Iran has publicly outlined key elements of its latest peace proposal to the United States, demanding reparations for war damage, the withdrawal of United States forces from areas near Iran, and the lifting of economic sanctions as part of any broader agreement.
According to comments from Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi, the proposal also calls for the release of frozen Iranian assets, an end to restrictions affecting Iranian trade and shipping, and a halt to hostilities across regional conflict zones including Lebanon.
The proposal emerged after United States President Donald Trump announced that he had paused a planned military strike against Iran to allow additional time for negotiations regarding Tehran’s nuclear programme and regional security issues.
Tehran’s proposal reflects an effort to expand negotiations beyond nuclear issues into wider geopolitical and security concerns across the Middle East.
Iran appears to be seeking a comprehensive arrangement that addresses not only sanctions and military pressure but also the broader regional balance of power involving Lebanon, the Gulf region, and United States military deployments.
The demand for reparations is particularly significant because it frames the recent conflict as an act requiring compensation for damage caused by joint United States and Israeli military operations.
Iranian officials also continue insisting that economic sanctions and frozen overseas assets remain central obstacles to any sustainable agreement.
Trump stated that there was a strong possibility of reaching a deal that would prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons while avoiding renewed military escalation.
However, Washington has not publicly confirmed any major concessions in negotiations. Reports suggesting the United States may release a portion of frozen Iranian funds or allow limited peaceful nuclear activity under international supervision remain unverified by American officials.
At the same time, United States officials continue denying claims that sanctions on Iranian oil exports would be fully waived during negotiations.
The situation reflects a complex diplomatic balancing act in which Washington seeks to maintain leverage while preventing a wider regional conflict that could destabilise global energy markets and military alliances.
Regional governments including Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates reportedly urged Trump to delay military action in hopes that negotiations could succeed.
The involvement of regional mediators highlights growing concern across the Gulf about the economic and security consequences of another large scale conflict involving Iran.
The Strait of Hormuz remains especially important because it serves as one of the world’s most critical shipping routes for oil and energy exports. Any escalation threatening maritime trade could have severe consequences for global energy prices and economic stability.
Meanwhile, Pakistan has reportedly continued acting as a communication channel between Tehran and Washington after previously hosting peace talks between the two sides.
Although a ceasefire has largely held since the suspension of major hostilities earlier this year, tensions remain extremely high across the region.
Iran and its regional allies continue facing accusations of supporting drone activity and proxy operations targeting Gulf states and Israeli interests. At the same time, Iran maintains that it has survived military pressure without abandoning its nuclear capabilities, missile programmes, or regional alliances.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Trump previously justified military operations as necessary to weaken Iran’s nuclear programme and reduce its influence through allied militias across the Middle East.
However, analysts note that Iran still retains significant strategic capabilities despite extensive military strikes and economic sanctions.
Iran’s latest proposal demonstrates that Tehran is attempting to negotiate from a position of resilience rather than surrender.
By demanding reparations, sanctions relief, and troop withdrawals, Iran is signalling that it expects recognition of its regional influence and strategic endurance despite months of conflict and economic pressure. The proposal also reflects Tehran’s broader objective of reducing the long term military presence of the United States near its borders.
For Washington, the negotiations present a difficult challenge. The United States wants to prevent Iran from advancing toward nuclear weapons capability while avoiding another prolonged regional war that could damage global markets, strain military resources, and increase political pressure at home.
The talks are also shaped by wider geopolitical realities. Gulf states increasingly prioritise regional stability and economic security, making them more supportive of diplomacy than direct military confrontation. Rising energy prices and fears of shipping disruptions further increase international pressure for a negotiated outcome.
At the same time, deep mistrust continues to define relations between both sides. The United States remains sceptical of Iran’s regional ambitions, while Tehran sees sanctions and military deployments as tools of long term containment.
Ultimately, the negotiations reveal a broader struggle over the future balance of power in the Middle East. Even if temporary agreements are reached, the underlying strategic rivalry between Iran, the United States, and Israel is unlikely to disappear in the near future.
With information from Reuters.
The latest developments surrounding Nvidia’s H200 chip sales to China highlight the growing complexity of the technological rivalry between the United States and China. Although Washington has reportedly approved several major Chinese firms to purchase Nvidia’s advanced artificial intelligence chips, no deliveries have taken place so far.
The situation reflects how geopolitical competition is increasingly disrupting even officially approved commercial agreements in the semiconductor sector.
Nvidia, the world’s leading artificial intelligence chip manufacturer, now finds itself caught between United States export control policies and China’s push for technological self reliance.
The H200 is Nvidia’s second most powerful artificial intelligence chip and is designed for advanced AI model training and data center operations.
The chip is particularly valuable for companies developing large language models, cloud computing systems, and next generation AI applications.
Before export restrictions tightened, Nvidia dominated China’s advanced AI chip market with an estimated market share of around 95 percent.
China also represented a major source of revenue for Nvidia, making access to the Chinese market strategically important for the company’s long term growth.
According to reports, the United States Commerce Department approved around ten Chinese firms to purchase H200 chips.
These reportedly include major Chinese technology companies such as:
Several distributors were also reportedly approved, including:
Under the licensing terms, each approved customer could reportedly purchase up to 75,000 chips.
However, despite these approvals, no actual sales or deliveries have yet been completed.
The delays appear to stem from concerns on both the United States and Chinese sides.
Chinese authorities reportedly fear that reliance on Nvidia chips could undermine Beijing’s efforts to strengthen its domestic semiconductor industry.
China has invested heavily in local AI chip development, particularly through companies such as Huawei.
Beijing increasingly sees semiconductor self sufficiency as a national security priority amid escalating technological competition with Washington.
There are also concerns within China regarding supply chain security and possible vulnerabilities linked to imported American technology.
Recent Chinese regulations aimed at reducing foreign dependence in critical technology sectors have reportedly intensified scrutiny of these chip purchases.
The United States has simultaneously imposed strict export control requirements on advanced semiconductor sales to China.
Chinese buyers must reportedly prove that the chips will not be used for military purposes and that adequate security procedures are in place.
Nvidia must also satisfy inventory and compliance conditions under American export laws.
Additionally, reports suggest the Trump administration negotiated an unusual arrangement in which the United States would receive a portion of revenue generated from the chip sales. This reportedly requires the chips to pass through American territory before shipment to China.
Such conditions have further complicated the transaction process.
Nvidia Chief Executive Officer Jensen Huang has emerged as a key figure in efforts to preserve Nvidia’s access to the Chinese market.
Huang reportedly joined President Donald Trump during a diplomatic visit linked to talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping.
His participation underscores the economic significance of the semiconductor dispute and the importance of China to Nvidia’s business strategy.
Huang has repeatedly warned that export controls risk permanently weakening Nvidia’s position in China while encouraging Chinese firms to accelerate domestic alternatives.
The Nvidia dispute reflects a broader struggle between the United States and China over technological dominance in artificial intelligence.
Washington increasingly views advanced semiconductor technology as a strategic national security asset. American policymakers fear that unrestricted access to advanced AI chips could strengthen China’s military and technological capabilities.
China, meanwhile, sees semiconductor independence as essential to reducing vulnerability to foreign pressure and sanctions.
As a result, both sides are attempting to balance economic interests with long term strategic competition.
The uncertainty surrounding Nvidia’s China business could have major implications for the global artificial intelligence industry.
If Chinese companies lose access to Nvidia chips, they may accelerate investment in domestic alternatives, potentially reshaping the global semiconductor market over time.
At the same time, restrictions on AI chip trade risk fragmenting the global technology ecosystem into competing American and Chinese spheres.
This could reduce international collaboration, disrupt supply chains, and intensify geopolitical competition over emerging technologies.
Despite current delays, neither the United States nor China appears willing to completely sever technological and commercial ties.
However, the Nvidia case demonstrates that semiconductor trade between the two powers is becoming increasingly politicized and strategically sensitive.
The future of AI competition may ultimately depend not only on innovation, but also on which country can build the most resilient and independent technology ecosystem.
For Nvidia, maintaining its position between the world’s two largest economies will likely remain one of its greatest strategic challenges.
The stalled Nvidia H200 deal illustrates how deeply geopolitical tensions now shape the global technology industry.
Although the United States has approved limited chip exports to China, political distrust, national security concerns, and strategic competition continue to obstruct implementation.
As artificial intelligence becomes central to economic and military power, semiconductor trade is no longer simply a commercial issue. It has become a defining arena in the broader contest between Washington and Beijing for technological leadership in the twenty first century.
With information from Reuters,
May 12 (UPI) — Missouri’s Supreme Court has approved the state’s new congressional maps, handing a win to the Trump administration as it seeks to create additional Republican-favored seats ahead of November’s midterm elections.
The high court ruled unanimously Tuesday in three cases that challenged the map, stating in a joint opinion affecting two cases that the redraw does not violate the state’s Constitution, and rejected a referendum-related challenge against the bill that permitted the unorthodox mid-decade redraw.
“Today’s Missouri Supreme Court rulings are a HUGE victory for voters,” Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe, a Republican, said in a social media statement Tuesday.
“Missourians are more alike than we are different, and our Missouri Values — rooted in common sense, hard work and personal responsibility — are stronger and far more aligned across both sides of the aisle than the extreme left-wing agendas pushed in states like New York, California and Illinois.
“The Missouri First Map ensures those values are represented fairly and accurately at every level of government.”
Missouri began the effort to redraw its congressional map last summer amid President Donald Trump‘s push for Republican-led states to create more GOP-favored seats for November’s midterm elections. The map, which Kehoe signed in September, redraws Democrat Rep. Emanuel Cleaver’s Kansas City-area district to include more rural, Republican-leaning areas, potentially whittling Missouri’s Democratic delegation in the U.S. House of Representatives from two seats to one.
Trump has repeatedly voiced concern about potential impeachment proceedings if Republicans lose the House. Creating additional Republican-leaning seats increases the GOP’s chances of maintaining control of the chamber, making impeachment less likely while limiting Democrats’ ability to conduct investigations into the Trump administration or stymie his agenda.
Texas was the first state to move on mid-decade redistricting, kicking off a gerrymandering arms race in which Democratic-led states sought to counter with their own maps and Republican-led states responded with additional redraws.
Fifteen states have moved to redistrict, with eight — seven Republican-led and one Democratic-led — having implemented new congressional maps, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Democratic-led Virginia also approved a new map, but the state Supreme Court overturned it last week.
The Missouri Supreme Court decisions on Tuesday resolve months of litigation in a trio of separate cases filed by Missouri voters against the redistricting.
In consolidating two cases that similarly challenged the constitutionality of the map’s redraw, the justices unanimously ruled that the appellants failed to show that it unlawfully slip the Kansas City-area district.
The other unanimous ruling sided against Missouri voters seeking to have the issue put to a ballot referendum.
Opponents to the maps criticized the court following its ruling, highlighting the fact that it was issued the same day arguments in the case were presented.
“While one might be inclined to hope that these justices managed to grapple with a highly complex, nuanced and consequential issue in just six hours, it seems clear the justices were not interested in the day’s proceedings and simply had their opinion already finalized, even before this morning’s argument,” Marina Jenkins, executive director of the National Redistricting Foundation, said in a statement.
“With this decision, the Missouri Supreme Court has shown Missourians the lack of seriousness with which it takes cases that pertain to protecting their right to vote — a complete and dangerous abdication of the judiciary’s role.”
The Campaign Legal Center, the American Civil Liberties Union Voting Rights Project and the ACLU of Missouri similarly criticized the ruling.
“Mere hours after argument was held, the court released its decisions siding against voters in every respect,” the groups said in a joint statement.
“We are extremely disappointed in these rulings, and in their failure to protect Missourians’ right to fair maps. This state — and our democracy — are worse off for this outcome.”
President Trump’s push to redraw the nation’s U.S. House districts received mixed results Tuesday as South Carolina senators defied his desires, but Missouri’s top court upheld a new map that could help Republicans win an additional seat in the November midterm elections.
Rather than waning, a national redistricting battle that began 10 months ago has intensified — inflamed by a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that weakened the federal Voting Rights Act and provided grounds for states to try to eliminate voting districts with large minority populations.
Republican lawmakers in Louisiana are wrestling with how politically aggressive to be when redrawing House districts after the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a majority-Black district as an illegal racial gerrymander.
The ripples of the Louisiana ruling already have led to new U.S. House districts in Tennessee and have extended to Alabama, where Republican Gov. Kay Ivey announced an Aug. 11 special primary for four of the state’s seven congressional districts. That came after the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday overturned an order mandating use of a map with two largely Black districts. The state plans to switch to a map passed in 2023 that has only one majority-Black district.
Republicans think they could gain as many as 14 seats from new House maps enacted so far in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Florida and Tennessee. Democrats, meanwhile, think they could gain six seats from new maps in California and Utah. The Virginia Supreme Court last week struck down a redistricting effort that could have yielded four more winnable seats for Democrats.
Missouri map splits Kansas City district
Missouri was the second Republican state, after Texas, to redraw its congressional districts at Trump’s urging last year. Since then, numerous other states have joined the redistricting battle.
During arguments earlier Tuesday, attorneys for voters challenging Missouri’s new map focused on changes to a Kansas City-based district long represented by Democratic U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, who previously was the city’s mayor, the first Black person to hold the post.
The new map takes a compact urban district that covered 20 miles and two counties and stretches it 200 miles over 15 counties, distorting it “into a sprawling behemoth that cuts clear across the state to unite territories that share nothing in common,” said Abha Khanna, an attorney who has represented Democrats in voting and redistricting cases across the country.
A lower court ruled in March that the map as a whole satisfied the compactness requirement, even though the Kansas City district is less compact. No Missouri court has ever struck down a congressional map for not being compact, said attorney John Gore, who defended the districts on behalf of the Republican Party.
A second case heard by the high court centered on whether the new map took effect in December, as asserted by Republican Atty. Gen. Catherine Hanaway and Republican Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, or whether it should have been suspended when referendum signatures were submitted.
To suspend the map before validating the signatures would let activists temporarily undercut laws by submitting boxes of fraudulent signatures, Missouri Solicitor Gen. Lou Capozzi argued.
But to not immediately suspend the map “would dilute the referendum right, if not destroy it altogether,” said attorney Jonathan Hawley, arguing for voters who sued.
Republican officials contend the new districts can be suspended only after Hoskins determines the petition meets constitutional requirements and has enough valid signatures. Hoskins has until Aug. 4, the day of Missouri’s primary elections, to make that determination. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of a state judge in March who agreed with Republicans’ position.
Louisiana hearing leads to death threats
Louisiana state Sen. Jay Morris, a Republican who drafted redistricting bills that would eliminate one or both of the state’s majority-Black districts, told lawmakers Monday that he received death threats after Friday’s contentious hearing in which he told members of the public to “shut up.”
Morris acknowledged the outburst but denied the Louisiana Democratic Party’s assertion — blasted across social media and in a news release — that he also used the derogatory term “boy” toward its executive director, Dadrius Lanus, who is Black.
State Sen. Gary Carter, one of three Black Democrats serving alongside six white Republicans on the Senate committee overseeing redistricting, told the Associated Press on Tuesday that he had withdrawn from the committee “to help restore the decorum and focus that this moment demands” after shouting at Republicans during Friday’s hearing. Carter publicly apologized Monday to Morris and his Senate colleagues for having “lost my temper” and for any remarks that were taken as “personal attacks.”
Carter is the nephew of U.S. Rep. Troy Carter, a Democrat who represents New Orleans and is at risk of losing his seat in the redistricting process. Gary Carter is being replaced on the committee with state Sen. Royce Duplessis, a Democrat representing New Orleans.
South Carolina weighs political risks of redistricting
The Republican push for South Carolina to join the national redistricting battle by redrawing its U.S. House map fizzled Tuesday as an initial vote in the state Senate fell short.
Trump had urged South Carolina to redraw its congressional districts ahead of the November elections in an attempt to help Republicans win another seat in the closely divided chamber. The state House had voted in favor of letting lawmakers return after the regular session ends this week to consider redistricting, and had proposed a new map that could eliminate the state’s only Democratic-held seat.
But the Senate had to give permission to take up redistricting, too.
The 29-17 vote failed, with just two votes short of the two-thirds needed. Five Republicans joined all the Democrats in the chamber to reject the proposal.
Trump said Monday on social media that he was closely watching the redistricting vote, urging South Carolina senators to “be bold and courageous” and to delay the House primaries so new districts can be drawn.
Although Republicans have a supermajority in the chamber, some GOP senators weren’t sure the proposed map would guarantee the party could unseat longtime Democratic U.S. Rep. James E. Clyburn. They also said it could push enough Democrats into other districts to backfire, resulting in a 5-2 or even a 4-3 Republican split.
Republican Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey acknowledged the pressure from Trump, but said he doesn’t like being asked to bend to someone’s will instead of doing what’s best for his state.
“I got too much Southern in my blood,” Massey said. “I’ve got too much resistance in my heritage.”
Lieb, Collins, Brook and Chandler write for the Associated Press. Brook reported from Baton Rouge, La.; Chandler from Montgomery, Ala.; Collins from Columbia; and Lieb from Jefferson City, Mo.
A fragile ceasefire in the US-Israel war on Iran is coming under growing strain as several Gulf countries have reported drone attacks.
Qatar said on Sunday that a drone struck a cargo ship in Qatari waters, sparking a fire, while Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates said they repelled drone attacks.
list of 3 itemsend of list
Though no Gulf country reported casualties in the latest attacks, they have put pressure on the fragile ceasefire, which took effect on April 8.
Qatar’s Ministry of Defence said the freighter had been arriving in the country’s waters from the UAE capital, Abu Dhabi, and was hit by a drone northeast of the port of Mesaieed.
“The vessel continued its journey toward Mesaieed Port after the fire was brought under control,” the ministry said.
The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) said a bulk carrier reported being struck by an “unknown projectile”, and a small fire had been extinguished, but there were no casualties from the incident. “There is no reported environmental impact,” it said.
Kuwait’s Defence Ministry said a “number of hostile drones” were detected in the country’s airspace at dawn. In a post on X, a spokesperson said the drones were dealt with “in accordance with established procedures”, but did not specify where the drones were launched from.
The UAE Defence Ministry said two Iranian drones were intercepted.
“UAE air defence systems successfully engaged two UAVs launched from Iran,” the ministry said in a statement on X.
The Trump administration has said the truce is still in effect, but a naval battle has been taking place in the Gulf region, with Iran restricting traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway through which a fifth of traded oil transited before the war, and the United States imposing a blockade of Iranian ports.
Several attacks have been reported on ships in the Gulf and the countries in the region over the past week.
On Friday, the US struck two Iranian oil tankers, saying they were trying to breach its blockade of Iran’s ports.
On Tuesday, the UAE said it came under attack from Iranian missiles and drones for the second day in a row. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), however, denied the claim.
The IRGC Navy on Sunday reiterated its warning that any attack on Iranian oil tankers or commercial vessels would be met with a “heavy assault” on one of the bases in the region used by US forces and enemy ships.
The spokesperson for the Iranian parliament’s foreign policy and security committee, Ebrahim Rezaei, said Tehran’s “restraint is over”.
“Any aggression against our vessels will be met with a heavy and decisive Iranian response against American vessels and bases,” Rezaei wrote on X.
“The clock is ticking against the Americans’ interests; it is to their benefit not to act foolishly and sink themselves deeper into the quagmire they have fallen into. The best course is to surrender and concede concessions. You must get used to the new regional order,” he added.
While the truce remains in effect, President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to resume the US bombardment if Iran does not accept a deal which includes reopening the Strait of Hormuz and rolling back its nuclear programme.
Iran is still mulling its response to a 14-point proposal by Washington, with Iranian frozen assets and war reparations among other main sticking points.
In a meeting with US Secretary of State Marc Rubio on Saturday, Qatar’s Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani pushed for all parties to respond to the ongoing mediation efforts and to reach an agreement for lasting peace.
Qatar’s prime minister also held a phone call with Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, the Qatari foreign ministry reported on Sunday.
Sheikh Mohammed told Araghchi that Iran’s use of the Strait of Hormuz as a “pressure card” would only deepen the crisis in the Gulf, and said all parties in the conflict should respond to mediation efforts to end the war.
Reporting from Tehran, Al Jazeera’s Tohid Assadi said when it comes to diplomatic engagement, it seems that the US and Iran want the content of any negotiations to remain private.
Meanwhile, there is a mixture of different sentiments among Iranian citizens, he noted.
“Since the early days of the war, people have gathered to show their sense of nationalism and support for the political establishment,” he said.
“But we also know that there is a sense of frustration, especially when it comes to soaring prices and economic difficulties,” he added.
At a meeting on the reconstruction after damage caused by the war, President Masoud Pezeshkian said negotiations with the US on ending the war do not mean Iran is surrendering.
“The goal is to realise the rights of the Iranian people and defend national interests with authority,” he said.
The TWZ Newsletter
Weekly insights and analysis on the latest developments in military technology, strategy, and foreign policy.
The dream of getting an F-14 Tomcat back up in American skies, discussed as a fantasy for the past two decades since the Navy retired the type, may actually become a reality.
Legislation making its way through Congress would allow the Navy to gift three retired F-14Ds to the U.S. Space & Rocket Center museum in Huntsville, Alabama, and open the door to one of the iconic jets potentially being returned to flight status. Companion bills in the Senate and House are both dubbed the “Maverick Act,” a clear reference to the Top Gun film franchise and the fictional Navy Capt. Pete “Maverick” Mitchell, played by star Tom Cruise.
Senator Tim Sheehy, a Montana Republican, introduced the Senate’s version of the Maverick Act on March 23. Senator Mark Kelly, an Arizona Democrat, co-sponsored that bill. Sheehy is a U.S. Naval Academy graduate and former Navy SEAL. Kelly is also a retired naval aviator, who flew A-6 Intruders, and astronaut. In the House, Representative Abe Hamadeh, a Republican from Arizona and U.S. Army veteran, introduced the companion legislation with the same title on April 16. There are nine co-sponsors to Hamadeh’s bill, including one Democrat. The legislation cleared the Senate by unanimous consent on April 28, and the matter is now in the hands of the House.
The last Navy F-14 was officially retired in September 2006 after 32 years of service to the fleet. Despite its retirement in the United States, the Tomcat has remained under extremely tight export controls due to its continued service in Iran, the only other country to ever operate the type.
The three Tomcats now earmarked for potential transfer are identified by their Navy serial numbers, or Bureau Numbers: 164341, 164602, and 159437. These are the only three F-14Ds currently in storage at the famed boneyard at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona, per U.S. Air Force records. Three A variants and a pair of B models are also currently stored there. The current condition of any of these aircraft is unclear.
Sticking with the text of the Senate version at the time of writing for simplicity, the bill says the transfer of the F-14s to the U.S. Space & Rocket Center, an air and space museum established by the government of Alabama in 1970, would be made at no cost to the government. “Any costs associated with such conveyance, costs of determining compliance with terms of the conveyance, and costs of operation and maintenance of the aircraft conveyed shall be borne by the Commission,” per the proposed legislation.
The bill explicitly states that the aircraft will “not have any capability for use as a platform for launching or releasing munitions or any other combat capability that it was designed to have.” It also lays out a series of conditions for the transfer, noting that the Secretary of the Navy would not be obligated to restore, repair, or otherwise modify the Tomcats before handing them over, but would provide accompanying maintenance and operations manuals along with any excess spare parts available.
The matter of excess spare parts leads us to the most eye-catching section of the bill:
“The Secretary [of the Navy] shall provide excess spare parts to make one of the F-14D aircraft flyable or able to complete a static display, provided that any part transferred is from existing Navy stock, with no items being procured on behalf of the Commission.”
“The Secretary will not be responsible for transferring any additional parts or providing any additional support beyond what is stated in this section, during or after the conveyance of the aircraft,” the proposed legislation adds. As such, the Secretary of the Navy would allow the Commission to enter into agreements with relevant nonprofit organizations to help with restoring and operating the aircraft “for public display, airshows, and commemorative events to preserve naval aviation heritage.”
The transfer would also be made under the “condition that the Commission shall operate and maintain the aircraft in compliance with all applicable limitations and maintenance requirements imposed by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration,” the bill notes. “The Commission shall not convey any ownership interest in, or transfer possession of, the aircraft to another party without the prior approval of the Secretary.”
The Navy would reserve the right to immediately repossess the aircraft if either of the above terms were breached.
“The Maverick Act of 2026 creates a narrow exception to the post-retirement restrictions that have destroyed nearly all F-14s, ensuring that its legacy is preserved,” according to a press release that Abe Hamadeh’s office put out on May 1. “The Maverick Act allows three of the world’s final Tomcats to be demilitarized and transferred for public display and education under strict national security safeguards. It does not restore combat capability or reopen foreign transfer.”
“I want to thank Senator Sheehy and his colleagues for passing this legislation aimed at preserving for history one of the most iconic aircraft ever flown,” Hamadeh said in an accompanying statement. “As a former U.S. Army officer, I know that many of the men and women I served with felt the same way. That is why I proudly introduced this legislation.”
It is worth noting that retired F-14s are on public display at various military bases and museums in the United States, but none are in flyable condition. Around it’s retirement, there had been unsuccessful pushes in the past to try to get a Tomcat back into the air in private hands, including by the late Dale “Snort” Snodgrass, a legendary naval aviator and F-14 pilot, who performed official Navy Tomcat demos at airshows for many years.
The prospect of getting a ‘warbird’ Tomcat flying has remained a persistent topic of popular discussion, but has long seemed largely impossible due to bureaucratic red tape, as well as the cost and complexity of doing so. TWZ stressed these points when it emerged that a non-flying F-14 would feature in the sequel to 1986’s Top Gun, Top Gun: Maverick, which hit theaters in 2022. The U.S. military was heavily involved in the production of both movies. The original film cemented the place of the F-14 and the Navy’s TOPGUN program in popular culture.
TOP GUN | Official Trailer | Paramount Movies
Top Gun: Maverick – Official Trailer (2022) – Paramount Pictures
A key factor in all of this has been that the story of the Tomcat is inseparably linked to Iran, which received a fleet of F-14As before the fall of the Shah in 1979. The Islamic Republic that emerged afterward continued to operate the jets despite the U.S. government cutting off support. American authorities also moved to impose very tight controls on access to retired F-14 airframes and spare parts, and many of the aircraft were destroyed outright as they left Navy service because of this.
Intriguingly, the prospect of having an F-14 flying again in the United States may have become more likely as a result of the latest conflict with Iran. As TWZ has previously reported, joint U.S. and Israeli strikes between February and April may well have finally put an end to the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force’s (IRIAF) Tomcat operations for good.
Even before the conflict, Iran likely only had a handful of serviceable Tomcats. For example, only one example appeared at the Kish Air Show in 2024, as you can read about here.
Still, even if the Maverick bill is passed and signed into law, there would be many more hurdles before an F-14 could return to the air. After many years spent in the desert boneyard, the Tomcat would require deep inspections to ensure its structure and critical subsystems were fully functional and compliant with the Federal Aviation Administration’s certification requirements.
Just getting the F-14 back to flight status would be massively labor-intensive and very expensive. Keeping the jet in the air would also require considerable funds, with the Tomcat being notoriously maintenance-heavy. Flying the jet regularly would impose high costs, including fuel. The F-14 holds roughly 2,280 gallons of fuel internally. So filling up the jet with a single tank of gas would run around $14,500 at today’s jet fuel prices. This jumps up considerably with external fuel tanks, which add another 534 gallons to the price tag. It can burn this fuel load very fast, especially during high-performance airshow routines.
Complex, supersonic swing-wing jets have periodically appeared at U.S. airshows, specifically the Soviet-era MiG-23 Flogger. In 2023, a privately owned MiG-23UB crashed at the Thunder Over Michigan airshow in Ypsilanti, Michigan, highlighting the challenges of operating these kinds of jets in private hands.
Meanwhile, a Tornado F2, another Cold War-era swing-wing jet, is now being returned to flight status by Jared Isaacman. Now the administrator of NASA, Isaacman is also the founder and former CEO of the ‘red air’ adversary support provider Draken International, as well as a tech billionaire, astronaut, and the operator of a pristine MiG-29 Fulcrum personal jet.
The next aviation project has arrived in the hangar. The Tornado F2. She can fly low and very fast w/ a variable-sweep wing. I imagine it will take a year but she will fly again. pic.twitter.com/sdZvbuL4qO
— Jared Isaacman (@rookisaacman) July 1, 2024
Whether or not the Maverick Act becomes law, or if the U.S. Space & Rocket Center returns an F-14 to U.S. skies, the legislation is a notable new development in the Tomcat’s story. It could have broader impacts, as well. On several occasions in the past, members of Congress have proposed legislation to curtail private operators from flying former advanced U.S. military aircraft, in general.
When it comes to the possibility of a Tomcat back in the air, while it is certain to be a big challenge, it is fair to say that no other single aircraft has more of a draw in popular culture and more pull in the public consciousness. There are likely to be many people with a lot of money who would be eager to get behind an initiative to get one of the jets back in the air if the opportunity presents itself.
Overall, turning the idea of a ‘warbird’ Tomcat from fantasy into reality would be extremely welcome among Top Gun movie lovers, loyal fans of the F-14, Naval Aviation veterans and aficionados, and the aviation heritage community at large.
Author’s note: Special thanks to @Osinttechnical on X for bringing this to our attention.
Contact the author: thomas@thewarzne.com
Another assassination attempt on Donald Trump reveals mistrust in the media and conspiracy theories fill the gap.
An assassination attempt at the White House correspondents’ dinner underscored the spectacle, chaos and violence that have defined Donald Trump’s second presidency.
As journalists rushed to report what had happened, a parallel narrative of conspiracy was already taking shape online. Conspiracy theories get far more currency than they merit – and they are a by-product of an information landscape that has been muddied by Trump.
Contributors:
John Nichols – Executive editor, The Nation
Niall Stanage – White House columnist, The Hill
Amber Duke – Editor-in-chief, Daily Caller
Suzanne Kianpour – Cohost, Global Power Shifts podcast
Russia’s effort to tighten internet restrictions and throttle Telegram has caused a furious public backlash. The uproar has forced President Vladimir Putin to admit the measures went too far. Ryan Kohls reports.
Throughout two years of war, Israeli forces have used drones, AI-powered targeting and the infiltration of Lebanese communications devices and the networks they rely on – to control the population, spread terror and kill people. And it has escalated its information war, using all kinds of propaganda to deepen fear and divisions within Lebanese society. We speak to Justin Salhani about the tactics Israel is using in Lebanon.
Featuring:
Justin Salhani – Senior producer, Al Jazeera Digital
Published On 2 May 20262 May 2026
Share
A Supreme Court decision striking down a majority Black congressional district in Louisiana has amplified an already intense national redistricting battle by providing Republican officials in several states new grounds to redraw voting districts.
Louisiana has suspended its May 16 congressional primary to allow time for lawmakers to approve new U.S. House districts. Meanwhile, President Trump is pressuring other states to redistrict — potentially still ahead of the November midterm elections that will determine whether Republicans maintain control of the closely divided House.
Trump urged Texas Republicans last year to redraw U.S. House districts to give the party an advantage. Democrats in California responded by doing the same. Then other states joined the battle. Lawmakers, commissions or courts have adopted new House districts in eight states.
That total could grow following the Supreme Court’s decision that significantly weakened a provision in the federal Voting Rights Act.
Here’s a look at how some states are responding to the Supreme Court ruling:
Current House map: two Democrats, four Republicans
Early in-person voting was to begin Saturday for Louisiana’s primaries. But Republican Gov. Jeff Landry moved quickly Thursday to postpone the congressional primary while allowing elections for other offices to go forward.
A federal lawsuit filed later Thursday, on behalf of a Democratic congressional candidate and voter, asked a court to block Landry’s order and allow the House primary to occur as originally scheduled. Among other things, the lawsuit asserted that tens of thousands of absentee ballots already have been mailed to people and a substantial number have been filled out and returned.
Separately, a three-judge federal court panel that heard the case that was appealed to the Supreme Court also issued an order Thursday suspending Louisiana’s congressional primary.
Republican state House and Senate leaders said they are prepared to pass new U.S. House districts — and set a new primary election date — before their legislative session ends in a month.
Current House map: two Democrats, five Republicans
Alabama officials on Thursday filed an emergency motion with the Supreme Court seeking an expedited review of a pending appeal in a redistricting case.
A federal court in 2023 ordered the creation of a new near-majority Black district in Alabama, resulting in the election of a second Black representative to the U.S. House. Alabama is under a court order to use the new map until after the next census in 2030.
An appeal pending before the Supreme Court argues that the map is an illegal racial gerrymander, a claim similar to that made in Louisiana.
The state is seeking to lift an injunction blocking the use of the 2023 map drawn by the Republican-controlled Legislature that did not include the new district.
The state’s primaries are set for May 19. Republican Gov. Kay Ivey said Wednesday that the state is “not in position to have a special session at this time” on redistricting.
Current House map: eight Democrats, 20 Republicans
Hours after the Supreme Court’s decision, Florida’s Republican-led Legislature approved new U.S. House districts that could help the GOP win up to four additional seats in November.
Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis called a special legislative session without knowing when the Supreme Court would issue its opinion in the Louisiana case. But DeSantis expressed confidence that the court would rule as it did. Among other things, the new map reshapes a southeastern Florida district that DeSantis said was created to help elect a Black representative in an attempt to comply with the federal Voting Rights Act.
A Florida constitutional amendment approved by voters in 2010 prohibits districts from being drawn to deny or diminish the ability of racial or language minorities to elect the representatives of their choice. DeSantis said he considers that amendment a violation of the U.S. Constitution. That question is expected to be decided by the courts.
Current House map: one Democrat, eight Republicans
The Tennessee General Assembly recently ended its annual session. But pressure is growing to bring lawmakers back to revise the state’s congressional districts.
Trump posted on social media Thursday that he had spoken with Republican Gov. Bill Lee, who he said would work hard for a new map that could help Republicans gain an additional seat. Democrats currently hold only one seat, a district centered in Memphis, which is majority Black.
Tennessee House Speaker Cameron Sexton, a Republican, said he is in conversations with the White House and others while reviewing the court’s decision.
The state’s candidate qualifying period ended in March. The primary election is scheduled for Aug. 6.
Current House map: one Democrat, three Republicans
Mississippi held its U.S. House primaries in March. But the Supreme Court’s decision could affect elections for other offices.
Republican Gov. Tate Reeves announced previously that he would call a special legislative session to redraw voting districts for the state Supreme Court that would begin 21 days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Louisiana case. That would put the special session’s start at around May 20.
A federal judge last year ordered Mississippi to redraw its Supreme Court voting districts after finding that they violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the power of Black voters. Mississippi lawmakers had been waiting on a decision in the Louisiana case before moving forward, but their legislative session ended in April.
Reeves said in his proclamation that the Supreme Court’s decision would provide guidance to lawmakers on whether “race-conscious redistricting” violates the U.S. Constitution.
Current House map: five Democrats, nine Republicans
Early in-person voting began April 27 and continues for the next few weeks ahead of Georgia’s primary elections on May 19.
Republican Gov. Brian Kemp said it’s too late for Georgia officials to try to change congressional districts for this year’s elections, because voting already is underway. But he said the rationale in the Supreme Court’s decision “requires Georgia to adopt new electoral maps before the 2028 election cycle.”
Lieb writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Jeff Amy and Kim Chandler contributed to this report.
California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta has enlisted new allies in his legal battle to unravel Nexstar Media Group’s takeover of rival television station group Tegna Inc.
Late Thursday, Bonta announced that five additional states have joined his coalition that is suing to block the $6.2-billion merger. With the additional plaintiffs, the group of top state law enforcement officers has grown to 13 — and the campaign now is a bipartisan effort.
“Antitrust enforcement is not political — it’s about protecting working families and helping ensure the benefits of a vibrant economy are for everyone, not just well-connected corporations,” Bonta said in a statement. “We welcome our sister states into the fray and look forward to fighting alongside them.”
The new states are Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Vermont. They have joined existing the plaintiffs that represent the people of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, New York, North Carolina, Oregon and Virginia.
Nexstar owns KTLA-TV Channel 5 in Los Angeles.
U.S. District Judge Troy Nunley two weeks ago granted a request by the attorneys general to issue a preliminary injunction halting the merger as the legal case proceeds. The proposed merger — which Nexstar rushed to complete despite opposition from the states — would create the nation’s largest broadcast station group with 265 television stations, up from 164 that Nexstar currently controls.
In dozens of markets, including San Diego and Sacramento, Nexstar would own multiple major TV network affiliates. That duplication has raised concerns about staff consolidations and widespread newsroom layoffs.
“State attorneys general nationwide understand just how important robust antitrust enforcement is to American life — and what a rotten deal this is for consumers, for workers, for affordability, and for our local news,” Bonta said.
El Segundo-based DirecTV separately filed a lawsuit to block the deal, saying the Nexstar-Tegna consolidation would harm their business by forcing DirecTV to pay significantly higher fees for the rights to carry their stations as part of its programming lineup.
A Nexstar representative was not immediately available for comment.
Nexstar contends the deal would strengthen TV station economics, allowing stations to bolster their news gathering and expand the number of newscasts. But DirecTV countered that in markets where Nexstar owns two stations, it relies on just one newsroom to program both channels.
Nexstar’s proposed purchase of Tegna would give the Irving, Texas-based Nexstar stations in 44 states covering 80% of the U.S. population.
The federal judge ruled there was sufficient merit in the antitrust arguments brought by Bonta and the others to pause Nexstar’s takeover of Tegna until a trial can be held to decide whether the merger is illegal.
“Nexstar must permit Tegna to continue operating as a separate and distinct, independently managed business unit from Nexstar,” Nunley wrote in his 52-page order on April 17. “And Nexstar must put measures in place to maintain Tegna as an ongoing, economically viable, and active competitor.”
An autonomous forklift operates at Korea Zinc’s smelter in Ulsan, about 250 miles southeast of Seoul, on Wednesday. Photo by Tae-gyu Kim/UPI
ULSAN, South Korea, April 29 (UPI) — Founded in 1974, Korea Zinc began to churn out 50,000 tons of zinc in 1978 at its Onsan smelter about 250 miles southeast of Seoul. Over the next five decades, it expanded annual zinc capacity by more than 11-fold to 560,000 tons.
In addition, Korea Zinc added lead and copper into its production portfolio, a diversified smelting model it says underpins the competitive edge of the world’s largest non-ferrous metal manufacturer.
“In other smelters making just one substance, they have to deal with waste. But we take advantage of them to retrieve other materials,” Korea Zinc engineer Kang Ki-tae said. “That’s why our Onsan smelter is both competitive and environmentally friendly.”
That approach is evident on-site. Korea Zinc is reclaiming a former byproduct storage pond for the construction of a germanium plant targeted for operation in 2028, showing its reduced need for such storage facilities.
As a result, the company’s product portfolio extends beyond the three base metals of zinc, lead,and copper to include such precious and critical metals as gold, silver, indium, bismuth, antimony, gallium and germanium.
Among its customers are Hyundai Motor, Posco, Samsung Electronics, SK hynix and Lockheed Martin. In August, Korea Zinc signed a memorandum of understanding with Lockheed Martin to supply germanium.
Kang said the company aims to replicate those competitive strengths in its U.S. facility to support the efforts of Washington in securing a stable supply chain of critical minerals.
Late last year, Korea Zinc laid out plans to develop an integrated smelter in Clarksville, Tenn., in cooperation with the U.S. government. Called Project Crucible, it will cost up to $7.4 billion.
Groundbreaking is scheduled for next year at a 160-acre site, with the plant targeted to come online in 2029. The complex is slated to produce 13 materials, including 11 designated as critical minerals.
At full ramp-up, Korea Zinc expects the facility to generate about 300,000 metric tons of zinc annually, in addition to 200,000 tons of lead and 35,000 tons of copper, as well as such strategic metals as antimony, indium, bismuth, tellurium and gallium.
China holds a dominant position in the production of rare earths and other critical minerals, often facing criticism for using export controls as leverage in trade tensions, including with the United States.
Amid those concerns, the Trump administration has pushed to develop alternative supply chains for rare earths and other critical minerals beyond China’s influence.
Korea Zinc engineer Lee Sung-jung said that the company also has focused heavily on the environment and automation.
“Autonomous forklifts have already been deployed, and last week we introduced a dozen of fuel-cell forklifts at our facilities,” he said.
Win-win initiative
Korea Zinc Executive Vice President Jimmy Kim said the U.S. investment could also help improve the Onsan smelter.
“We plan to incorporate more advanced technologies, including AI automation and digital twin systems developed by our core engineers, to build an even more sophisticated facility in the United States,” said Kim, who oversees the Onsan plant.
“If AI transformation proves successful there, it could also accelerate AI transformation at our factory here. We believe this could become a win-win opportunity for both countries while helping upgrade Onsan, as well,” he said.
Kim also welcomed the initiative’s selection last week for FAST-41, a federal fast‑track program that accelerates environmental reviews and permitting for major infrastructure projects.
“It shows the project is being highly valued by the U.S. government. We hope that by 2029, this will become an opportunity to further contribute to Korea-U.S. cooperation in technology security and mineral security,” he said.
According to the U.S. Permitting Council, FAST-41 participants have secured federal approvals about 18 months faster on average than comparable developments not covered by the program.
Earnings Call Insights: Tesla (TSLA) Q1 2026
Tesla framed 2026 as an investment-heavy year, with CEO Elon Musk saying, “We’re going to be substantially increasing our investments in the future so you should expect to see significant — a very significant increase
Newsletters for Every Investor
Get daily, sector-specific newsletters packed with expert insights, fresh ideas, and new opportunities.
Subscribe to Newsletters
Seeking Alpha’s Disclaimer: This article was automatically generated by an AI tool based on content available on the Seeking Alpha website, and has not been curated or reviewed by humans. Due to inherent limitations in using AI-based tools, the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of such articles cannot be guaranteed. This article is intended for informational purposes only. Seeking Alpha does not take account of your objectives or your financial situation and does not offer any personalized investment advice. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank.
The global fallout of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz may create the impression that the world cannot function without fossil fuels. Nothing could be further from the truth. Every single industry can and must decarbonise.
For global shipping, this process would be relatively easy because technological solutions exist and a single United Nations agency can set legally binding rules for all ships. The first steps have already been made.
In 2025, member states of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) agreed on a policy mechanism to cut shipping emissions: the Net-Zero Framework (NZF). But they opted to postpone a decision on formal adoption of this landmark agreement.
This delay is emblematic of obstructive tactics used by countries opposing climate action.
The IMO Framework – the world’s first global carbon price on any international polluter – took years of compromises and watering-down. As it stands, it is the lowest possible bar Pacific Island states like the one I represent can accept. We cannot give in another inch.
While I join the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels in Santa Marta, Colombia, next week, delegates will gather again at the IMO in London to decide whether to uphold their unanimous commitment to phase out fossil fuels in a just and equitable way.
The delegates of Vanuatu who travel to London have a mandate to push for the adoption of the NZF this year.
Should anyone reopen the framework to water it down, our position is clear: We will revert to our original Pacific demand for a universal levy on emissions of $150 per tonne of carbon dioxide.
Last year my country abstained from the vote on the NZF agreement. We reached that decision because the mechanism is not nearly ambitious enough. Even so, it is a starting point we can work with.
But since then, the tide has shifted dramatically.
After the delay in adoption, a small group of countries is now suggesting further weakening the ambition in the framework to meet the demands of particularly influential states whose current policy positions are not aligned with climate ambition. This strategy is problematic as reducing our collective actions to align with those that want no climate action at all is incompatible with our people’s continued survival.
The world’s poorest countries, and the planet, simply cannot afford anything less than what is already on the table.
The framework, as it is, gives the world and the industry some chance of meeting the climate obligations that IMO countries committed to in 2023, namely reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 in a just and equitable way.
The NZF introduces penalty fees – eg emission pricing for noncompliance with the regulation. This provides the regulation with a “stick” to ensure ships comply or else they must pay.
The penalties also represent revenues, up to $10bn to $12bn a year, to both incentivise industry transition and enable a fair transition for all. This fund is a lifeline for developing – and especially least developed – states to be able to afford clean maritime energy upgrades and compensate for the rising trade costs because of this transition.
Some claim that revenues raised by the NZF will blow out transport costs. This is preposterous.
The penalties charged through this framework come down to less than $1.50 per year for every living human being – although the biggest polluters should pay this cost. If the richest 10 percent of the world’s population foots this bill, it adds up to less than $15 per person. That’s a few coffees a year, which the world’s richest can easily spare.
Losing both financial penalties for noncompliance and financial support for countries like mine in the name of a political compromise with rich oil-producing states is a bad deal. Not just for all climate-vulnerable states but also for the industry that demands and deserves clarity.
If anything, we need more action and more ambition in the framework.
For years, Pacific states have pushed for the IMO regulation to be in the form of a universal levy on emissions, by pricing all emissions. We managed to get the majority of IMO member states on board, including the European Union, South Korea and Japan, as well as important Global South states, such as Panama and Liberia. However, the US has been very effective in exerting its influence in this area, which is resulting in shifts to some positions to the detriment of us all.
Our position was always backed by the best available scientific evidence.
A levy on all shipping emissions is the best way to send an unambiguous signal to the industry: Invest in the future now! The revenues, up to 10 times more than those from the NZF, serve as both a bigger stick for polluters and a bigger carrot for first movers and cash-poor countries.
This is not a handout: Hitting net zero by 2050 is not possible if our countries cannot invest in clean ships.
The bridge we have built in the form of the NZF through years of compromise and evidence is still standing. Let us cross it together by adopting it as agreed without any further dilution.
Pacific states stand ready to fight for what science and justice demand, and we call on our partners to stand with us.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.
‘This will be a great and brilliant day for the world’ US President Donald Trump said at a Turning Point USA event as Iran fully opens the Strait of Hormuz. He also thanked Gulf states for their ‘tremendous’ support.
Published On 18 Apr 202618 Apr 2026
Share
April 16 (UPI) — The House on Thursday passed a bill to extend temporary protected status for people from Haiti who are living in the United States through 2029.
Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., who is co-chair of the House Haiti Caucus, introduced a discharge petition to advance a bill to extend protection for Haitian nationals.
The legislation was initially introduced by Rep. Laura Gillen, D-N.Y., whose Long Island district — as well as the rest of Long Island and New York City — have large Haitian populations, and is the first bill she introduced after her election to the House.
After the discharge petition succeeded, with bipartisan support, the bill passed the full House with 10 Republicans voting in support of it.
“This is a critical step forward in our fight for immigrant justice and delivering our Haitian neighbors the protections they deserve — and it’s a testament to the strength of our broad, diverse and bipartisan coalition,” Pressley said in a statement after the motion to discharge was agreed to.
“I am grateful to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who supported our discharge petition,” she said.
After the vote, Gillen in a statement encouraged the Senate “to take up this measure and show the compassion and good sense to protect our Haitian community members.”
“Not only would this threaten the lives of our neighbors, it would also have a devastating effect on our economy,” Gillen said, noting that the extension protects “law-abiding and tax-paying Haitians who would face horrific condition if forced back to Haiti.”
The bill, however, faces a battle in the Republican-run Senate and, if it does get passed, the White House has indicated that it will veto the legislation, reports have said.
Although former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had attempted to end TPS for at least half a million Haitians last Fall, a judge in February blocked the Trump administration from carrying it out.
As a result of the ruling, TPS for people from Haiti expired on Feb. 3, its original expiration date, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which Pressley said made the discharge petition to force a vote on the bill so crucial.
The Supreme Court also is due to rule on the Trump administrations efforts to end TPS for Haitians, as well as for people from Syria, who have protected status because of the dangerous situation in that country.
The experts call Israel’s bombardment of Lebanon on April 8 ‘a blatant violation of the UN Charter’.
Published On 15 Apr 202615 Apr 2026
A group of United Nations experts has denounced Israel’s attack on Lebanon a day after the United States and Iran agreed a ceasefire as illegal and urged UN member states to halt all arms transfers to Israel.
The 19 experts – including special rapporteurs and independent experts across a range of human rights mandates – issued the condemnation on Wednesday as Israel continued to pound areas of southern Lebanon, killing at least 16 people, including four paramedics, Lebanese state media reported.
list of 3 itemsend of list
Referring to a devastating wave of Israeli attacks across Lebanon on April 8, which Lebanese authorities said killed more than 350 people, including 30 children, the experts said: “This is not self-defence. It is a blatant violation of the UN Charter, a deliberate destruction of prospects for peace, and an affront to multilateralism and the UN-based international order.”
They called for Israel to “cease all military operations in Lebanon” and urged UN member states to halt arms transfers to Israel while “there is credible evidence of serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law”, according to the UN Human Rights Council.
Israel escalated its attacks on Lebanon on March 2 after the Lebanese armed group Hezbollah fired rockets into Israel in response to the US-Israel killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei two days earlier, the first day of their war on Iran.
Israel has carried out a devastating bombardment across Lebanon and a ground invasion in the south, killing more than 2,000 people and forcibly displacing more than 1.2 million.
The UN experts said such forced displacement “of a civilian population constitutes crimes against humanity”. They also condemned Israel’s targeted “destruction of homes”, particularly in predominantly Shia areas of the south, as “a form of collective punishment” that “points to ethnic cleansing”.
Israel’s continuing bombardment of Lebanon has been a point of tension in US-Iran negotiations. Tehran said Lebanon should be covered in the ongoing ceasefire. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Lebanon is not part of the ceasefire with Iran and Israel will continue to target Hezbollah “wherever required”.
On Saturday, days before Israel and Lebanon held rare, high-level diplomatic talks in the US, Netanyahu said Israel wanted long-term peace with Lebanon but on the condition that Hezbollah is disarmed.
The Reuters news agency quoted a senior Israeli official as saying Israel’s security cabinet planned to convene on Wednesday evening to discuss a possible ceasefire in Lebanon. It also quoted several senior Lebanese officials as saying ceasefire efforts were under way.