of its transitional parliament after President Ahmed al-Sharaa appointed the remaining lawmakers to the 210-member People’s Assembly, allowing the legislature to convene for the first time next week. The move marks another step in the country’s post-Assad political transition, though the chamber will operate with limited authority under Syria’s interim constitutional framework.

The parliament’s formation comes more than eight months after the selection process began following the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad in 2024, with the new leadership pledging a more inclusive political system while retaining a strong presidential model.

Sharaa completes formation of transitional parliament

President Ahmed al-Sharaa appointed 70 lawmakers to fill the final seats in the People’s Assembly, completing the 210-member chamber after two-thirds of legislators were selected through regional electoral colleges last year.

The Assembly is scheduled to hold its inaugural session on Monday, formally beginning its role as Syria’s transitional legislature.

Women’s representation increases in new legislature

Among the presidential appointments are 15 women, raising the total number of female lawmakers from six to 21.

The appointments address one of the main criticisms of last year’s selection process, which drew scrutiny for the limited representation of women and concerns over political inclusivity.

Sweida seats remain vacant amid security concerns

Lawmakers representing the predominantly Druze province of Sweida have not yet been appointed, with authorities citing ongoing security conditions.

The province has remained outside full government control following deadly clashes between government forces and Druze fighters last year, delaying its integration into the transitional political process.

Parliament to operate under strong presidential system

The newly formed legislature will function under a temporary constitutional framework introduced in 2025 that grants limited powers to parliament while preserving broad executive authority for the presidency.

Although lawmakers can propose and approve legislation, the government is not required to secure parliamentary approval to remain in office, limiting the Assembly’s oversight role during the transition.

Political representation remains under scrutiny

The parliament’s formation has been closely watched as a measure of the new government’s commitment to political inclusion after decades of authoritarian rule under the Assad family.

Rights groups and some Syrian political figures have argued that the appointment process concentrates significant influence in the presidency and called for greater electoral independence, stronger judicial safeguards and broader representation of Syria’s ethnic and religious communities.

Implications

The completion of the transitional parliament provides Syria with its first functioning legislature since the fall of the Assad government, offering an institutional framework for drafting legislation during the transition. However, its limited constitutional authority means executive power will remain concentrated in the presidency, leaving questions over the pace and depth of political reform.

The composition of the Assembly will also be closely monitored by regional governments and the international community as they assess the credibility of Syria’s political transition and prospects for broader engagement with Damascus.

Future Outlook

The People’s Assembly’s first session will signal the beginning of Syria’s transitional legislative process, with lawmakers expected to begin debating new legislation under the interim constitutional framework. Attention will now shift to whether the parliament evolves into a more influential institution ahead of the adoption of a permanent constitution and the eventual holding of nationwide elections.

With information from Reuters.

METALLICA roadies were forced to intervene when a fan jumped on stage at the heavy metal band’s gig in Glasgow.  

The US-based group are currently on their M72 World Tour and performed to 56,000 fans at Hampden Park last week.  

But one Metallica fan ended up missing most of the show as he was apprehended by security when he jumped on stage before the concert started. 

A tense clip posted on social media showed the animated concert-goer aggressively refusing instructions to get down. 

In the end one of the security team was to shove the man from the stage with him being caught by another roadie. 

In a separate clip the troublemaker was escorted from the venue by police as fans rushed to comment on the shock events. 

FOR GROOM THE BELL TOLLS

Metallica’s James Hetfield, 62, engaged to stunning girlfriend, 45

No Repeat Weekend

Metallica UK tour 2026 – when are the dates and how to still get tickets

One wrote: “How to waste your night in one easy swoop.”

And someone else said: “Money well spent [eye-roll emoji].”

It comes after The Sun revealed Metallica are thrashing out a deal to land a huge residency at Las Vegas music venue the Sphere.

A source said earlier this year: “Metallica having a residency at the Sphere is all anyone is talking about on the Strip.

“They have been to see the bosses and met all the tech team to talk through and plan out a show in principle.

“The contracts are still to be signed but we were told they are 90 per cent there. Metallica will bring a different feel to a show there and there is a lot of excitement from bosses at the Sphere about what this could look like.”

The airline has shared advice for passengers to help prevent delays during security checks

British Airways has advice to help passengers ‘avoid delays’ at the airport. The airline’s website shares the latest guidance and travel updates for customers. It also answers frequently asked questions to help passengers have the smoothest possible experience on travel days.

In the baggage FAQ section, the airline has offered a tip for anyone travelling with medication in their hand luggage. British Airways said it recommends that passengers carry a copy of their prescription for any medication they are carrying.

The advice said: “We recommend you carry a copy of the prescription for your medication to avoid delays at security or customs.” Passengers are advised to carry any essential medications in their hand luggage.

British Airways explained: “If you need to take regular medication, it’s important to pack enough essential medication for your personal use on board – and for the first few days of your journey – into your smaller under-seat item of hand baggage. This is in case your hold baggage is delayed for any reason.”

British Airways adds that this medication shouldn’t be packed in any larger cabin bags. “Avoid packing medication in your larger cabin bag as you may be asked to put it into the hold on busy flights.

“Additional medication for personal use at your destination can also be packed in your checked baggage, so long as you are carrying enough for a few days in your hand baggage in case of any eventuality.”

There are allowances for passengers who need to carry medicines exceeding 100ml. Gov.uk explains: “You’re allowed to carry the following in your hand luggage: essential medicines of more than 100ml, including liquid dietary foodstuffs and inhalers or medical equipment, if it’s essential for your journey.

“You’ll need to carry proof that the medication is prescribed to you (for example, a letter from your doctor or a copy of your prescription) if it’s both: in liquid form and in a container larger than 100ml. You do not need to show proof if the medication is either: in tablet form or liquid in a container that’s 100ml or smaller.”

Gov.uk also shares advice for any passengers travelling with medicine containing a controlled drug. The guidance states: “You must carry medicine containing a controlled drug with you in your hand luggage when entering or leaving the UK.

It may be taken away from you at the border if you cannot prove it was prescribed for you.”