security

WASHINGTON — A pro-Israel Democratic advocacy group on Thursday released a framework intended to help the party better articulate its vision for the U.S. relationship with Israel, an issue that has deeply fractured Democrats this year and could lead to further divisions heading into the next presidential campaign.

Democratic Majority for Israel is calling on the party to continue providing security and military assistance to the country while supporting a negotiated path to statehood for both Israelis and Palestinians and a future for Gaza that doesn’t include Hamas.

It notably does not insist on unyielding support for Israel, acknowledging that “Israel’s security does not require support for every decision made by an Israeli government.” The document also calls on Israel to “act decisively against settler threats, intimidation, and violence.”

The framework is being released at a sensitive moment for Democrats following a primary season in which voters from New York to Michigan embraced candidates who backed positions including ending military aid to Israel. If Democrats retake control of the U.S. House or Senate in next month’s elections, these candidates could play a significant role in shaping the debate over America’s posture toward Israel.

The issue could also play prominently in the early stages of the next presidential campaign, which could begin shortly after the midterms.

Democratic Majority for Israel’s chief executive, Brian Romick, said his goal is to provide a “helpful guide for our mainstream Democratic candidates on how to engage with a complicated issue.”

“It’s important to remind Democrats and Americans that there’s value in the U.S.-Israel relationship,” he said. “We thought it was important to kind of lay out a forward-looking vision.”

The question is whether such a framework will go very far in shaping the views of Democrats, who are increasingly skeptical of Israel.

About 58% of Democrats said the U.S. is “too supportive” of the Israelis, according to a June survey by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, up from 45% in January 2024. Roughly half of Democrats believe that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians during the war with Hamas, an accusation Israel rejects.

Former Obama administration chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, who has argued Democrats need to return to the political center ahead of launching a potential presidential bid, went to Israel in July and delivered a blistering speech warning the country was at risk of becoming a “territorial pariah.” He specifically called out Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has closely aligned himself with President Trump, a Republican.

Emanuel, who’s also a former congressman, Chicago mayor and U.S. ambassador, blamed Netanyahu for driving Israel to a “dead end,” emboldened by poor decisions from American leaders.

The framework from Democratic Majority for Israel takes a less strident view on Netanyahu, who faces another election this month. “Support for Israel,” the group argued, “transcends any one Israeli government.”

The group took a similarly long view on military and security assistance for Israel, arguing it shouldn’t be stopped now even as it acknowledged the possibility of change in the future.

“Over time, and by mutual agreement, today’s partnership should be capable of evolving beyond the traditional assistance framework toward an increasingly reciprocal relationship centered on joint investment, innovation, and technological advantage,” the framework reads. “The objective should be to build the partnership both countries will need to confront the threats and seize the opportunities of the coming decades.”

Daniel Shapiro, the former U.S. ambassador to Israel under President Barack Obama, acknowledged “strong, passionate views” on the issue.

“Clearly, not everyone will agree with every aspect” of the framework, he said. “But I think there’s a lot there that many Democrats would find speaks to them.”

Sloan writes for the Associated Press.

The Trump administration has warned France and Germany to release emergency diesel reserves to help lower global fuel prices or risk facing a potential US ban on diesel exports, according to people familiar with the discussions.

The warning represents a sharp escalation in Washington’s pressure on European allies as President Donald Trump looks for ways to increase fuel supplies and bring down prices ahead of the November midterm elections.

US officials have become increasingly frustrated with France and Germany, which Washington believes have not fully acted on earlier commitments to release emergency oil and petroleum reserves as global fuel markets face mounting disruptions.

“It is in Europe’s best interest to work with the United States as we pursue multiple pathways to boost the supply of refined products and lower costs for consumers,” a US official told Reuters.

A second source familiar with the discussions said the United States had asked the European Union to release 120 million barrels of diesel over the next six months.

The demand highlights the growing importance of Europe’s fuel reserves at a time when disruptions to major energy-producing regions are tightening global supplies.

Washington Raises Pressure on Europe

The US administration’s warning comes as Trump considers restricting US diesel exports as part of a broader effort to increase domestic supplies and reduce fuel prices for American consumers.

The approach creates a difficult balance for Washington. Limiting exports could increase the amount of diesel available inside the United States, potentially putting downward pressure on domestic prices. But it could simultaneously reduce supplies available to international markets, particularly Europe, which has become increasingly dependent on imported refined fuels.

US Energy Secretary Chris Wright said on Wednesday that the administration expected European countries to announce additional diesel supplies soon.

“We’ve lost some diesel exports from the Middle East, although we’re restoring those, and we’ve lost diesel exports from China,” Wright told reporters.

The disruptions have exposed the vulnerability of global refined fuel markets to geopolitical conflicts and changes in trade flows.

Germany’s economy ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment, while France’s energy ministry declined to comment.

The White House’s pressure also appears to have become a broader diplomatic issue among Western allies.

An official at the French presidency said Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron did not discuss the issue when they met on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York last week.

Macron, however, plans to convene a video conference of G7 leaders to address rising fuel prices and the availability of refined petroleum products.

The discussions are expected to include coordination over the release of emergency reserves in cooperation with the International Energy Agency.

Why Europe Matters to the Fuel Market

Europe’s position in the global fuel market has changed substantially since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

European countries previously relied heavily on Russian crude oil and refined petroleum products. The subsequent sanctions and restrictions on Russian energy imports forced European governments and companies to find alternative suppliers.

The result has been greater dependence on imports from countries including the United States and suppliers in the Middle East and Asia.

That dependence has become more significant as the conflict involving the United States, Israel and Iran has disrupted energy flows from the Middle East.

The loss or reduction of refined fuel exports from major suppliers can quickly affect diesel markets because refining capacity cannot always be shifted between regions immediately.

Diesel is particularly important because it powers much of Europe’s commercial transport, heavy industry, agriculture and logistics sectors. Sustained shortages can therefore affect the broader economy rather than simply increasing prices at fuel stations.

The US Faces Its Own Fuel Dilemma

For Trump, the issue also has a strong domestic political dimension.

Fuel prices are highly visible to American consumers, making gasoline and diesel costs politically sensitive ahead of the November midterm elections.

The administration is therefore examining multiple ways to increase available supplies and reduce costs.

But a potential US diesel export ban could have consequences beyond America’s borders.

The United States has become an important supplier of refined petroleum products to international markets. Restricting those exports could tighten supplies elsewhere, potentially pushing international prices higher even if American prices fall.

That creates a difficult policy tradeoff for Washington.

The administration wants to protect US consumers from high fuel costs while maintaining sufficient supply in global markets. European governments, meanwhile, face pressure to use their own emergency reserves even as they seek to maintain energy security following the loss of Russian supplies.

Europe Seeks a Coordinated Response

France appears to be pursuing a broader G7 response rather than treating the issue as a bilateral dispute with Washington.

Macron’s planned meeting would allow the world’s major industrial economies to discuss the availability of refined products and potentially coordinate emergency stock releases through the International Energy Agency.

Such coordination could help prevent individual countries from taking measures that unintentionally worsen shortages elsewhere.

But disagreements over how much fuel should be released, when reserves should be used and who should bear the cost could complicate the process.

Emergency reserves are designed primarily to protect countries against severe supply disruptions. Releasing large quantities can provide temporary relief, but it also reduces the buffer available if another disruption occurs.

That makes Europe’s response particularly consequential at a time when energy markets remain exposed to geopolitical shocks.

A New Test for Transatlantic Energy Relations

The dispute illustrates how the global energy system has become increasingly intertwined with broader geopolitical and trade relationships.

Europe needs reliable fuel supplies after cutting its dependence on Russian energy, while the United States is attempting to use its position as a major energy producer and exporter to address domestic price pressures.

Trump’s warning to France and Germany adds another layer to that relationship by linking European reserve policy to continued access to US diesel exports.

Whether Europe ultimately releases the amount of diesel Washington has requested will depend on national assessments of market conditions, domestic energy security and the risks of further supply disruptions.

For now, the dispute signals that the energy consequences of conflicts in the Middle East are reaching far beyond the region itself.

As the United States and its European allies try to contain fuel prices, they face a common problem but increasingly different pressures over how the burden of stabilising global energy markets should be shared.

With information from Reuters.

The Lucas Museum of Narrative Art’s central plaza, which spreads out beneath the building’s curved, hovering form, was always meant to be a generous civic space. Ma Yansong, the museum’s architect, has called it the “Gateway” between the museum and Los Angeles, opening to both Expo Park and the surrounding South L.A. neighborhood.

But that gateway, it turns out, is more like a gate.

This weekend — the first that the museum was open to the public — fences covered in plastic greenery blocked entry to the plaza from both sides. Standing sentry, bizarrely, were tall, cartoonish statues — half storm troopers, half USC Trojans. Visitors were directed to enter through the museum’s two enclosed security booths off the plaza.

In the coming weeks, permanent plaza fences will be erected here — curvy stainless-steel structures that MAD Architects principal Dixon Junliang Lu compared to the lacy filigree of Art Nouveau architecture. Lu added that they would eventually be draped in real greenery, not the plastic version.

While certainly an improvement on the current barriers (which are a shockingly makeshift solution for a museum that cost over $1 billion), the plaza’s main entryways will remain gated off, confirmed both Lu and Lucas Museum spokesperson Seth Fowler.

Gates have been erected around the main courtyard of the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art.

(Kayla Bartkowski / Los Angeles Times)

“It’s about creating the best possible visitor experience when you’re there, with an eye on safety,” said Fowler, who cited a need to protect the plaza from car traffic on both sides and the ability to control visitor flow among the reasons for the enclosure.

Visitors without tickets, Fowler added, are still able to enter the plaza, as well as the museum’s cafe and gift shop, after passing through security, “pending capacity limits.” They can enter the museum’s adjacent park without security screening.

Museums of course have legitimate security concerns, especially in and around such a high-traffic location. A growing list of threats, from violence to vandalism, has changed the calculus for what’s acceptable in public life. But surely the building’s talented design team could have developed a security plan that better preserved the plaza’s open arms? Lu acknowledged that the fence design had “evolved as the project developed and the operational and security requirements became more defined.”

When I visited the Lucas earlier this month for its press preview, I assumed the plaza’s (then chain-link) fences were temporary — a byproduct of construction still underway. I had no idea that its primary entryways would remain closed off to the public.

The plaza is one of the museum’s most powerful gestures, creating much-needed civic room for Expo Park, and the city. The gates blocking it, and the security checkpoints along its flanks, will dramatically limit the public’s desire to enter, and change the tenor and experience of a space that should feel porous and inclusive. What could have been a grand welcome has become a gated off, highly controlled space that now feels separate from the park and the neighborhood. Sure, anyone can come, but they are no longer invited.

Art Nouveau style fencing will eventually replace the temporary green fencing, but guests will still be directed through security in order to enter the museum’s main courtyard.

(Kayla Bartkowski / Los Angeles Times)

Just a few miles away at LACMA’s new David Geffen Galleries, visitors can enter the plazas beneath that building without first passing through security. In fact, I don’t know of a single civic plaza (and there are not enough!) in Los Angeles that requires passing through security checkpoints to enter. Think about this scenario in other cities. In New York, can you imagine having to go through metal detectors to sit at the Met steps? Or to enter Central Park?

Speaking of parks, it’s inconsistent and puzzling that the museum’s beautiful park, which edges right up to the building, can be entered without having to also pass through security. I, for one, am thankful. Access to this area is already being limited to some degree. Its long fences, with relatively small openings, are not exactly screaming “come in.” The green space, as it was this Saturday, will be closed to nonticket holders on USC game days. And if locals who live to the west of the museum want to reach Expo Park outside of the Lucas park’s hours — 8 a.m. to sunset — they need to make their way around the entire complex; which a few are already grumbling about.

It’s hard not to wonder whether these barriers represent something more than security: the extension into public space of the gated, closely guarded world inhabited by co-founders George Lucas, Mellody Hobson and those in their orbit. Is this truly what museum security requires, or has the logic of a private compound shaped an institution that was supposed to welcome the city? That is the uneasy promise of privately controlled public space: It looks open to everyone, but access ultimately depends on the owner’s discretion.

It is an especially peculiar contradiction for a museum whose site is being leased from the state at just $30 a year and was founded to celebrate the “people’s art” — comics, illustrations, movie imagery — and to bring that art to the broadest possible public. Renderings introducing the project never showed the walls and fences that now cover the plaza’s perimeter. (A model produced later, now in the museum, does.)

Temporary fencing around the Lucas Museum, alongside the Art Nouveau style fencing that will eventually replace it.

(Kayla Bartkowski / Los Angeles Times)

I last encountered this type of scenario when visiting the Eiffel Tower, whose base has been closed since Paris’s 2015 terrorist attacks. (The attacks did not occur at the tower itself.) Its sealed perimeter, only accessible via lines and screening, now makes one of the world’s wonders feel less like a wondrous part of the city than an attraction held behind glass.

I’m not suggesting we leave major public spaces vulnerable. But security can be built into buildings’ plazas in myriad ways without sealing them off: reinforced planters and seating can stop vehicles; grade changes, landscapes and water features can establish protective distance; clear sight lines, lighting, cameras and visible staff can improve oversight; and retractable barriers can be deployed during large events or credible threats. Screening can remain at the museum doors, leaving outdoor space free.

At the end of the day, civic space depends on a willingness to share some level of uncertainty. A public plaza brings all kinds of people together, including those we don’t know and can’t entirely predict. If every risk leads us to add another checkpoint, fence or barrier, we may gain a sense of control but lose the ability to create the kind of public togetherness that forms a bonded city.

If this plaza, and this museum, are truly meant to serve the public it should be clear that all are welcome once they arrive. Openness is more than an architectural effect: It depends on having the freedom to enter without having to justify our presence.

Sept. 30, 2026 2:13 PM PT

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — Former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has filed for divorce from her husband of 34 years.

Noem, who was tasked with leading President Trump’s immigration crackdown from January 2025 to March 2026 and previously served as South Dakota’s governor, is seeking a divorce from Bryon Noem in their home state. The two married in May 1992 and have three children.

The filing, made in April but posted online Monday, comes after questions arose earlier this year about the nature of Kristi Noem’s relationship with a top advisor. The complaint, filed in Hamlin County, notes “irreconcilable differences” as grounds for the divorce.

In a statement, Kristi Noem’s attorney confirmed she has filed for divorce and said she will reserve further comments for the legal process. Lawyers for Bryon Noem did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

A day before Noem was ousted from her post in Trump’s Cabinet, members of Congress questioned her about an alleged extramarital affair with Corey Lewandowski, a special government employee and one of the secretary’s lead advisors. He was Trump’s first campaign manager in 2016 and appeared to play an outsize role in Noem’s department, even though his position was supposed to have a limit on days worked.

Noem denied the allegations that they were having an affair, dismissing them as “tabloid garbage.”

Once a close ally to Trump, Noem became a liability for the Republican president as questions arose over her conduct following the shooting deaths of two protesters in Minneapolis at the hands of immigration officers. Noem characterized Renee Good and Alex Pretti, both U.S. citizens, as aggressors, contradicting videos from the scene and descriptions of their deaths from bystanders. She also faced criticism from fellow Republicans for her spending at her department.

Trump nominated Markwayne Mullin, then a U.S. senator from Oklahoma, in Noem’s place and made her a special envoy for the Shield of the Americas, a new security initiative focused on the Western Hemisphere.

Schoenbaum and Raza write for the Associated Press. Schoenbaum reported from Salt Lake City, Utah.

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman says the kingdom ‘will not hesitate to respond firmly to any threat’.

Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) has promised not to compromise on the kingdom’s security in the face of attacks by the Houthi armed group, saying the Yemeni rebels chose “chaos and destruction, threatening the Yemeni people and the region”.

In a speech delivered Wednesday on behalf of King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud during the opening of the third year of the ninth session of Saudi Arabia’s Shura Council, Prince Mohammed said the country “will not hesitate to respond firmly to any threat or attack aimed at undermining” its security.

He pointed to the trilateral Mecca Joint Defence Agreement with Turkiye and Pakistan that was formalised in August, saying the alliance shows the Saudi leadership’s intent “to strengthen regional stability, shield it from the repercussions of tensions and conflicts and coordinate efforts”.

At the same time, the crown prince said, Saudi Arabia is making “every possible effort to de-escalate tensions and support diplomatic solutions without the slightest compromise on preserving our security”.

Maritime coalition to defend Red Sea

MBS also addressed the targeting of vessels by the Houthis in the Red Sea along the Bab al-Mandeb strait, rejecting the use of international waterways as a tool for political or economic pressure.

He said a “multinational defensive maritime coalition” was set up to ensure “common interests” are protected in international waterways.

In recent weeks, the Houthis have ramped up attacks on Saudi Arabia, as they fight Yemen’s internationally recognised, Saudi-backed government forces.

Last week, Riyadh said it intercepted six ballistic missiles aimed at Taif in western Saudi Arabia and the Yanbu port area on the Red Sea.

The Houthis also said they attacked “a sensitive target” in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, and Saudi Aramco facilities in Yanbu.

On Tuesday, Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif said Islamabad will make “whatever means” available to Saudi Arabia under the mutual defence pact if the Houthi attacks on the kingdom continue.

CHICAGO — The U.S. can deport the leader of Wisconsin’s largest mosque — an outspoken advocate of Palestinian rights — on the grounds that he is a threat to national security, an immigration judge ruled Wednesday.

Salah Sarsour was detained in Milwaukee in March by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. A federal judge ordered Sarsour’s release in June, saying he raised a “substantial” claim that the Trump administration was targeting him for speaking out against Israel and advocating for Palestinian rights.

Sarsour called the ruling “deeply disappointing,” but said he intends to appeal.

“I will continue fighting to defend the right to free speech and to stay in the country I have called home for more than three decades,” Sarsour said in a statement.

Government attorneys say Sarsour’s decades-old convictions in Israel make him a threat to national security and accuse him of lying on his green card application. Judge Jayme Salinardi, with the Chicago Immigration Court, found him removable on foreign-policy grounds but tossed out the government’s claim that Sarsour lied to immigration authorities.

Sarsour says he fears for his life if he is deported to the West Bank

Sarsour, who was born in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, was imprisoned in Israel in 1988 after confessing to throwing a Molotov cocktail and stones at Israeli military personnel. In 1995, he was convicted of attempting to possess weapons. Sarsour denies committing those crimes. His attorneys say he was tortured and coerced into confessing in both instances.

Sarsour, the president of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee, does not have a criminal record in the U.S., where he has lived since 1993. His attorneys say the U.S. government has known about Sarsour’s convictions in Israel since he arrived.

Deportation to the West Bank “means the end of my life,” Sarsour told the Associated Press on Tuesday.

One of his attorneys, Patrick Taurel, told the AP that Sarsour’s earlier treatment by Israeli authorities is “probably a good indicator of what awaits him” if he is deported.

At a status hearing Wednesday, Taurel pressed the judge to specify that Sarsour can only be deported to Israel or the Palestinian territories. Jordan, a country to which Sarsour has no connection, is listed as a possible destination on the order of removal.

Sarsour was instructed by immigration officers to list Jordan as his home country on an immigration form because his preferred entry — “Palestine” — is not a fully independent, unified state. But he “has no right to reside in Jordan,” Taurel said.

Salinardi declined, calling it an issue to be addressed on appeal.

Attorney says Sarsour will fight deportation

Taurel said Wednesday that Sarsour is being unfairly targeted.

“If Salah can be deported for his speech in support of Palestinian rights, anyone can face the same fate,” he said.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a memo in June 2025 invoking a rarely used immigration provision saying Sarsour could be deported on the same grounds as Mahmoud Khalil and Mohsen Mahdawi, both advocates for Palestinian rights whom the Trump administration has tried to expel, according to court documents.

Before the judge’s ruling, Taurel said Sarsour would need to demonstrate on appeal that he could be tortured again if he were deported.

“It’s a very high bar, although I think we can meet it in this case, given what Salah has already experienced, and given the government of Israel’s treatment” of others like him, Taurel said.

A notice of appeal is due within 30 days. Salinardi did not schedule a new hearing and announced he is retiring and that Judge Craig Defoe will oversee the case going forward.

Sarsour says he was tortured and coerced into confessions

Jawad Boulos, who represented Sarsour when he was convicted in Israel, testified in August that Sarsour was coerced into confessing and that he wasn’t convicted of any charge tying him to a terrorist organization. He said Sarsour was tortured by Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security agency.

The Department of Homeland Security challenged Boulos about the torture allegations, questioning how he could know it was true.

Sarsour’s current defense team has asked why U.S. authorities waited until this year to detain him. Taurel said the government has known about Sarsour’s imprisonment in Israel for decades and that he has not concealed that from immigration authorities.

Experts on forced confessions and the treatment of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons also testified in Sarsour’s defense. Israeli military courts have faced repeated scrutiny over allegations of limited due process and the high conviction rate of Palestinians. Israel rejects the claims.

In June, U.S. District Judge James Patrick Hanlon ordered Sarsour released from ICE custody saying he could have a case arguing the U.S. government detained him in retaliation for protected speech. Further, Hanlon said, government attorneys had not explained why Sarsour was suddenly considered a threat after decades as a lawful permanent resident.

The Trump administration has appealed Hanlon’s ruling.

Sarsour, who has Type 2 diabetes, lost more than 30 pounds while detained by ICE, and his blood sugar levels were checked only once a month, putting him at risk of organ failure or death, his attorneys said.

An investigation by KFF Health News and the Associated Press found that hundreds of detainees in at least 33 states have filed federal lawsuits with similar allegations of medical neglect.

Mayes-Osterman writes for the Associated Press.

The last remaining US troops have left Iraq. The US military was first deployed to Iraq back in 2003 to depose its leader, Saddam Hussein.

It later faced a series of crises that ensued after the ousting of Hussein. Iraq became embroiled in a cycle of violence that considerably weakened the country.

While the US may have prevented the collapse of the state, it’s also accused of contributing to the subsequent chaos that engulfed it.

The Iraqi government will now be dealing with a new reality.

Is it up to the job? And who stands to gain from the US finally leaving Iraq?

Presenter: Dareen Abughaida

Guests:

Ahmed Rushdi – President of the House of Iraqi Expertise Foundation.

Kenneth Katzman – Senior fellow at The Soufan Center specialising in Middle East geopolitics and US foreign policy.

Abdullah Alshayji – Professor of political science at Kuwait University specialising in US politics and Gulf security.

South Korea has accused North Korea of planting mines that caused an explosion in the Demilitarized Zone last week, injuring two South Korean personnel and violating the armistice agreement that ended the Korean War.

South Korean Defence Minister Kang Shin-chul told a parliamentary committee on Tuesday that the mines were North Korean and appeared to have been planted as part of Pyongyang’s efforts to strengthen its border defenses near the Military Demarcation Line that divides the DMZ.

Kang said the incident warranted a response from Seoul, although he declined to specify what measures the South Korean military might take.

Seoul Blames North Korea for the DMZ Explosion

“The responsibility lies with North Korea, so we will take corresponding measures,” Kang said, adding that the military had several response options and would implement them in stages.

He said a key question was whether North Korea had planted the mines knowing that South Korean troops could enter the area and potentially be injured.

The South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff said an investigation conducted jointly with the United Nations Command had also uncovered another North Korean resin anti personnel mine close to the site of the September 21 explosion.

The newly discovered mine was different from those believed to have caused last week’s blast.

Another Mine Found South of the Military Line

JCS Vice Chairman Kwon Dae-won said the mines did not appear to have drifted into the area where they were discovered.

The United Nations Command assessed that the additional mines were clearly located south of the Military Demarcation Line, according to South Korean officials.

The findings have heightened concerns about the dangers created by North Korea’s ongoing efforts to fortify its side of one of the world’s most heavily militarized borders.

The DMZ has remained a highly sensitive area since the 1953 armistice, with even limited incidents carrying the potential to trigger a broader military confrontation.

A New Mine Incident Revives Memories of 2015

The latest blast has echoes of a 2015 confrontation, when North Korean mines seriously injured South Korean soldiers inside the DMZ.

South Korea responded by restarting loudspeaker broadcasts aimed at North Korea across the border. Pyongyang condemned the broadcasts, and tensions escalated into a military standoff before the two sides reached a high level agreement.

The current incident is unfolding under different political circumstances, however, as Seoul is simultaneously attempting to reopen dialogue with Pyongyang.

South Korea’s Dialogue Push Faces a Fresh Challenge

South Korean President Lee Jae Myung has sought to encourage North Korea to return to dialogue after years of worsening relations.

Pyongyang has instead moved in the opposite direction, declaring South Korea an enemy state and abandoning its previous policy goal of peaceful reunification.

That shift has made military incidents along the border increasingly sensitive.

For Seoul, the challenge is to respond to the alleged mine deployment while avoiding measures that could further damage its efforts to restore communication with Pyongyang.

North Korea Remains Silent as Seoul Warns of a Response

North Korean state media has not publicly commented on the explosion or South Korea’s accusations.

North Korea’s mission to the United Nations and its embassies in Beijing and Singapore also did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

With the South Korean military warning that it will take corresponding measures, the incident could become another source of confrontation between the two Koreas.

The immediate priority is preventing further injuries and dealing with the mines around the Military Demarcation Line. But the larger concern is whether the latest explosion will trigger another cycle of military responses at a time when relations between Seoul and Pyongyang are already deeply strained.

The blast therefore carries significance beyond the two injured personnel. It has placed South Korea’s attempt to pursue dialogue with North Korea alongside the more immediate question of how Seoul responds to what it considers a violation of the armistice.

With information from Reuters.

Nvidia (NVDA) introduced the Open Agent Safety Platform, an open software platform and reference system designed to strengthen AI security from agent testing through deployment.

The platform enables full-stack governance and control across the software that runs agents, the hardware and

Across Europe, officials are issuing unprecedented warnings about a sharp escalation in Russian aggression and an even larger one that could soon come. As a result, they are scrambling to protect against the rapidly evolving threat Russia poses.

The dire messaging, growing louder by the day, is being delivered amid concerns about intensifying hybrid attacks that Russia is using to spread fear throughout the continent, fray the NATO alliance, and make it think twice about continuing support for Ukraine. Intel has increasingly pointed to the possibility that this could culminate in a much more severe operation, one that would be aimed to challenge NATO at its core.

All this is taking place against the backdrop of the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine that shows no signs of abating. Kyiv just launched its largest drone attack on Moscow, which is burning on a near nightly basis amid ongoing strikes while Ukraine has introduced a new ballistic missile to its long-range arsenal. Russia for its part continues to try to advance on the ground in the east and south as it carries out daily airstrikes across Ukraine.

“There has definitely been an uptick” in Russian so-called hybrid warfare actions of late, a senior NATO military official told TWZ on Monday morning. “Despite its accusatory statements towards NATO, which remains a purely defensive alliance, Russia remains the aggressor. We see that clearly in Ukraine, where Russia is losing more than just the war it started. It therefore may incorrectly perceive the only way out is through increasing its hybrid campaign. That’s a losing proposition, because we are ready to respond, which we have shown.”

The official’s comments come after the shoot down last week of a suspected Russian drone that entered Lithuanian airspace from Belarus and in the wake of recent defensive actions by several European nations.

On Friday, French President Emmanuel Macron told reporters that his country had recently been targeted by Russian hybrid attacks. He ordered “the government to prepare a plan to protect our critical infrastructure” and the “most sensitive” defense industry and technology sites against drone and cyberattacks.”

Macron said the “intention behind it is to intimidate us and to derail the effort to support the Ukrainians. The consequence will be the opposite.”

In addition to Macron’s warnings, the French newspaper Le Monde reported that the French military was carrying out clandestine operations against Russia. However, the unnamed source cited offered no details and TWZ cannot independently verify that claim.

A day before Macron’s statements, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk warned in a speech to the Polish parliament that Russia is planning hybrid strikes with drones or rockets on European countries supporting Ukraine, including Poland.

The Polish leader offered an assessment about Moscow’s motives similar to Macron’s.

Russia will pretend the attacks are “accidental” in order to “paralyze or at least weaken the motivation of NATO countries” to rush to the defense of the member state coming under attack, The Associated Press noted.

“There is a real risk that drones or other types of projectiles will enter the territory of one or several countries on the eastern flank and even cause destruction,” Tusk cautioned. In July, a Russian AS-23 cruise missile crashed in Poland.

In the face of these growing threats, officials in Lithuania are updating evacuation plans in case of a Russian attack.

“Poland is to be one of the evacuation destinations from the capital,” Žygimantas Solovjovas, head of the Civil Defense Department at Vilnius City Hall, told Polish Radio. 

Evacuation should begin before a direct threat arises, Solovjovas stressed. “Vilnius residents should not assume that they will flee the city along an evacuation route while under fire,” Solovjovas explained, adding that in such a situation, one must seek shelter. 

“One of the reasons for preparing this plan was to get residents accustomed to the idea that this should be a controlled process,” he noted. “If we allow chaos to ensue, the entire operation will be much more difficult.”

In Germany, where Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said Russia could attack by 2029, hospitals are preparing for a future influx of war-related casualties.

“In a report that gamed out potential scenarios should Russia invade NATO territory, the Bundeswehr calculated that as many as 1,000 wounded soldiers could arrive in Germany each day,” Bloomberg News reported last week. “As the country’s five military hospitals would quickly reach capacity — and the law requires that civilian hospitals help during wartime — the system would likely come under unprecedented strain, and could be forced to triage soldier and civilian care.”

As we noted last week, the alliance writ large is taking action against the growing Russian threats as well. 

NATO’s air commander, U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Jason T. Hinds, told reporters, including from TWZ, last week that he was tasked with implementing two NATO air and missile defense plans. Hinds is also the Air Force’s top officer in Europe, serving as the commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe/U.S. Air Forces Africa (USAFE).

Adding to the concerns about Moscow’s actions, Russia’s client state Belarus just wrapped up mechanized and tank battalion training adjacent to the Suwalki Gap. That’s the border between Poland and Lithuania that separates the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad from Belarus. It has long been considered a potential flashpoint for a war in Europe and the training exercise exacerbated concerns that NATO allies are not prepared for a Russian attack there.

Russia is also making some potentially concerning preparations.

The Defense Ministry is reportedly seeking “an additional 16,000 to 20,000 hospital beds for wounded soldiers in the Northwestern Federal District,” according to the Russian Volya Telegram channel. That district is located near the Baltics.

“Military hospitals have been struggling to cope with the influx of wounded since 2023, so the Ministry of Defense is increasingly using civilian hospitals (including maternity hospitals and specialized medical facilities) for its needs,” Volya stated. “Some of these hospitals are being completely repurposed for military use, but more often, civilian hospitals allocate a few departments to treat the wounded, while continuing to provide care for civilian patients in other departments.”

The expansion “will primarily affect regions within the Northwestern Federal District: Karelia, St. Petersburg, Leningrad and Novgorod regions, as well as Smolensk,” which are near the Baltics “and the Moscow regions.”

While Russia is framing this as a way to handle the influx of wounded from the ongoing conflict, Ukrainian analysts see this as a move to prepare for an expansion of hostilities into Europe.

In addition, the Border Service Directorate for St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region announced that from September 16 to September 26, 2026, there would be a restriction on access to the border of the Slantsevsky and Kingiseppsky districts near the Estonian border. 

“These measures aim to prevent violations regarding border regulations, migration laws, and the protection of aquatic biological resources,” the directorate claimed, according to Russian regional officials. 

The new rules prohibit people from being on the shorelines or in small vessels along a portion of the Narva River and from hunting or carrying firearms in the border area. In addition, they forbid the “presence and movement of individuals and vehicles during hours of darkness outside of populated areas within the five-kilometer strip of territory along the state border in the Kingiseppsky and Slantsevsky districts.”

Obviously, the stated reasoning behind this was taken with great skepticism from neighboring Baltic NATO countries who are already on edge.

Though Russia remains bogged down in its war on Ukraine and is suffering heavy losses of personnel and equipment, some European intelligence officials suggest Vladimir Putin could still carry out a small-scale invasion of NATO territory.

“It’s possible,” Michal Koudelka, the head of the Czech Republic’s BIS security service, told The Guardian about a potential Russian thrust into NATO. “It could involve a limited incursion, false-flag provocations, a massive influence campaign,” he told the publication, adding that this scenario could play out in a matter of “months, not years.”

While Russia has been carrying out a range of hybrid actions against Europe for years, including cyberattacks, drone incursions and sabotage, last month’s foiled attack on Germany’s Leipzig-Halle airport is seen in European intelligence circles as an inflection point.

As we previously reported, a drone discovered inside the secured area of Leipzig/Halle Airport during the night of August 4-5, was carrying approximately 1.3 pounds of explosives. It was found close to a Ukrainian-operated Antonov An-124 heavy cargo aircraft used to transport weapons to Ukraine. German authorities blamed Russia for that incident.

“To have an armed UAV drone sent into a busy airport in the middle of Europe … If you have attacks that could result in losses of life or losses of very critical infrastructure that have a huge implication for society, I think that is a gamechanger,” Thomas Nilsson, the head of Sweden’s military intelligence and security service, told The Guardian.

It is unknown at this point whether Putin will decide to expand his hybrid actions against Europe to a more traditional conflict. However, as the attacks increase, officials across the continent are committing greater resources and planning to be prepared should that happen.

At the same time, the heat is only being turned up on Moscow as Ukraine accelerates its long range attacks. Now it has a whole new weapon, one that has been long in the works, to reach into Russian territory with while bypassing most air defenses.

Zelensky has officially unveiled the FP-7 Pelican ballistic missile and said it was used in the attack on Moscow. This is a monumental advance for Ukraine that has lacked modern ballistic missile capabilities since the war started. Still, Ukrainian media has raised doubts about whether the FP-7 — with an estimated operational range of 200-350 kilometers (124-217 miles) — can reach the Russian capital, which is about 450-500 kilometers (280-311 miles) from the Ukrainian border.

However, one expert suggested “that the ballistic weapon may have played an integral role within a coordinated, multi-axis combined strike,” according to the Kyiv Post.

Regardless, even if it can’t hit Moscow, it can hit plenty of other targets and it represents a major escalation in Ukraine’s weapons capabilities.

Abuja, Nigeria – Africa’s long-running campaign for permanent representation on the United Nations Security Council is back in focus at the 81st UN General Assembly, with leaders renewing calls to reform a body whose five permanent members have remained unchanged since 1945.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres used his final address to the General Assembly on Tuesday to renew his call for Security Council reform, saying it must become more representative and better reflect today’s geopolitical realities.

Nigeria’s Vice President Kashim Shettima, delivering President Bola Tinubu’s national statement, called for at least two permanent seats for Africa, with veto powers for as long as the veto exists, as well as five non-permanent seats for the continent.

Ghana’s President John Mahama made a similar appeal: “Security Council reform is not a favour to Africa; it is an imperative for the legitimacy, credibility and survival of the United Nations”.

The renewed calls highlight the scale of Africa’s demand. But translating them into an agreement that changes the Council’s structure remains a far more difficult task.

A reform process that has stalled

The Security Council has 15 members: five permanent members, China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, and 10 members elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms.

The five permanent members hold veto power, allowing any one of them to block a substantive Council resolution.

No African country has a permanent seat.

Yet Africa remains central to much of the Council’s work. In 2025, the Council adopted 44 resolutions, including 24 under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which covers measures such as sanctions and authorisations for the use of force.

Eighteen of those 24 Chapter VII resolutions concerned Africa.

For Professor Ibrahim Gambari, a former Nigerian foreign minister and former Nigerian permanent representative to the UN, the issue is not simply one of geography.

“The status quo is not really interested in change,” he told Al Jazeera. “In the appointment of the Secretary-General, you cannot be a candidate unless each of the five permanent members agrees. Therefore, we have the privilege of the unelected P5, which they don’t want to relinquish.”

Gambari said Africa’s absence was difficult to justify given the continent’s size and the amount of Security Council business involving it.

“In the case of Africa, we have a whole continent that has the largest single bloc, yet has no permanent seat on the Security Council,” he said.

The General Assembly launched the intergovernmental negotiations process on Security Council reform in 2008. The talks cover the Council’s size, membership categories, regional representation and the veto, and have continued through successive General Assembly sessions without agreement on the core questions.

Changing the Council’s permanent membership would also require an amendment to the UN Charter. Under Article 108, that requires approval by two-thirds of the General Assembly and ratification by two-thirds of UN members, including all five permanent members.

That gives the existing permanent members a formal role in any change to the system that grants them permanent membership and veto power.

Nigeria wants a permanent seat

Which African countries would eventually occupy any new permanent seats is another unresolved issue.

Nigeria has consistently presented itself as a country prepared to take on such a role. At this year’s General Assembly, the country renewed its call for at least two permanent African seats with all the rights and responsibilities of permanent membership, including the veto for as long as it exists.

Dr Fola Aina, a political scientist and international security expert at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), London, told Al Jazeera the issue also carried particular significance for Nigeria.

“Securing this position would essentially elevate Nigeria’s global diplomatic influence, give Africa a continuous voice in international security decisions and grant Nigeria the power to consolidate its position as a regional hegemon and middle power,” he said.

“The timing of Nigeria’s push is particularly strategic given the current age of strategic competition.”

Nigeria is not alone in seeking a permanent role. Egypt and South Africa have also pursued permanent representation, while other African states have expressed interest.

The African Union, however, has not selected specific countries to occupy the proposed seats. Its common position calls for at least two permanent African seats and five non-permanent seats on an expanded Council, with the AU determining which countries should represent the continent.

The veto question

Even if agreement could be reached on who should represent Africa, another obstacle would remain: the veto.

The African Union’s Ezulwini Consensus calls for any permanent African members to have the same rights and privileges as the existing permanent members, including veto power for as long as the veto remains part of the Council’s system.

African governments have therefore argued that adding permanent seats without equivalent powers would not fully address the imbalance they are seeking to correct.

That leaves two separate questions: whether the Council should expand and what powers any new permanent members would receive.

A question of influence

Gambari argues that Africa’s absence also affects the Council’s day-to-day work.

“All these peacekeeping missions in Africa are based on the mandate of the Security Council,” he said.

“The P5 assign themselves the role of penholders, which hardly allows elected non-permanent African countries to initiate draft resolutions affecting their region.”

He said the imbalance was also visible in the way Security Council missions operate on the continent.

“Even Security Council missions to Africa are not led by Africans nowadays. How can the parties in dispute have confidence in such a team?” he said.

“Even for the Security Council’s continued relevance, it has to be reformed so that Africa can have representatives in the permanent seat category.”

For Favour Aniezi, a Nigerian creative and youth advocate, the issue is also about who has influence over decisions affecting the continent.

“Beyond representation, Africa’s absence from the permanent seats of the UN Security Council is a question of whose voice gets to shape decisions that affect the continent,” she told Al Jazeera.

“As a young Nigerian woman, I think it matters that Africa is not only present when global institutions discuss our challenges but has a meaningful role in deciding how those challenges are addressed. We should not simply be represented at the table, Africa should have a voice with the weight to influence what happens at it.”

For now, the core questions remain unresolved: how many new permanent members there should be, which African countries would take the seats, whether they would receive veto power and whether the existing permanent members would accept the changes.

“As long as they keep sticking to this anachronistic formula, reforms will be hard to attain,” Gambari said.

The Kremlin has signalled that Russia’s position on potential peace talks with Ukraine remains unchanged, despite a planned meeting between US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in New York.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said there were still no conditions for formal Ukraine peace talks to begin, while insisting that Moscow remained open to negotiations.

His comments came ahead of the Rubio Lavrov meeting, which is expected to provide an opportunity for Washington and Moscow to discuss the prospects for ending the war.

However, Peskov said there were no concrete plans for further high level meetings involving either the United States or Ukraine to discuss a potential peace agreement.

Moscow Maintains Its Position

The Kremlin also said there had been no change in its position regarding a possible direct meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.

Peskov reiterated that Zelenskiy could travel to Moscow for such a meeting and said Russia would provide the necessary security guarantees.

He also said the Ukrainian president was aware of the decisions that Moscow believes would be necessary before meaningful progress could be made.

The comments underline the continuing gap between the two sides over the conditions for direct negotiations.

Ukraine has repeatedly rejected the possibility of holding talks in Moscow and has instead proposed a neutral location for any direct meeting between the two presidents.

US Diplomacy Faces a Difficult Path

The Rubio Lavrov meeting comes as Washington continues to engage both Moscow and Kyiv over the possibility of a diplomatic settlement.

The meeting itself does not necessarily indicate that formal peace negotiations are imminent. Russia continues to say that the conditions for talks have not been established, while Ukraine has maintained its own requirements for any negotiations with Moscow.

That leaves the United States attempting to maintain communication with both sides while the basic framework for potential negotiations remains unresolved.

The disagreement over the location of a Putin Zelenskiy meeting is also significant because it reflects broader differences over the political conditions surrounding any future negotiations.

For Moscow, the latest statements reinforce its existing position that Ukraine must address Russian demands before a presidential meeting can produce meaningful progress. Kyiv, meanwhile, has rejected Moscow’s proposed setting and continues to favour a neutral venue.

What Comes Next

The Rubio Lavrov meeting could provide an indication of whether Washington and Moscow can narrow some of their differences, but the Kremlin’s latest statements suggest that Russia is not currently changing its stated position on the conditions for peace talks.

The immediate diplomatic focus will therefore be on whether the US Russian dialogue can establish enough common ground for further discussions involving Ukraine.

Until the disagreement over the conditions and format of negotiations is addressed, the prospect of a direct Putin Zelenskiy meeting remains uncertain. The New York meeting may keep diplomatic channels open, but it does not by itself resolve the fundamental differences separating Moscow and Kyiv.

With information from Reuters.

Dolly Parton’s estate has reportedly accused the late singer’s nephew of extortion and threats against staff.

On Tuesday, Parton’s estate, She’s Alive, LLC, requested a restraining order against Parton’s nephew Bryan Seaver, court records show. The request came after he was fired from his job as head of security, as TMZ reported.

She’s Alive is run by Parton’s former manager Danny Nozell.

The New York Times reviewed court records containing allegations that Seaver began making demands shortly before Parton died. The demands grew into more serious threats, according to the records the news outlet cited, which the plaintiffs saw as an attempt to obtain money from the Parton estate.

Here’s what to know.

Who is Bryan Seaver?

Parton’s nephew, Bryan Seaver, shared the news of his aunt’s death in a video posted to her Instagram account on Aug. 25.

In the video, Seaver, standing in front of a black background, introduces himself as the the son of Dolly’s sister Cassie Parton and says he is representing the Parton and Owens family in announcing his aunt’s death. The Owens are the maternal side of the country star’s family.

“This video announcement is something Dolly asked of me years ago, before I fully absorbed it as a future reality,” he says in the video.

Seaver adds that he followed in his father Larry’s footsteps in becoming Parton’s head of security, a post he held for more than 20 years.

Seaver and his company, Squadron Augmented Protection Services, LLC, are the defendants in the lawsuit. They were reportedly terminated about three weeks after the country icon’s death.

Seaver did not immediately respond to The Times’ request for comment.

According to the New York Times’ reporting on the court records, the restraining order request, filed in Davidson County Chancery Court in Nashville, sought to keep Seaver away from Parton’s properties and staff.

Who is Danny Nozell?

Nozell was Parton’s longtime manager. He has claimed credit for helping revive Parton’s international touring career.

He told The Times last month that Parton “worked up until the day she died” on multiple projects.

“She loved seeing her dreams come to life, and loved knowing her work brought people joy,” Nozell said in the statement. “Ever the planner, Dolly worked with the team that she handpicked, for the past several years to build a project roadmap that will guide us for decades to come.”

Nozell’s website described his work with Parton as “arguably his most notable achievements.”

What are the allegations?

The court records, according to the New York Times, include allegations that Seaver sent a profane threat to a Dollywood business partner, and that, separately, he referred to himself as a “killer” and “not an entertainment person” while corresponding with one of Parton’s longtime lawyers.

According to TMZ, Seaver and his team said in a statement that they were “dismayed by the … unexplained actions” following Parton’s death and “[w]e remain unshakably resolved to fulfill her final directive to protect her family, and we refuse to be intimidated by those whose actions we believe are being taken in bad faith and with the intent to profit from the life of someone who willingly gave so much.”

The United States, Denmark and Greenland are preparing to sign an agreement that could reshape the American military presence in the Arctic and ease a diplomatic dispute that has strained relations within NATO.

US President Donald Trump is due to meet Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Greenland Prime Minister Jens Frederik Nielsen in New York on Tuesday for a trilateral signing ceremony. The agreement is expected to allow Washington to expand its military infrastructure on Greenland, a strategically located and mineral rich territory of the Kingdom of Denmark.

The deal follows months of tension after Trump refused to rule out using military or economic pressure to bring Greenland under US control. The comments triggered a diplomatic crisis with Denmark and raised concerns about divisions within NATO.

The US military presence is set to expand

The agreement is expected to give the United States access to two additional military sites in Greenland, alongside the existing Pituffik Space Base.

One of the proposed locations is Narsarsuaq, a former Cold War airbase where only a small population remains. The other is Mestersvig, which is currently used by the Sirius Dog Sled Patrol, an elite Danish special forces unit.

The expansion would significantly increase the US military footprint on the island and mark the first major expansion of American military infrastructure there since the Cold War.

During that period, the United States operated 17 installations in Greenland and had more than 10,000 personnel on the island.

Greenland’s location between North America and the Arctic gives it considerable strategic importance. Its geography also places it close to major Arctic routes and areas of growing competition involving Russia, the United States and other NATO members.

NATO could play a larger role

Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen has said the agreement would place Arctic security more firmly within NATO’s collective framework rather than leaving responsibility primarily to Washington and Copenhagen.

That could be significant because the Greenland dispute exposed tensions within the alliance at a time when NATO members are already facing growing security concerns in the Arctic.

The Arctic has become increasingly important to NATO because of its geography, military access and emerging economic opportunities. Greater US military activity in Greenland could therefore become part of a wider alliance approach to Arctic security.

However, the precise role NATO would play remains unclear because the full text of the agreement has not yet been published.

What happens to Greenland’s sovereignty?

The agreement also leaves questions about the balance between US security interests, Danish sovereignty and Greenland’s aspirations for greater autonomy.

Greenland is a self governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. Its government has repeatedly maintained that decisions about Greenland’s future must involve Greenlanders themselves.

Trump said on Friday that the agreement would give the United States “permanent control over security, and all other needs, in Greenland.”

Denmark has not endorsed that description. Copenhagen has instead said that the agreement respects the kingdom’s sovereignty and Greenland’s right to self determination.

It remains unclear whether the agreement will modify the 1951 US Denmark defence treaty, which has provided the legal basis for America’s military presence on the island, or establish a separate framework.

From acquisition ambitions to military access

The agreement represents a significant shift from Trump’s earlier push to acquire Greenland outright.

Greenland is roughly three times the size of Texas but has a population of only about 57,000 people, concentrated in small communities along its coastline. The island is also rich in natural resources, adding an economic dimension to its strategic importance.

Trump’s earlier comments about potentially using economic or military pressure to obtain Greenland created an unusual dispute between the United States and Denmark, both members of NATO.

The new agreement appears to offer a different approach: rather than changing Greenland’s sovereignty, Washington would gain a substantially larger military presence on the island.

Why does Greenland matter to the US?

Greenland’s strategic location makes it important to North American and Arctic defence. It sits between the United States, Europe and the Arctic and can provide access for monitoring activity across the region.

For Washington, expanding military infrastructure could strengthen its ability to monitor Arctic air and maritime activity and support wider North American defence.

For Denmark and Greenland, however, the issue involves more than military strategy. Any expansion of US activity has to operate within Denmark’s sovereignty over the territory and Greenland’s right to determine its political future.

The agreement therefore seeks to address two competing pressures at once: the United States’ desire for greater Arctic security access and Denmark and Greenland’s insistence that such cooperation must not amount to a transfer of sovereignty.

If signed as expected, the deal could mark a new phase in the Arctic relationship between the three governments. It would not resolve every disagreement over Greenland’s future, but it could replace the earlier confrontation over US acquisition with a more structured framework for American military access and NATO security cooperation.

With information from Reuters.

The Big Brother house has reportedly been locked down temporarily

The Big Brother house has reportedly been locked down after a huge security breach.

Tensions reached boiling point in Monday’s (September 21) episode with explosive rows breaking out and the house divide continuing. Jedward, who entered the house for a week of double trouble this week, found themselves at the centre of drama after their hot tub chat took a dramatic turn.

When speaking to Rhianna, Edward told the former Made in Chelsea star: “I don’t think you’re gonna continue on in here if you don’t just get on with the vibes, you can’t be like looking at people…”

John added: “Yous aren’t in Love Island. Just letting yous know. For real… This is Big Brother, just always remember that.” Unimpressed, Rhianna told Chelsey who also became irate with comments made, but when word got back to Lynx, he attempted to confront Jedward before things turned heated.

Their the conversation quickly becomes sour when Lynx was seen annoyed with the comments and Jedward splashed him from the hot tub. Being forced to intervene, the housemates separated the group as the heated clash continued.

Big Brother was also seen intervening, calling Lynx to the Diary Room to calm down as well as separating Jedward from the rest of the group, meaning they had to sleep in another room for the night.

Despite the chaos being crowned “TV gold” by viewers, the drama comes following a security breach which reportedly put the whole house on a lockdown.

Housemates were allegedly told to leave the garden immediately and order into the house after fans were seen throwing tennis balls over the fence and into the garden.

In an attempt to communicate with the housemates, the act was deemed a security risk with security on hand to ensure the safety of the cast.

According to The Sun, a source confirmed: “The housemates were rushed into the house as tennis balls began flying over the compound walls and into the garden. Producers leapt into action and ordered them into the house and locked the doors.”

It was branded a “huge breach” as the housemates were on a lockdown as the team secured the site. It is no the first time fans of the show have attempted to communicate with the housemates.

It it also not known whether the security breach will be shown on TV or how long the lockdown will occur, but tensions continue to rise in the iconic house,with the drama continuing in tomorrow (September 22) night. ITV have been approached for a comment.

Big Brother continues tomorrow at 9pm on ITV2 and ITVX.

The UN chief’s mandate ends on December 31 this year, with a successor yet to be named.

The state of the world seems to be getting worse due to a “dramatic geopolitical divide” that is leaving “the most vulnerable countries and populations in very dramatic situations” and that “paralyses the Security Council”, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has told Al Jazeera.

Speaking on Monday, the first day of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) in New York City, Guterres said that major military conflicts happening in the world at the moment, the Russia-Ukraine war and the US-Israel war on Iran, have created a crisis due to the continued violations of international law by “superpowers” that are key members of the UN Security Council (UNSC).

“That creates an environment of impunity, in which midsize powers believe that they can do whatever they want because nothing will happen to them,” Guterres told Al Jazeera, admitting that “wars are becoming multiplied, and more and more complex”.

The UN chief outlined the real-life impacts that these two wars are having on people on a humanitarian level, particularly around food accessibility, rising fuel prices, and global inflation.

“The combination of the war in Ukraine with the problems of exports of foods, fertilisers, and energy through the Black Sea, if you combine it with the difficulties in the Strait of Hormuz [in the Gulf], in the Bab al-Mandeb [in the Red Sea], and in the attacks [on] oil installations in several countries of the [Middle East] region, we are creating a situation that has a devastating impact on many economies around the world,” Guterres said.

He added that rising interest rates and fuel prices in developed countries could eventually be managed, whereas people in the developing world “are in a desperate situation” due to the increasing energy and food costs and the lack of fertilisers.

Dire need for reforms

Guterres, who previously served as prime minister of Portugal and UN high commissioner for refugees, has been the UN chief since January 1, 2017, though his mandate is coming to an end on December 31, 2026.

His successor, who is yet to be named, will take charge of an organisation that is grappling with multiple crises and is, in Guterres’s opinion, in dire need of reforms to stay relevant and important on the global stage. He notably cited the UNSC, saying it “still essentially represents the world of World War II”.

Candidates in the running to replace Guterres include the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Rafael Grossi, former Senegalese President Macky Sall and Ecuadorian diplomat Maria Fernanda Espinosa.

To be recommended by the UNSC, a candidate for UN secretary-general needs at least nine of the council’s 15 members to vote in favour and must avoid a veto from any of the five permanent members – China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States – before a final vote in the UNGA.

Denmark, Greenland and the United States are set to sign a security agreement that Copenhagen says will give NATO a larger role in protecting the Arctic, potentially shifting responsibility beyond the United States and Denmark alone.

The agreement is expected to be signed at the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Tuesday. Its full contents have not been made public, although US President Donald Trump has described it as giving Washington “permanent control” over Greenland’s security.

Denmark and Greenland have not endorsed Trump’s description. Both have said the agreement will benefit Greenland while respecting the island’s sovereignty.

The deal follows months of pressure from Trump, who has repeatedly argued that the United States should control Greenland and at times declined to rule out military or economic measures to acquire the semi autonomous Danish territory.

His demands triggered a diplomatic crisis within NATO and pushed Copenhagen and Nuuk into negotiations with Washington to address US security concerns while maintaining Greenland’s status within the Kingdom of Denmark.

A broader NATO role

Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said the agreement would change the way Arctic security is handled.

“It will be in a form where responsibility for security in the Arctic is not only Danish or American,” Rasmussen told Danish broadcaster TV2 on Sunday. He added that NATO would play a major role in protecting the region.

A NATO spokesperson said the alliance welcomed the agreement, describing it as a step that could advance security, stability and cooperation in the Arctic.

Rasmussen travelled to New York for the signing but has declined to disclose the agreement’s details.

He said Denmark had been open from the beginning to addressing what he described as legitimate US security interests.

The negotiations therefore appear to have focused on finding a framework that can accommodate Washington’s strategic concerns without formally transferring Greenland’s sovereignty to the United States.

Trump’s claim raises questions

Trump has offered a different description of what the agreement means.

In a post on Truth Social on Friday, he said the deal gives the United States “permanent control over security, and all other needs” in Greenland. He also said no US adversary would be able to establish a base or military presence on the island without Washington’s written approval.

Copenhagen has not publicly responded to that characterization.

The difference between Washington’s description and Denmark and Greenland’s public statements leaves important questions about the agreement unresolved.

Among the most significant is whether it changes the 1951 US Denmark defence agreement, which provides the legal basis for the American military presence in Greenland.

The document’s provisions on US access, military infrastructure and the role of NATO have not been made public.

Greenland at the centre

The agreement comes as Denmark acknowledges that it underinvested in Greenland’s defence for decades.

Copenhagen has since pledged to increase its military presence on the island and strengthen Arctic surveillance, including through greater NATO involvement.

Greenland’s government has sought to reassure residents that the negotiations do not compromise the island’s sovereignty.

Erik Jensen, an opposition lawmaker in Greenland, said on Facebook that he had read the draft agreement and felt reassured by its contents. He also praised Greenland’s foreign minister for handling the negotiations.

For Greenland, the issue is particularly sensitive because the island has extensive autonomy within the Kingdom of Denmark and has long maintained a political debate over eventual independence.

What the agreement could mean for the Arctic

The deal could mark a significant change in the security architecture of the Arctic.

Greenland occupies a strategically important position between North America and Europe, making it valuable to the United States and NATO as competition over the Arctic increases.

A larger NATO role could provide a multilateral framework for responding to concerns about military activity and strategic infrastructure in the region. At the same time, the agreement’s precise legal and operational arrangements will determine how far that shift actually goes.

Until the text is released, it remains unclear whether the agreement represents a substantial restructuring of Greenland’s defence arrangements or primarily a political framework for closer cooperation.

What is clear is that the negotiations have moved Arctic security from a dispute centred on US ambitions for Greenland toward a broader discussion about NATO’s collective role in one of the world’s increasingly contested strategic regions.

With information from Reuters.

The fourth China-Africa Peace and Security Forum was held in Beijing, China, from September 15 to 17, 2026, coinciding with the 13th Xiangshan Forum and the 70th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and African countries. Military representatives and defense officials from the African Union and 41 African nations participated. This expansion of bilateral military relations between Beijing and African countries comes at a time when Beijing and Washington are vying for influence on the African continent, while African nations seek to diversify their partners and strengthen their security capabilities, particularly in regions facing escalating threats, such as the Horn of Africa. The fourth China-Africa Peace and Security Forum, held in Beijing, represents a pivotal milestone reflecting the growing military and defense cooperation between China and 41 African countries, along with the African Union, as Beijing seeks to solidify its security presence on the African continent.  The most prominent theme of the forum and defense cooperation was the speech by Chinese Defense Minister Admiral Dong Jun, who called for deepening strategic coordination and developing mechanisms for defense exchange and maritime security based on equality and mutual benefit, without political dictates or conditions, between China and African countries. This reflects the growing African interest in partnership with China, driven by a desire to diversify military options and avoid the pressures and conditions associated with Western and American partnerships. The China-Africa Peace and Security Forum witnessed the signing of bilateral memoranda of understanding to enhance military capabilities, training, and the exchange of expertise between China and some participating countries, such as Mauritania.

The fourth session of the China-Africa Peace and Security Forum, held in Beijing, China, witnessed a significant deepening of bilateral military cooperation between China and Africa. On the sidelines of the forum, the Islamic Republic of Mauritania and the People’s Republic of China signed two memoranda of understanding to strengthen and develop military cooperation between the two countries. This signing took place during a meeting between Mauritanian Defense Minister Hanan Ould Sidi and his Chinese counterpart, Admiral Dong Jun.  The most prominent areas of the memoranda of understanding included strengthening military and security capabilities to address challenges in the Sahel region and Africa, particularly combating terrorism and organized crime. They also focused on military education and training for African military personnel and the exchange of expertise, intelligence, and security experiences between the two sides. This move is part of a broader Chinese strategy to enhance defense partnerships with African countries (with representatives from 41 nations participating), emphasizing joint military training and coordination.

In this context, cooperation between the Chinese People’s Liberation Army and African armies is steadily increasing, encompassing training, counter-terrorism exercises, and peacekeeping operations.  The most prominent forms and areas of military cooperation between China and Africa include joint military exercises, where the Chinese army conducts joint drills with African countries, such as the Peace Unit exercises with Tanzania and Mozambique to combat terrorism on land and at sea. This cooperation also encompasses peacekeeping and assistance efforts, with China participating in numerous UN peacekeeping missions in Africa and deploying warships to combat piracy off the coast of Somalia. Simultaneously, there is an increase in military education and training programs, with Chinese military academies hosting African leaders, defense ministers, and officers to enhance professional exchanges and build long-term strategic relationships. To this end, China regularly organizes the China-Africa Peace and Security Forum to strengthen defense coordination and consultation with various countries on the continent. The objectives of the Chinese military presence in Africa include modernizing African military expertise, providing the People’s Liberation Army with field operational experience in diverse and complex security environments, and protecting Chinese interests and securing massive Chinese investments and economic projects related to the Belt and Road Initiative. With increasing practical cooperation between China and Africa, Beijing is bolstering its diplomatic and strategic influence on the African continent in the face of international competition with Washington.

China’s military presence in Africa can be summarized as achieving three major strategic objectives, such as modernizing African military expertise, providing the Chinese People’s Liberation Army with field experience, and protecting the substantial investment interests of China’s Belt and Road Initiative. These three objectives and their shared benefits can be detailed as follows:

1) Modernizing African Military Expertise:

China seeks to present itself as a reliable and alternative security partner for African countries through various modernization mechanisms, including:

– Technology Transfer and Training: By providing advanced training programs for African officers at Chinese military academies and transferring modern tactical and operational knowledge.

– Defense Infrastructure Development: By contributing to the construction of bases, logistics centers, and training facilities for African armies.

– Arms and Equipment Sales: By supplying African countries with modern weapons systems at competitive prices, such as drones, armored vehicles, and communication systems, thereby enhancing the combat effectiveness of these armies.

– Counterterrorism and Counter-Piracy: By building joint capabilities between the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and local African armies to counter unconventional security threats in conflict zones and maritime piracy areas, such as the Gulf of Aden.

2) Gaining Field Operational Experience for the PLA

The diverse and complex African security environment represents an important real-world testing ground for the Chinese military, which lacks modern field combat experience outside its borders. This benefit is achieved through:

– Testing Chinese weapons, military equipment, and armaments: By experiencing the effectiveness and quality of Chinese weapons and military equipment in harsh climatic and geographical environments (desert, tropical).

– Remote Operations Management: Developing the ability to command and control forces across vast geographical distances and testing the effectiveness of cross-border supply and logistics.

– Participation in peacekeeping forces: China’s extensive involvement in UN peacekeeping missions in Africa, such as in Mali, South Sudan, and the Central African Republic, provides Chinese officers with experience interacting with international militaries and managing complex security crises.

– Naval and operational presence: Utilizing the Chinese military base in Djibouti as a launchpad for evacuation operations, counter-piracy efforts, and protecting shipping lanes enhances the flexibility of the Chinese navy.

3) Protecting interests and securing investments under China’s Belt and Road Initiative

Africa is a key pillar of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, and the military role in protecting these massive Chinese investments is complemented by:

– Securing critical infrastructure: Protecting ports, railways, mines, and energy fields financed and operated by Chinese companies against any political instability or terrorist attacks.

– Securing Maritime Routes: Ensuring the safety of vital maritime trade routes for transporting raw materials from Africa to China and Chinese goods to global markets via the Red Sea and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.

– Protecting Chinese Communities: Providing security and rapid intervention capabilities to evacuate thousands of Chinese workers and citizens from African conflict zones when necessary.

From the preceding presentation and analysis, we understand the importance of the China-Africa Peace and Security Forum in strengthening defense exchange mechanisms, defining and deepening regional cooperation in maritime security, combating terrorism and extremism, and building defense capabilities in emerging areas to address escalating security risks on the African continent, such as the Sahel region. The Forum provides an opportunity to enhance consultation and exchange views between China and African countries on various peace and security issues and to develop prospects for cooperation between China and African countries in related fields. China-Africa cooperation encompasses military training, naval exercises and patrols, counter-terrorism, mine clearance, and securing shipping lanes, as well as the transfer of expertise and technology and the marketing of Chinese weapons.

Fidan highlights Turkiye’s readiness to assist Saudi Arabia militarily, as Houthi attacks escalate in Yemen.

Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan has said that Saudi Arabia may have unmet military needs from the attacks by Yemen’s Houthi rebels and that Turkiye would consider how to support the kingdom as part of a trilateral defence pact.

Speaking to Turkish broadcaster NTV on Friday, Fidan said it was unacceptable for Saudi Arabia to be dragged into the US-Iran war, adding that Riyadh had no desire to join the conflict.

He added that proposals had been conveyed to all sides in an effort to end the fighting, without further elaborating.

The Iran-backed Houthi rebels and Saudi Arabia continue trading attacks in an escalating war in Yemen, as the Houthis press gains that have brought large stretches of the Red Sea coast, including the strategic Bab al-Mandeb Strait, under their control.

Pakistan has made a similar pledge to defend Saudi Arabia under the defence pact.

Lieutenant-General Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry, a spokesperson for Pakistan’s military, told Arab News on Thursday that Islamabad would defend Saudi Arabia “to any extent”, including “physically”, though he did not say whether Riyadh had asked for more Pakistani troops.

Pakistan’s Foreign Office has said no military response is currently under discussion under the pact, adding that Islamabad would act “when time comes”.

The trilateral agreement, known as the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement, was signed on August 7 in Mecca by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif.

The three countries formally named the arrangement the Mecca Defence Alliance on August 31, after officials meeting in Istanbul agreed to set up a secretariat in Riyadh, to be headed initially by a Pakistani secretary-general.

Its founding principle is that an armed attack against any one of the three states will be treated as an attack against all three.

Fidan said at the time the alliance was built on “respecting the sovereignty of other states, territorial integrity and not intervening in internal affairs”, and remained open to other countries joining.

Analysts have questioned how much substance lies behind the pact so far, noting it lacks the integrated command structure and standing forces that underpin NATO.

Its institutional shape, including how the mutual defence clause would actually be triggered, remains unclear.

The trilateral pact was struck as Gulf states grow increasingly concerned about being pulled into the wider US-Iran war, which has continued for more than six months since Washington and Israel first struck Iran in February.

United States President Donald Trump claims the US has reached a deal with Denmark granting it “permanent control” over Greenland’s security “and all other needs”.

The announcement comes more than a year after the US president threatened to seize the self-governing Arctic territory, which is part of Denmark. Those threats roiled the NATO security alliance that Washington and Copenhagen are part of.

According to Denmark, the deal is expected to be signed during next week’s United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York. Copenhagen has stressed that it retains sovereignty over Greenland, and this deal will still need to be ratified in the Danish and Greenland parliaments.

Here’s what we know about the deal and what it could mean for the US and Greenland:

What’s in the deal?

The official text has yet to be released. But according to Trump, the deal gives the US permanent control over Greenland’s security and “all other needs”, at no cost to the US.

The deal bars US adversaries from establishing a military presence or making “sensitive investments” in Greenland without US approval, said Trump.

A US Department of State official cited by the BBC said the deal will mean non-NATO states won’t be able to set up bases in Greenland and will be barred from “making investments in Greenland that could threaten the United States”.

The official said that means China and Russia won’t be able to build bases or send troops to Greenland, and that those states would be blocked from investing “in sensitive sectors”.

However, Mikkel Olesen, a senior researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies, told Al Jazeera that it is unlikely to be a major concession because “the Danes and Greenlanders never wished for Russia or China to have bases in Greenland.”

However, it is unclear whether other countries could similarly be labelled “adversaries” to the US in the future, subjecting them to these restrictions.

Trump called the deal an “‘Infinite Life’ Agreement”, meaning “it never ends”.

The State Department official also said the agreement gives the US the right to build more military sites on the island without Greenland or Denmark approving. According to the official, the deal would remain in force even if Greenland were to become an independent state in the future.

There was no specific mention of potential US mining rights in Greenland, which has a rich deposit of rare-earth minerals, including zinc, iron, uranium and graphite, that are likely to interest Trump. These minerals are highly sought after and are used in the manufacture of hundreds of technological products, from smartphones to fighter jets.

However, some observers think this could be what Trump means by his mention of “sensitive investments”.

The US president has sought to expand the US’s global access to rare-earth metals, especially as China, a global leader in the technology, AI and renewables industries with 60 percent of the world’s known deposits of these minerals in its territory, restricts their exports.

What have Greenland and Denmark said?

Greenland and Denmark acknowledged the deal on Friday, but neither gave specific details about its terms. They said the agreement would be announced next week.

Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen said it “recognises Greenland’s interests” and is “to the benefit of us all”.

Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said it is “great for NATO and Europe”, as it “strengthens our common security in the Arctic and the North Atlantic Area”.

Olesen stressed that details of the deal remain unclear and that available information should be taken “with a grain of salt” as most of it has so far come from the US side.

Does the deal give the US ownership of Greenland?

No, it does not meet Trump’s previously stated objective of “ownership”.

Denmark’s Frederiksen said the agreement “recognises the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Kingdom and the Greenlandic people’s right to self-determination”.

Olesen said the deal could be positive for Greenland and Denmark as it “has the potential to end the crisis” caused by Trump’s insistence on acquiring Greenland last year, without sacrificing sovereignty.

Trump’s earlier threats to seize control of Greenland were met with high resistance on the island of 56,000 people. A January 2025 poll found that 85 percent of Greenlanders opposed becoming part of the US.

What military rights does the US already have in Greenland?

A substantial number. Under a 1951 treaty, the US has broad overflight and basing rights on the island.

In addition to giving the US the right to build bases and maintain personnel, the treaty also stipulates that the US can “control landings, takeoffs, anchorages, moorings, movements, and operation of ships, aircraft, and waterborne craft”.

As part of the treaty, the US currently operates a Space Force base in a remote part of northwestern Greenland – the Pituffik Space Base. It has more than 100 personnel stationed there.

What would actually change under this new agreement?

That largely remains to be seen. Trump said the US will “immediately” begin building up a large military presence on Greenland. However, the US already had the right to build bases and send personnel there under the 1951 treaty.

Imran Bayoumi, a former Pentagon official, told the Reuters news agency that it would be new if the US could now build bases unilaterally, but “it seems that Washington could have achieved a lot of these ⁠objectives through diplomacy and dialogue without straining the broader US-NATO relationship.”

Trump has also said the US will support Greenlanders with “development and construction”, without elaborating.

Richard Weitz, a fellow at the NATO Defense College, told Al Jazeera the deal “defuses perhaps one of the most severe sources of internal tension” within NATO.

While Trump “backed down and settled for less” than he sought with respect to Greenland, he still “got pretty much everything he wanted, except formal annexation”, added Weitz.