talks

Dinorah Figuera has a signature with limited value

“Venezuela cannot stand another communiqué” has become something of a political meme, but it captures the central problem with the process beginning on August 1. Washington has assembled a negotiation between an interim president whose continued rule it chose to preserve and an opposition counterpart it helped revive, hoping to combine Delcy Rodríguez’s control of the state with the residual democratic legitimacy of the 2015 National Assembly. The question is not merely whether they can reach an agreement. It is whether two actors whose authority is partial, externally enabled and detached from the country’s current popular leadership can legitimize a transition roadmap whose broad contours appear to have already been decided in Washington—and whether anything they sign can survive without María Corina Machado’s endorsement.

Everyone involved acknowledges that the mechanism was promoted by the United States. What nobody has explained clearly is what kind of mechanism it actually is. Is this a negotiation between two autonomous Venezuelan parties? Is it a broader national dialogue? Or is it an implementation process for a transition whose direction Donald Trump and Marco Rubio have already chosen?

The distinction matters because both sides are selling versions of the process that exaggerate their freedom to negotiate. The opposition presents it as the beginning of a democratic transition. Primero Justicia has listed substantial objectives: a new electoral authority and calendar, the restoration of political parties, an end to political disqualifications, the liberation of political prisoners, the dismantling of the repressive apparatus, freedom of expression and an independent Supreme Court.

Chavismo presents the same process as a necessary concession to preserve peace, obtain sanctions relief and protect the revolution. In its telling, sitting down with the opposition is not surrender but adaptation. “Dialogue does not mean capitulation,” Diosdado Cabello has insisted.

Neither story is entirely realistic.

The opposition may negotiate how political life is reopened and how future elections are organized. Still, it does not appear free to reopen Washington’s decision that stabilization and institutional reconstruction will precede an electoral transfer. Trump accepted Delcy’s continued presidency and has publicly argued that Venezuela is not yet prepared for another election, so the opposition is unlikely to be permitted to demand the immediate transfer of power it once said had already been decided by the 2024 presidential election.  

Delcy’s room for maneuver is also limited. She cannot seriously defend all the old red lines of chavismo: no foreign supervision, no negotiated reform of state institutions, no conditions on sanctions relief and no binding electoral horizon. The existence of an American-sponsored process involving the 2015 Assembly already violates much of the sovereignty theater through which the revolution previously justified itself.

Her real prohibitions are more practical. She cannot accept a settlement that fractures the military, dismantles the governing coalition, exposes its leadership without guarantees, or leaves chavismo incapable of competing in the order that follows. This is regime learning: not preserving the revolution exactly as it existed, but reducing the meaning of survival till it becomes achievable. If chavismo retains its organization, protects much of its elite and remains a viable electoral force, it can describe retreat as continuity.

The opposition is conducting a retreat of its own. It once insisted that the sovereignty expressed in 2024 had already resolved who should govern Venezuela. It is now negotiating the conditions under which Venezuelans may be allowed to decide that question again.

The two sides are not choosing freely between victory and defeat. They are negotiating the distance between two defeats and deciding which concessions each can successfully rename as victory.

Washington’s role goes well beyond providing the room and the refreshments. Delcy Rodríguez is interim president because the United States chose continuity under Maduro’s vice president over an immediate transfer of power to the leadership produced by the 2024 election. Venezuelan institutions administered the oath, but American recognition made that continuity politically viable.

Dinorah Figuera’s return to relevance followed an equally American route. She did not reemerge because a renewed domestic constituency demanded her leadership or because the forces behind the 2024 campaign selected her as their representative. One of her first consequential official appearances after years of political obscurity was a meeting with Michael Kozak at the State Department. She later returned to Venezuela at Washington’s invitation and became Jorge Rodríguez’s counterpart.

Washington helped produce both sides of the table. It accepted Delcy as the administrator of the interim order and activated Dinorah as the institutional representative needed to negotiate with it.

That does not make either woman a simple American puppet. Delcy controls the state machinery required to implement or sabotage any agreement. Dinorah can withhold the opposition stamp Washington needs to sell Trump’s latest South American peace project. But both operate inside a structure whose outer limits appear to have been drawn elsewhere.

The revival of the 2015 National Assembly is understandable. Delcy possesses effective authority but lacks democratic legitimacy. Her government can implement reforms and enforce agreements. What it cannot provide by itself is a convincing democratic chain of authorization.

The 2015 Assembly offers the missing signature. It remains, at least internationally, Venezuela’s last legitimately constituted national institution. Its participation can make institutional appointments, economic agreements and the broader reopening of the country look less like arrangements reached exclusively between Washington and the surviving chavista elite. That matters to governments, creditors and corporations seeking reassurance that future democratic authorities will not repudiate everything agreed during the interim.

But legal usefulness is not political legitimacy.

The Assembly elected in 2015 was a broad and plural legislature supported by millions of Venezuelans. The body negotiating today is a diminished delegated commission represented by only part of the coalition that originally composed it. Its leaders possess little independent national recognition, and the institution itself is deeply unpopular.

Its problem is not merely that it cannot enforce its decisions. For years, it often declined to act at all. It preserved itself as a constitutional necessity while withdrawing from political life, avoiding renewal and becoming increasingly detached from the society it claimed to represent. It remained alive enough to retain recognition and administer assets, but too frozen to lead.

It has now thawed itself back into relevance because Washington needs its pedigree.

Democratic legitimacy cannot simply be placed in constitutional cryogenic storage and reheated intact. The 2015 Assembly survived by refusing to die. It did not spend those years proving that it knew what to do next.

Primero Justicia has tried to bridge that gap by claiming that the delegated commission represents the sovereignty expressed in the 2024 election. But the commission was not elected in 2024, was not selected by the leadership of that campaign and does not represent the full coalition that supported it. The same communiqué reaffirms the leadership of María Corina Machado and Edmundo González while welcoming their willingness to observe a process they have publicly refused to buy into sight unseen.

The contradiction is striking. The people said to embody the country’s current democratic mandate are assigned the role of observers while an older institutional remnant claims to negotiate in their name.

Yet María Corina is not simply outside the process. She may be formally locked out of the negotiating room, but continues to have a relationship with both Trump and Rubio, based at least on her perceived importance. Dinorah has procedural access to the table. María Corina retains strategic access to the people who arranged it.

That may be intentional. Keeping Machado outside allows the delegated commission to absorb the least attractive compromises over sequencing, guarantees and appointments. It preserves her political capital for the moment when the settlement requires popular endorsement. If the process succeeds, she can validate its results without defending every concession. If it fails, she can truthfully say that she neither designed nor controlled it.

But Washington may be delusional if it believes Dinorah Figuera and Jorge Rodríguez can emerge from a closed room, announce an agreement and expect Venezuelan society to accept it without Machado’s endorsement. Their signatures may produce legal validity. Washington may provide international recognition. Foreign corporations may decide that the arrangement offers enough reassurance to begin investing.

Neither Dinorah nor Jorge can manufacture a national constituency.

The mechanism is an attempt to assemble a legitimacy that none of its participants possesses alone. Delcy supplies control of the state. The 2015 Assembly supplies constitutional pedigree. Washington supplies leverage and guarantees. María Corina supplies contemporary popular legitimacy. The problem is that the last component remains outside the formal process and has not promised to endorse whatever it produces.

August 1 does not need to resolve Venezuela’s political crisis. It does need to establish whether this mechanism can produce anything beyond the language of its communiqués. Its credibility will not come from another declaration of democratic intentions, but from evidence that someone can compel chavismo to share power with forces outside its orbit. The first test is not simply whether the parties promise another election. As chavismo reminds us at every opportunity, Venezuela has held plenty of those. The real test is whether the country can move credibly beyond replacing red chavismo with a poorly disguised blue version of the same political order.

The first meaningful agreement should not merely tell Venezuelans when they might vote. It should begin dismantling the police state we somehow cannot escape, even under American tutelage. Without the freedom to speak, organize, report and return without fear, another election would merely place a democratic label over the same machinery of control.

The organizers must also explain what they are asking the country to trust. If this is a negotiation, they should say what remains negotiable. If it is a dialogue, they should identify who participates and what authority the table possesses. If it is an implementation mechanism, Washington should disclose the roadmap being implemented. And if it is genuinely a transition, someone must eventually announce the date on which the interim order ends.

Venezuela cannot stand another communiqué because communiqués allow everyone to declare intentions without assuming ownership. Dinorah Figuera and Jorge Rodríguez may be able to sign an agreement. Washington may guarantee it. María Corina Machado may eventually persuade Venezuelans to give it a chance.

But only results can turn it into a transition.

Hope may be vigilant. Legitimacy is less patient.

July 28 (UPI) — Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was set to meet U.S. President Donald Trump in the White House on Tuesday to seek U.S. support to defend Ukrainian cities against Russian ballistic missiles, as well as a broader partnership to help hasten the end of the war.

In a post on X shortly after he arrived in Washington on Monday night, Zelensky said the top priority for Ukraine was “anti-ballistic defense and strategic cooperation with America.”

“Peace needs to be brought closer,” wrote Zelensky.

The talks come days after a conference call between Zelensky and his negotiating team and Trump envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner on how to kickstart stalled diplomatic efforts to bring peace closer and three weeks after a Trump-Zelensky meeting in Turkey.

Trump used the meeting on the sidelines of NATO’s annual summit to praise the way Ukraine was prosecuting the war and announce that he wanted to give Ukraine rights to manufacture Patriot air-defense missiles.

A worldwide shortage of missiles for the U.S.-made Patriot air-defense batteries has degraded Ukraine’s ability to defend itself amid a sustained Russian airborne campaign targeting Ukraine’s cities with highly destructive ballistic missiles in recent months.

Zelensky said he would also join Trump and other world leaders at Washington National Cathedral for the funeral of the late Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a staunch supporter of Ukraine who passed away suddenly July 11 on his return from a trip to Kyiv.

“On behalf of all of Ukraine, we will honor the memory of Senator Lindsey Graham. Together with everyone attending the ceremony in Washington, we will remember his commitment to security and freedom across the transatlantic community and around the world,” said Zelensky.

Graham had just secured Trump’s backing for a long-delayed bipartisan bill imposing tough new secondary sanctions targeting Russia that he introduced along with Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., in the U.S. Senate in April 2025.

In recognition of Graham, his Senate colleagues vowed to expedite the passage of his Sanctioning Russia Act, albeit a version that waters down the 500% tariff he wanted imposed on the imports of countries that purchase Russian oil and natural gas.

A first procedural vote was scheduled for later Tuesday with Zelensky expected to meet with senators afterward.

THIS is the shocking moment former glamour model Katie Price left her son Junior mortified as she talked about her “hairy bits.”

Katie made the comments on series three of her daughter’s show The Princess Diaries after finally being “allowed” to film.

During a glamping trip with her kids, Katie was asked by Princess when she started her first business.

The 48-year-old confessed she launched raunchy ironing board covers when she was just 18.

Katie said: “Ironing board covers. When you iron it, I go naked. Sorry Junior.”

“I’m doing my beauty range at 18 and that’s when you started,” said Princess.

wild ROMANCE

Princess Andre can’t keep up with ‘extreme’ mum Katie Price’s marriage to Lee

ring riddle

Katie Price’s wedding ring back ON in Lee Andrews drama & divorce lawyer chat

Katie replied: “That’s what I mean you’re following in my footsteps.”

Speaking candidly on her mum‘s cheeky venture, Princess said in her confessional: “It’s actually really interesting to hear mum talk about starting to build her career.

“Because like if a girl did that now at 18, it would be classed as very wrong so, it’s two different lives really.”

Podcast host Katie then went on to leave her kids – specifically Junior – gobsmacked by a surprise revelation.

She announced: “I had bit of a hairy muff back then though.”

Junior, who is following in his dad Peter’s footsteps as a singer, put his head in his hands.

Shaking his head he said: “Oh my god!”

Katie didn’t stop there, she added: “It was because I had red bikini on and the ironing board cover would take it off and I had like a little triangle.”

Junior said: “Mate that I…I don’t like…”

“It’s part of your mum’s journey and after that I bought out cups with me topless on them,” added Katie.

Mortified Junior decided to remain silent as his mum opened up on her sexy merch.

This comes as Katie has finally been “allowed” to film the show after previously being banned from production.

After fallout from Princess’ dad and his wife Emily being allowed on the show they both took a step back to avoid further drama.

Following Katie and Peter’s truce back in February, Princess hinted that both her parents would feature in series three – which they have.

In March, she said: “I mean, the good thing is now, obviously, my mum and dad have come out with an agreement to be fine.

“So hopefully season three, they will actually both be in it which is amazing. It’s so good now because there is just no issues.”

US President Donald Trump says talks with Iran are continuing during a pause in US military strikes, adding he believes there is ‘a good chance’ of a breakthrough but warning military action could resume if negotiations fail.

Chelsea are in advanced talks to sign Brighton striker Danny Welbeck.

The 35-year-old is keen on moving to Stamford Bridge and there is optimism from Chelsea‘s side that a deal can be concluded.

The Blues are looking for experience because of an acceptance that their model of signing young players needs a “tweak” – according to influential owner Behdad Eghbali in April – and Welbeck could be a good fit.

He scored a career-high 13 league goals in 37 games for Brighton last season, taking his tally to 51 goals in 201 matches since joining from Watford in 2020.

Brighton have declined to comment.

Welbeck signed a 12-month contract extension in March, with his current deal running until the end of the 2026-27 season.

There are questions over the futures of several Chelsea forwards, with Joao Pedro regarded as the club’s first-choice option.

Chelsea also have Liam Delap, Emmanuel Emegha, Marc Guiu and Nicolas Jackson on their books.

Guiu is understood to be available for either a permanent transfer or a loan move, with Chelsea valuing him at about £25m.

Jackson, who has returned to the club following a loan spell at Bayern Munich, was expected to remain at Stamford Bridge but is open to leaving amid interest from Aston Villa.

Delap was keen to establish himself under the new manager just a year after his £30m move from Ipswich, but he is increasingly expected to depart.

There is also uncertainty surrounding the future of Dutch striker Emegha, despite having only recently joined Chelsea from Strasbourg, a club within the same ownership group.

Chelsea have signed club-record £117m attacker Morgan Rogers, full-back Marco Palestra and are closing in on a move for centre-back Maxence Lacroix this summer.

President Donald Trump has paused attacks on Iran for the second night in a row to give diplomacy more time, the US ambassador to the UN said.

Speaking to Fox News on Sunday, ambassador Mike Waltz said the president was “giving talks some space, he’s giving it a little bit of room”.

An Iranian army spokesperson said on Sunday that Tehran had halted “retaliatory” attacks in the region in response.

The pause follows nearly two weeks of daily US strikes and tit-for-tat attacks, effectively unravelling the ceasefire struck in June.

Asked whether Trump had decided against escalation for now, Waltz told NBC: “I wouldn’t go that far at all. The president is keeping all options on the table.”

Waltz also rejected reports in the New York Times, external that administration officials had warned expanding hostilities could dangerously drain a diminished stockpile of air defence munitions.

“The US military… has everything that it needs to conduct this campaign as effectively as it needs to be,” he said.

As of Sunday evening, Trump had not spoken publicly on the latest developments, but earlier posted computer-generated images on his Truth Social account that depicted US military planes bombing Iranian ships and Kharg island.

Meanwhile, Iran and Oman held several rounds of technical talks in Tehran on Friday and Saturday to discuss management of the Strait of Hormuz, according to Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei.

Disputes over control of the strait reignited US-Iran tensions earlier this month and it remains a major block to permanently ending the war.

Iran and the US signed a memorandum of understanding in June to halt military operations and reopen the strait, as well as to reach an agreement to end the war over the following 60 days.

But after Iranian forces attacked tankers in the Strait of Hormuz on 13 July, the US resumed airstrikes on the country and reinstated its naval blockade on Iranian ports.

Iran retaliated with attacks on US military facilities and bases across the Middle East, killing four American soldiers. The US strikes have since killed dozens of people, according to Iran’s health ministry.

In the UK, new Defence Secretary Wes Streeting said he would meet his US counterpart Pete Hegseth in the coming week to discuss the strait, which is one of the world’s key transport routes for oil, liquid natural gas and other essential commodities.

“When it comes to securing maritime freedom and free commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, that’s where we are absolutely aligned,” Streeting told the BBC.

Earlier this week, oil prices hit $100 a barrel for the first time since May, as the renewed fighting stoked fears over global energy supplies.

As the war nears its fifth month, it remains largely unpopular in the US, with a new poll from CBS/YouGov suggesting 57% of Americans are frustrated about the conflict and only 19% optimistic.

Thousands of people have been killed across the Middle East since the US-Israeli war with Iran began in February, official figures show, with the vast majority coming from Iran and Lebanon.

President Trump is set to meet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the White House on Tuesday.

Tehran, Iran – A public rift has emerged between Iran’s government and state television over how to portray the state of war and negotiations with the United States, as mediators try to nudge both countries towards diplomacy.

The Government Information Council on Friday accused state broadcaster IRIB of “censorship” after parts of a speech by President Masoud Pezeshkian earlier in the week were not shown to the public.

The broadcaster, whose head is appointed by the supreme leader, issued a response on Saturday rejecting the government’s “accusations and improper attributions”, and emphasised that it has a duty to prevent “an incorrect and unreal suggestion of duality in the country’s leadership pillars”.

In his speech, Pezeshkian had pointed out that after last year’s 12-day war with Israel, former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei publicly said there would be no negotiations with Washington – but privately had given his approval.

“We went to the dear leader, explained the situation, and asked him what to do since he had said the ‘no war, no peace’ conditions are bad for the country,” the president said. “He ordered us to go negotiate. We started the talks based on his order.”

The government said in its statement the move to cut that section of the speech was part of a series of “unusual actions” taken by state television concerning recent comments made by the heads of the government, parliament and judiciary.

It pointed out that earlier this month, a part of the parliament speaker and chief negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf’s interview with state television dealing with negotiations had also been cut. The government council added that a part of a speech earlier this week by judiciary head Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejei was not aired either, in which he expressed backing for the president.

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has also separately criticised IRIB, saying during an interview with a state-linked outlet released on Saturday that he “fought with a sword” in wartime interviews with US media such as Fox, CNN and others. The chief diplomat said he expected state television to show how Iran’s case was being strongly presented to US audiences and policymakers, but only one or two subtitles from the interviews ended up going on air.

Araghchi also rejected a notion raised by hardliners that the now-suspended memorandum of understanding signed with the US last month was “imposed” on new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, as some hardliners have claimed. He characterised it as the best possible agreement under the circumstances.

In its own statement, the government blamed the actions on “a political faction within” state television, in an apparent reference to the Paydari Front of ultrahardliners, and said their actions could serve to undermine national security and social cohesion.

IRIB, in a statement published by its public relations department, countered that broadcasting the president’s segment would have propagated an appearance of division.

Both sides accused each other of undermining the decree issued last week by Mojtaba Khamenei to reach a “sacred unity” in face of military, economic and diplomatic pressure by the US.

Mohammad Mirzaei, a member of parliament and spokesperson of a committee tasked with exerting oversight on IRIB, said on Saturday that directors of the state broadcaster have been warned about the necessity to display different viewpoints and to act as a “sign of national unity”.

Conservative journalist Mohammad Mohajeri told local media that the broadcaster is now at its most expensive and least effective. Reformist activist Mohammad-Sadegh Javadi-Hesar described the deeper problem as “one government being installed and another government called IRIB operating against it”.

Reformist Entekhab news outlet reported, citing an unnamed source, that Pezeshkian sharply reprimanded IRIB chief Peyman Jebeli at a cabinet meeting after the row over the negotiations. Jebeli, who was appointed by Ali Khamenei in 2021, was media deputy at the Supreme National Security Council when Saeed Jalili, the only council member said to have voted against an interim deal with the US last month, was its secretary.

Hardline lawmaker Meysam Zohourian said the president has threatened to cut state television’s budget, but the administration has not confirmed this.

As the public sparring unfolded, mediators from Oman were in Tehran on Friday to discuss the management of the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway whose control has become a central point of contention between the US and Iran.

US President Donald Trump argued on Friday the war was going “extremely well” and that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will visit Washington in the coming days.

He said the two sides continued to talk through mediators, but that he did not expect any agreement soon.

The US president also refused to answer whether realising his threat of systematically attacking power plants and bridges in Iran in case of a war escalation would constitute war crimes.

Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr, the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, on Saturday responded by saying missile and drone launches across the region will continue “until the full surrender of the enemy” and avenging the blood of civilians killed during the war.

Trump says the US remains ‘locked and loaded’ while pursuing talks with Iran, as Tehran reports strikes on US bases in Kuwait, Bahrain and Jordan.

Leaders of India’s youth-led “Cockroach” movement are set to hold talks with government representatives on Friday in an effort to resolve a growing political crisis triggered by national examination paper leaks. Despite the dialogue, protest leaders have made clear that nationwide demonstrations will continue until their key demands, including the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, are met.

The negotiations come after activist Sonam Wangchuk ended a 26-day hunger strike overnight, raising hopes of a possible breakthrough in the weeks-long standoff that has brought tens of thousands of young protesters to the streets of New Delhi.

The movement has become the biggest youth-led challenge to Prime Minister Narendra Modi since he first took office in 2014. Opposition parties have backed the protesters’ demands and disrupted the ongoing monsoon session of parliament, turning the issue into one of the most significant political crises of Modi’s third term.

Government and Protest Leaders Prepare for Talks

Representatives of the self-styled Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), which emerged from an online satirical movement into a nationwide protest campaign, will meet government ministers at a neutral venue.

CJP spokesperson Saurav Das said the movement hoped the government would engage seriously with protesters’ concerns.

“We hope that the government comes with an open mind and listens to the people of this country who have been on the streets for so long,” Das told reporters. “We will explain our demands in greater detail, and we hope the government will respond positively.”

However, he stressed that negotiations would not halt the movement.

“We are not backing out,” Das said. “Real change begins at the grassroots, and that is exactly what we intend to continue.”

Education Minister’s Resignation Remains Central Demand

While the government has indicated its willingness to continue discussions, protesters insist accountability must begin with the removal of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.

Thousands gathered again at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar protest site on Thursday, where demonstrators vowed to remain until Pradhan resigns.

“We will continue protesting until Dharmendra Pradhan is removed,” protester Sudesh Singh said. “If we stop now, we compromise the future of millions of students.”

The demonstrations were sparked after authorities cancelled the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET), India’s highly competitive medical entrance examination, following the discovery that question papers had been leaked. Nearly two million students were affected by the cancellation, triggering widespread anger over repeated failures in India’s examination system.

From Online Satire to National Movement

The Cockroach Janta Party began as an online satirical campaign involving only a few hundred young supporters. It rapidly evolved into a nationwide movement after the examination scandal, attracting millions of followers on social media and drawing large crowds to protests across the country.

Monday’s march toward parliament saw tens of thousands of protesters defy restrictions before clashes broke out with police, who used tear gas and batons to disperse demonstrators.

Further confrontations occurred on Wednesday night when more than 10,000 people gathered in central Delhi.

Analysts say the movement reflects broader frustrations among India’s youth over limited employment opportunities, repeated examination scandals and declining confidence in public institutions.

Security Tightened Across the Capital

Authorities have significantly increased security measures around the protests.

The Delhi Metro Rail Corporation announced that 17 metro stations in central Delhi would remain closed again on Friday, marking the third major shutdown of the capital’s transport network this week.

Mobile internet services around the protest area were also disrupted, with Reuters journalists reporting patchy connectivity throughout Friday morning.

Officials say the restrictions are necessary to maintain public order, though protesters argue they are intended to suppress demonstrations.

Government Plans Legal Reforms

Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced on Thursday that his cabinet would consider legislation aimed at strengthening punishment for those responsible for examination paper leaks.

The proposed amendments would seek faster prosecutions and tougher penalties for individuals involved in leaking examination papers.

Protest leaders, however, argue that stricter punishments alone will not solve the problem.

They say systemic reforms are needed to restore confidence in India’s examination process and prevent future leaks before they occur.

Political Stakes Continue to Rise

The protests have quickly evolved from a dispute over examination integrity into a broader political challenge.

Opposition parties, led by the Congress Party, have embraced the movement’s demands, seeing an opportunity to pressure Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) ahead of several important state elections scheduled for next year, including contests in Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat and Punjab.

Political analysts warn that the growing movement could reshape India’s political landscape if the government fails to address the concerns of young voters, who form a crucial part of the BJP’s electoral base.

The protests have also been accompanied by an unprecedented surge in online criticism, memes and satire targeting Modi, reflecting what observers describe as diminishing public hesitation to openly challenge one of India’s most influential political leaders.

Friday’s talks may provide the first opportunity for both sides to de-escalate the crisis, but with demonstrations set to continue regardless of the outcome, pressure on the government is unlikely to ease in the near term.

With information from Reuters.

The ongoing saga of the Cinerama Dome, among the most iconic movie theaters in Los Angeles, took another twist Tuesday. Reports surfaced that Sony and Alamo Drafthouse, the theater chain owned by the company, have been in talks to take over operation of the venue.

The theater and the adjacent 14-screen ArcLight Hollywood multiplex have been closed since March 2020. In April 2021 it was announced that the venue would not be reopening and it has sat dormant ever since, becoming the focus of intense public interest.

The news of Sony and Alamo’s interest in the property was first reported by Deadline. Representatives for Sony did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

A city hearing in May regarding alcohol sales at the site provided a rare opportunity for public comment on the property.

“I know that this has been hard and it has seemed like the citizens versus the ownership — that’s not what it is,” local preservation advocate Kim Cooper said. “People want to come together and help and bring this place back.”

The Dome has long been owned by the family of William R. Forman — the founder of Pacific Theatres — who opened the Dome in 1963. In an interview with The Times following the May meeting, Elizabeth Peterson-Gower, a land use consultant representing the venue’s owners, said the owners hoped to have a reopening time frame “in the near future.”

Sony purchased the Austin, Texas-based Alamo Drafthouse in 2024, with venues in major cities all across the U.S., including L.A. Though the Drafthouse chain was rooted in a fan-friendly ethos and a notoriously strict no-phones policy in its theaters, the company has recently come under fire for switching up the ordering system for its in-seat food service, forcing patrons to pull out their phones during a movie.

The Cinerama Dome news comes on the heels of a strong summer of moviegoing, as audiences have been flocking to theaters to see movies such as “The Odyssey,” “Toy Story 5,” “Backrooms” and “Obsession.” There has been a newfound attention on theatrical presentation and film formats, including the limited number of venues capable of projecting Imax 70mm or 70mm film, around the country.

Theatergoing in L.A. has been undergoing a renaissance of its own. The Alex Theatre in Glendale is showing a first-run movie with “The Odyssey” for the first time since 1991, while the American Cinematheque has relaunched the Village Theatre in Westwood under the new name the Directors Village to acknowledge the consortium of filmmakers who took over ownership.

Meeting with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun at the White House, US President Trump said he is open to direct talks with Hezbollah if requested by Lebanon. He pledged continued US support for the country.

The consortium is led by British-Indian investor Amit Bhatia, the son-in-law of Indian steel billionaire Lakshmi Mittal.

Liverpool are in talks with British-Indian investor Amit Bhatia over a potential deal for a minority stake in the Premier League football club.

Fenway Sports Group (FSG), Liverpool’s United States-based owner, confirmed the approach from Bhatia’s group on Tuesday.

“An investment consortium led, managed, and represented by Amit Bhatia has expressed interest in making a strategic minority investment in Liverpool Football Club,” an FSG spokesperson told the AFP news agency.

Bhatia, the son-in-law of Indian steel billionaire Lakshmi Mittal, is heading a consortium interested in buying into the 20-time English champions.

The Financial Times reported that Bhatia has hired advisers to work on the offer, which the newspaper said could value Liverpool at more than $6bn.

Just hours after Bhatia’s interest in Liverpool emerged, the London-born 46-year-old stepped down from his role as a director and co-owner of English Championship side Queens Park Rangers (QPR).

Bhatia, who spent 18 seasons with the west Londoners, will transfer his ownership of the club to majority owner Ruben Gnanalingam.

“I step back from my formal responsibilities with pride, gratitude and affection. I want to thank the players, managers, staff, the community trust, my fellow board members and, above all, the fans, who have made me and my family feel part of the QPR family for so many years,” Bhatia said.

Bhatia’s discussions with FSG – who bought Liverpool for 300 million British pounds ($400m) in 2010 – are believed to be at an early stage, with no deal struck yet.

Any investment from Bhatia would be made to further position Liverpool for success, following FSG’s move in 2023 to sell a minority stake in the club to global sports investment firm Dynasty.

Reports at the time valued that transaction between $100m and $200m.

If Guardiola was ready to return to management, would the English Football Association make an approach?

England have just finished third in the World Cup, their highest position in a men’s tournament since winning it in 1966.

However, boss Thomas Tuchel has been widely criticised after the 2-1 semi-final loss to Argentina as his defensive substitutions were perceived to have contributed to the Three Lions being unable to hold on to their 1-0 advantage.

Tuchel, 52, signed a two-year contract extension in February having been appointed in January 2025 and retains the backing of the FA.

But former England captain Wayne Rooney felt the FA might “go and get” Guardiola if he is available.

“I don’t see anyone else out there at the minute, unless you go and get Pep Guardiola. If Pep is available, then maybe you go and get him,” Rooney said on The Wayne Rooney Show after England’s loss to Argentina.

“If we sack him [Tuchel], what managers are we going to bring in? And I don’t think there’s anyone out there who’s as good as Thomas Tuchel, unless Guardiola.”

The FA approached Guardiola before appointing Tuchel, with reports suggesting there was a verbal agreement, external in place, with Guardiola remaining at Manchester City.

During his decade in England, Guardiola won 20 trophies, including the Premier League six times, the FA Cup on three occasions, the League Cup five times and the Community Shield three times.

He also won the Champions League in 2023, following that with the Uefa Super Cup and the Fifa Club World Cup.

Thinking back on the last two years of his life full of album releases, filming schedules and tour dates, Finn Wolfhard requires squint-inducing concentration to keep it all straight.

“Jesus, a lot has happened,” he says, looking surprised. That’s an understatement.

In that time, the 23-year-old not only finished filming the Netflix hit show “Stranger Things,” which catapulted him to global stardom, and promoted the final season upon its premiere. He also released his feature film directorial debut (“Hell of a Summer,” co-directed with Billy Bryk, which hit theaters in April 2025). Then, he starred in another movie (A24’s creature feature “The Legend of Ochi”), directed a posthumous George Harrison stop-motion music video, wrote, recorded and put out his first solo album (“Happy Birthday”), and embarked on a 22-date tour before recording a new album.

On a video call from his family home in Vancouver, Canada, where he lives with his parents and older brother, he’s chatting about the release of that record, the eclectic, guitar-driven “Fire From the Hip,” which dropped Friday.

“I think it’s a nice day?” he offers when I ask what’s happening in Vancouver. “I don’t know. I’ve been in my basement studio all day, so I don’t … I think it’s nice.”

He’s been down in the basement doing press calls like this, he explains, undoubtedly a familiar routine after so many years in the limelight. He wears a baseball cap and an oversize brown sweater, tugging on the sleeves while he ponders.

Even if Wolfhard is exhausted by the press marathon, he doesn’t show it. He’s excited for the chance to be known on his own terms. He never fails to express gratitude for the projects that afforded him recognition and opportunity, but he’s ready to “take control of the narrative.”

“I spent my whole childhood standing on marks that other people told me to stand on and saying lines that other people told me to say,” he says. “Why wouldn’t I want to make my own stuff?”

Being in control also means being the face of the operation. Before “Happy Birthday” and “Fire From the Hip,” Wolfhard released a total of two records and an EP, plus a whole bunch of singles, with his previous bands, Calpurnia and the Aubreys. Being in a band was a natural fit for Wolfhard, who thrives in an ensemble where he can “hide behind the band name.”

Touring last year was his first time seeing his own name on the marquee.

“It’s just straight up me, and if I suck, I suck,” he laughs. “It’s not like I can be like, ‘Oh, man, we’re having disagreements in the band.’ It’s like, no, that’s you. So there was a little more pressure early on.”

Finn Wolfhard released “Fire From the Hip” on Friday.

(Victoria Stevens)

Stepping into the spotlight required Wolfhard, who admits he shies away from conflict, to own both the pressure and the power of being the one audiences came to hear.

When he got sick and had to cancel a show in Portland, Ore., he remembers feeling crushingly sad “letting down” his fans and bandmates — who, of course, assured him it was outside of his control and urged him not to be so hard on himself.

Wolfhard introduced many of the songs that ended up becoming “Fire From the Hip” to his bandmates while they were still on tour, and he says playing them live “cultivated the spirit” of the eventual recordings. Despite his collaborative ethos, there was a moment during the process where he had to learn how to put his foot down in real time.

“I remember suggesting something and people being like, ‘Ah, I don’t know if I want to do that.’ And I was like, ‘No, you don’t get to do that to me. It’s my record,’” he remembers. “It was very innocent — I don’t think there was much ego on either side. But I think I maybe set up too collaborative of an experience that day.”

“I think I sometimes make it feel like a democracy, which it is in a lot of ways,” he adds. “But also, in the end, it is up to me.”

That thought is echoed in the album’s cover art, an image of two miniature Finn Wolfhards facing off, donning colonial garb and brandishing weapons. It’s meant to represent dueling impulses inside of him, he explains.

Wolfhard, a true-blue music nerd, has been described online as an archetypical example of the “child of a Gen X cool dad,” in the same vein as Olivia Rodrigo. (His dad, a former screenwriter turned lawyer and Indigenous rights researcher, does sound cool, but it was his mom who first introduced him to the Beatles. His parents apparently met over a Stone Roses record.)

That sensibility is evident in his musical influences — “I wanted everything [on drums] to sound like the first two Wilco records,” he says — and in his approach to recording. “Happy Birthday” was recorded almost entirely on four-track cassette tapes, while “Fire From the Hip” uses 24-track reel-to-reel.

The album runs the gamut from its cheeky, surf-rock opener “I’ll Let You Finish” (yes, that is a reference to Kanye West’s infamous speech at the 2009 VMAs) to more ’90s alt-inspired tunes to a surprising dose of straightforward country-folk.

Lyrically, Wolfhard divides his songs into two categories: the “very personal” and the story songs written around books he was reading (“Knockemstiff” by Donald Ray Pollock) or quotes that made him laugh. The personal themes he explores are exactly what you would expect from an early-20s rocker raised in the public eye — namely, relationship expectations and existential fears about the future.

On the nostalgic piano ballad “Good Morning,” he imagines what it might be like to settle down somewhere “with a dog and a wife.”

“I haven’t lived that part of my life yet,” he says now. “So I can really easily get lost in thinking about what that looks like.”

When it comes to sharing his music, especially the more vulnerable tracks, Wolfhard knows his “Stranger Things” fame is the elephant in the room. Anything he sings can and might be used against him in the court of public opinion.

“I could either kind of say nothing and be totally private, because it is scary knowing that everything I say, at least one person will take it a certain way that I wouldn’t want them to. But I just don’t have the control,” he says.

“So if I don’t have the control, then there’s nothing really that I can do, other than try to be as truthful and passionate and well-meaning as I possibly can, you know?”

The double-edged sword of fandom hasn’t stopped Wolfhard or his musically-inclined “Stranger Things” co-stars from pursuing this path. Fellow Hawkins alums Joe Keery (who releases music under the moniker Djo) and Maya Hawke are indie darlings in their own right, and Wolfhard has previously referred to Keery as a mentor. None of them face the unique challenge of relatability in quite the same way, however.

“I’m aware that my specific problems are maybe not as relatable because of how specific of a life I have,” he said. “The only thing I can hope for is that some other person out there listens to it and relates to the same things that I do.”

Sometimes an air of wistfulness accompanies these admissions. When asked about how he feels about Los Angeles, he tells me that it’s complicated: “I think if I wasn’t a young actor, it would be a very different situation.” His favorite parts of the city are its repertory cinemas and lush neighborhoods like Mount Washington, where his godfather resides, because they look the most like Vancouver.

That said, he’s not through with Hollywood. He’ll be back in L.A. for an Oct. 13 show at the Fonda Theatre, and acting and directing are still on the agenda. He would like his next film project — other than the Matt Johnson and Bong Joon Ho projects he’s already committed to, of course — to be something more “personal.”

For now, though, the focus is music. Wolfhard launches a new tour this month, and he’s most looking forward to “doing dumb s—” with his friends.

He tells a quick story to illustrate: When he and the band last toured in Glasgow, Scotland, he was trying to leave the venue without being noticed. (“I have a hard time dealing with fan interaction,” he says.)

“We kind of made it into this joke thing, knowing it wouldn’t work, where me and Rand, my guitarist, were like, ‘let’s switch clothes.’ Rand pretended to be me and I pretended to be Rand,” he says. Miraculously, it worked up until the “very last second” before they stepped on the bus.

“I couldn’t help myself,” he says: He instinctively made eye contact with someone in the crowd. “They did a double take, like, ‘Wait, what?’”

It sounds like a scene straight out of “A Hard Day’s Night” — or maybe inspiration for his next film.

“I’m pretty in my head about things and want them to be a certain way,” he says. “The thing that I have to remind myself all the time is that, like, dude, you’re with your friends, you’re playing music — it’s the best.”

Islamabad, Pakistan – A wooden panelled bookshelf behind him, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif signed the memorandum of understanding (MoU) between the United States and Iran, aimed at extending their ceasefire by creating a pathway towards long-term peace.

Sharif then held up the document for the cameras. That was June 17, the high point of a frenzied diplomatic effort led by Pakistan spanning weeks, which had culminated in the MoU that Sharif signed as a mediator.

Yet less than four weeks later, Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has, in just the past few days, issued two statements expressing “deep concern” over renewed US-Iran hostilities, with the MoU Islamabad had helped pull together seemingly in shreds.

On Monday morning, the US launched the latest in a series of attacks on Iran, which responded by firing missiles and drones at multiple Gulf and Arab nations that it blamed for hosting US military bases.

Hours later, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei told reporters that mediators, including Pakistan, Qatar and Oman, remained engaged and were continuing their efforts, even as he warned that Iran would continue responding to what it viewed as US non-compliance with the MoU.

So far, those efforts have failed to slow down the fighting, even as Pakistan has pressed on with diplomatic outreach.

On Sunday, Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar spoke by phone with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, telling him that dialogue and diplomacy remained “the only viable path” to resolving the crisis.

Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif also spoke to Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Friday, warning that “hard-earned” peace gains were at risk, while Dar held a separate call on Saturday with Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud.

To many analysts, one question, above all, now stares at Pakistan and other mediators like Qatar: With the deep distrust between the US and Iran only further expanding following the new bout of fighting, can Islamabad or any other capital once again bring Washington and Tehran back to the negotiating table?

Repeated breakdowns

The renewed fighting marks at least the third occasion since the US-Iran ceasefire signed on April 8 appeared to have collapsed.

Days after that truce was agreed on, the breakdown of the first round of Islamabad talks led to the US imposing a naval blockade on Iranian ships in the Strait of Hormuz. The US and Iran both attacked ships in the days that followed.

Then, after the MoU was signed on June 17, Iran attacked several ships that it claimed were passing through the Strait of Hormuz without its permission, prompting another escalation with Washington.

But the Iranian tanker strikes last week appear to have raised tensions to new heights.

US attacks on Iran since then have hit at least 10 provinces, killing a soldier, several fishermen in the southern province of Hormozgan, and a firefighter in Sistan and Baluchestan, according to Iranian authorities.

A railway bridge on a trade corridor linking Iran with Central Asia and China was also struck, along with a bridge near Mashhad used by mourners travelling to former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s funeral.

The renewed hostilities have also pulled Qatar, a fellow mediator alongside Pakistan, more directly into the conflict. On Sunday, Iranian missiles and drones hit the Gulf state, with debris from interceptions injuring three people, including a child, according to Qatar’s Ministry of Interior.

Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has accused Washington of violating “nearly all parts” of the June agreement within 25 days of its signing, citing attacks on transport infrastructure and fishing vessels.

Baghaei said on Monday that Iran had “acted in good faith” throughout, but that “each time the other party has failed to meet its obligations, we did not uphold ours, and we will continue to act in this manner.”

Since the war began on February 28, Islamabad has played the role of mediator.

It hosted talks in April, the first time in four decades that US and Iranian officials sat in a room together.

Its army chief and interior minister have travelled to Tehran several times. In late March, Pakistan also helped secure a Chinese-backed peace framework alongside its own diplomatic efforts.

In June, it helped produce the MoU signed by Pezeshkian and US President Donald Trump, along with Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, which was then discussed at the Burgenstock summit in Switzerland.

Yet analysts say Pakistan lacks the means to enforce the agreements it helps broker.

Javad Heiran-Nia, director of the Persian Gulf Studies Group at the Center for Scientific Research and Middle East Strategic Studies in Tehran, said the MoU was never intended to resolve the underlying dispute.

“The MoU deferred key and substantive issues to future negotiations and functioned primarily as a tactical instrument to halt hostilities and reopen the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping,” he told Al Jazeera.

Iran, he said, sees control of the waterway as “a strategic asset; not merely a coercive lever, but a deterrent tool”, and appears “prepared to accept the risk of war to preserve this strategic advantage”.

Mediators, he added, lack the instruments to resolve the dispute “unless a shift in the balance of power between Iran and the United States emerges as a result of limited military engagements”, pointing to a potential US naval blockade as one of the few developments that could alter the strategic calculus.

Dania Thafer, executive director of the Gulf International Forum in Doha, said Pakistan’s room for manoeuvre had narrowed as both sides hardened their positions over the strait.

“Pakistan is in a situation where it is highly dependent on both parties, as it always has been, but right now, Iran is bent on establishing its control over the Strait of Hormuz,” she told Al Jazeera.

According to Thafer, there is little Pakistan can do to de-escalate while both Washington and Tehran remain in “an escalatory phase”.

“Once they feel they have reached a point where the balance tips in favour of one side or the other, then perhaps they will return to the negotiating table,” she added.

But Qamar Cheema, head of the Islamabad-based Sanober Institute, pushed back on the idea that Pakistan is operating without real tools.

He pointed to US Vice President JD Vance’s recent remarks, where he credited Pakistani Field Marshal Asim Munir’s role in the process, as evidence that Islamabad’s military-diplomatic channel carries real weight in Washington.

Access itself, he argued, is the instrument.

“Pakistan enjoys trust, and that’s why both sides pick up the phone and call Pakistani leadership any time to remove a stumbling block,” Cheema told Al Jazeera.

Crowded diplomacy, narrowing options

But Pakistan has not been the only diplomatic channel, and according to Heiran-Nia, the dispute over the strait was never really Islamabad’s to mediate.

“Iran had previously removed the Strait of Hormuz issue from Pakistan’s mediation agenda, as the matter was essentially bilateral between Tehran and Muscat,” he said.

Tehran, he explained, did not want the issue to be “defined within a broader negotiation package under Pakistani auspices, which would have afforded Washington room for political manoeuvre”.

Direct Iran-Oman talks followed, but “US military pressure and economic sanctions threats against Oman have placed Muscat under considerable strain, preventing meaningful progress,” according to the Tehran-based analyst.

Meanwhile, he cautioned that Sunday’s attacks on Qatar “could have adverse effects on Qatar’s mediatory role”, although Doha “does not currently appear inclined to withdraw”, adding that “Iran should not assume that Doha’s patience is limitless.”

Mustafa Hyder Sayed, executive director of the Pakistan-China Institute in Islamabad, described the GCC states as caught in an uncomfortable position.

“The GCC countries are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. They want a functional relationship with Iran while not openly declining the use of their bases and territory by the United States, because they understand they cannot choose their neighbours,” he told Al Jazeera.

Meanwhile, Israel, which is not a party to the MoU, has continued military operations in Lebanon, which Tehran cites as an ongoing violation of the agreement.

Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz said on Saturday that southern Lebanon “would become Gaza”, raising the prospect of further regional escalation.

Who blinks first?

Despite a week of escalating attacks, the core dispute remains unchanged.

Washington and Tehran remain divided over the same issue that stalled negotiations even before the latest round of fighting: Who controls passage through the Strait of Hormuz, and under what conditions?

Iran insists the MoU gave it authority over transit through the waterway. The US disputes that.

On Monday, Trump announced that the US was reinstating a naval blockade of Iranian ships and would charge a 20 percent tariff on all other ships trying to pass through the strait.

Yet, earlier, a possible compromise had briefly emerged.

Heiran-Nia said the parties explored a formula under which commercial vessels would coordinate passage with both Iran and a designated Arab Gulf state, allowing “both parties [to] claim a degree of victory”.

The talks stalled before reaching a conclusion, however, interrupted by the funeral of Iran’s former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, who was killed on the first day of the war in joint US-Israeli air strikes.

The conflict has since moved in the opposite direction, with military action aimed at shifting the balance of power rather than reviving negotiations.

“The prevailing trajectory now is the continuation of military strikes in an effort to shift the balance of power. Yet, there remains a risk that strategic calculations on either side could spiral beyond control,” Heiran-Nia said.

Thafer believes that, despite the violence, neither side has formally abandoned the MoU.

“Iran is framing this current round of escalation as a violation of the MoU rather than a reason to exit it, which means there could still be light at the end of the tunnel,” she said.

In her assessment, both sides bear responsibility for violating the agreement, from Iran’s attacks on shipping to Washington’s revocation of Iran’s oil sale licence and the military attacks. Yet the agreement remains, at least formally, in place.

Its future, she said, depends on which side ultimately gives ground over the strait. Iran retains what Thafer described as a “snapback capability” to disrupt shipping whenever it chooses.

“It is, militarily, very difficult to fully neutralise that Iranian capability. We will have to wait and see where the leverage finally sits,” she said.

Cheema, for his part, argued that Iran’s own conduct, more than any mediator’s diplomacy, is what will decide how this settles.

“Iranian authorities seem ambitious and aggressive, and are looking to take risks to project power, which makes it less likely that any agreement will reach a final conclusion. That means interventions from mediators will keep coming.”

A US trade expert says the US, Mexico, and Canada need to hold trilateral talks to get a cross-border trade deal signed. Ex-lead US international trade negotiator Harry Broadman says the longer it takes Trump to get a trade deal with his neighbours, the weaker he looks to China.

Stephen Libby quit his job as a cyber security consultant after winning The Traitors UK and a source has now claimed fans might see him join the Stricly Come Dancing cast

The Traitors star Stephen Libby is said to be in talks to join the upcoming season of Strictly Come Dancing.

The 32-year-old former cyber security consultant, best known as the co-winner of Series 4 of The Traitors UK, became a fan-favourite on the BBC show due to his strategic gameplay, highly expressive “poker face”, and distinctive 1970s-inspired vintage fashion choices. Stephen and his fellow contestant Rachel Duffy made history as they became the first-ever Traitor duo to successfully split the prize money in the UK version, taking home £47,875 each.

Following his high-profile win, Stephen left his career in cyber security to pursue entertainment full-time. It has now been claimed that the Scottish TV star, originally from the Isle of Lewis in the Outer Hebrides and now based in London, might be joining Strictly Come Dancing.

According to a source, the Strictly casting team believe Stephen could be “a great it” for the show – and if he doesn’t make the cut for this year, he might be considered for 2027, especially if he continues being so popular. Speaking to The Sun, the insider said: “The Strictly casting team have met with Stephen and think he could be a great fit.

“Stephen was hugely popular on The Traitors and since leaving Ardross Castle he has built up a very big fan base. The BBC are always keen to utilise their talent and Stephen is ideal.”

The source added: “No final decision has been made yet but if Stephen doesn’t make the cut this year, he’ll be a key target for the 2027 series – especially if his profile continues to grow as it has.”

Since winning The Traitors, Stephen landed a prominent role on ITV’s This Morning – his assignments included flying to Los Angeles to host red-carpet fashion segments at the Oscars and Elton John’s Academy Award party. Signed by United Agents, he is also booking regular corporate speaking gigs to discuss strategy, human behaviour, and trust.

The Strictly presenting team for the upcoming season will be hosted by a brand-new trio – Emma Willis, Josh Widdicombe, and Johannes Radebe – who are taking over from Tess Daly and Claudia Winkleman. The expert judging panel features returning favourites Shirley Ballas, Motsi Mabuse, Anton Du Beke, and Craig Revel Horwood.

The BBC has officially begun announcing the celebrity cast ahead of the autumn launch on BBC, with social media star Cach Mercer, TV personality Dani Dyer, actor Lacey Turner, singer and actor Delta Goodrem, and celebrity hairstylist Chris Appleton confirmed to be among the contestants.

The Mirror has contacted the BBC and Stephen Libby’s representatives for comment.

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Threads.

Regional mediators are stepping up efforts to prevent further escalation between Iran and the US. Qatar held talks in Tehran, while Oman is proposing a plan to manage shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. Al Jazeera’s Resul Serdar explains.

The Kremlin today confirmed it’s in contact with Turkey over the fate of Ankara’s Russian-made S-400 air defense systems. Reports have emerged that Turkey could soon transfer the controversial missiles to an unnamed Gulf state in a move aimed at convincing Washington to lift sanctions and clear the way for Ankara’s return to the F-35 program.

Asked Friday whether Turkey had sought Russia’s approval for the reported transfer, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov declined to comment on the substance of the report but confirmed Moscow is discussing the issue with Ankara.

“I can say one thing here: this is an extremely sensitive issue. However, we have been in contact with the Turkish side on this matter, and we will continue to maintain contact with them on this issue.”

Reports in the Turkish media say that Ankara is considering transferring its S-400 systems to an unspecified Gulf country, but the Turkish government has not confirmed that.

“According to the information I’ve gathered, the S-400s have been sold to a third country,” journalist Abdulkadir Selvi wrote in the Turkish newspaper Hürriyet on Friday. “The sale will be announced today. The S-400s are going to a country in the Gulf.”

Both the United Arab Emirates and Qatar have been named as potential candidates to receive the systems.

Turkey will announce today the sale of its S-400 batteries to the United Arab Emirates, in order to lift the restrictions on the sale of F-35s to the country.

— Amit Segal (@AmitSegal) July 10, 2026

There were indications at the NATO Summit in Ankara earlier this week that the United States was considering softening its stance on the issue of F-35s for Turkey.

“Why wouldn’t we do that?” U.S. President Trump said when asked if he would let Turkey back into the program. “Turkey, in many ways, has been much more loyal than other countries that we think would be loyal.”

Nevertheless, Turkey’s possession of the S-400 remains a sticking point.

Turkey was removed from the F-35 program in 2019 despite being a manufacturing partner and planning to buy around 100 aircraft after refusing to abandon its purchase of the S-400.

Washington took that decision after Turkey refused to abandon its purchase of S-400 systems, amid security concerns around the Russian-made system and the F-35. By that time, around 30 F-35As had been built for Turkey. Most of these were later transferred to the U.S. Air Force.

It now seems that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is willing to give up the S-400s to regain access to the F-35 program.

Turkey bought the S-400 in 2017, but the systems have reportedly spent most of their service life in storage. Separate reports have also questioned the S-400’s combat performance in Indian service during last year’s India-Pakistan conflict.

From Turkey’s perspective, regaining access to the F-35 would deliver far greater long-term military and industrial benefits than retaining the S-400. Lockheed Martin anticipates that by the 2030s, more than 600 F-35s will be operated from more than 10 European countries, including two U.S. Air Force squadrons in the United Kingdom. Turkey would be able to benefit from a significant European operator footprint and, potentially, could reinstate lucrative local production for F-35 components.

In the past, Moscow has said that contractual obligations from the S-400 acquisition prevent it from being resold or transferred by Turkey without formal authorization. However, there is now also the possibility that Russia might want to take back the S-400s to bolster its own air defenses, which are increasingly strained by the ongoing war in Ukraine. As Kyiv piles on the pressure with long-range drone and cruise missile strikes against Russia, getting more S-400s for homeland defense would also be very welcome.

Operators of the NGU special unit “Lasar’s Group” struck an S-400 air defense launcher in the Belgorod region using a heavy bomber drone.

The operation was carried out jointly with the 429th Separate UAV Battalion and the Joint Forces Grouping. pic.twitter.com/FnQp82ZjGc

— Defense of Ukraine (@DefenceU) March 4, 2026

On the other hand, there will still be some resistance to Turkey’s readmission to the F-35 program. Any kind of major defense deal with Turkey involves some kind of pushback from U.S. lawmakers.

As well as the S-400 issue, U.S. lawmakers have historically been concerned about Turkey’s relations with Greece, its other connections with Russia and Azerbaijan (which included the deployment of F-16s to the latter country), its conduct in the Syrian civil war, and human rights abuses. Previously, Turkey’s opposition to Sweden joining NATO also proved to be a significant hurdle.

The process to get Turkey back into the F-35 program would involve a lifting of the sanctions placed on it under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA). To do this, Trump would need to formally notify Congress that the S-400s are no longer operational, that Turkey no longer possesses any of the systems, and that Ankara has pledged not to pursue similar defense ties with Russia in the future. Congress could still put the matter to a vote if lawmakers were still unconvinced that these conditions have been met.

There have been recent signs that, under Trump in particular, Turkey is getting more access to high-end defense equipment. This reflects broader improvements in Washington’s relationship with Ankara, with Erdogan frequently receiving praise from the U.S. leader.

Last month, reports emerged that the Trump administration planned to go ahead with the sale of dozens of F110 engines required to power Turkey’s homegrown TF Kaan combat jet, despite some resistance from Congress. You can read more about that here.

In early 2024, the U.S. State Department finally approved a possible Foreign Military Sale to Turkey of 40 new F-16C/D Block 70 fighters, which Ankara had long campaigned for, plus the upgrade of 79 existing aircraft to F-16V configuration.

Ankara’s push to regain access to the F-35 has taken on added urgency as rival Greece moves ahead with its own approved purchase of the stealth jets. We explored how that rivalry is reshaping both countries’ air forces in this previous feature.

Moreover, Turkey is looking to modernize its fighter fleet and, denied the F-35 and with F-16 deals moving forward only slowly, it has been forced to look elsewhere to meet its short-term fighter needs. Most notably, it signed a deal for 20 Eurofighter Typhoon jets last year.

A Turkish return to the F-35 program would also have implications for the Kaan program. Renewed defense ties with Washington could ease access to critical technologies and support for the homegrown jet, while acquiring the F-35 would also reduce some of the urgency behind the Kaan, which was accelerated in part after expulsion from the Joint Strike Fighter program. Even so, Ankara has consistently presented the Kaan as a long-term strategic project intended to give it an independent fighter capability rather than simply replace the F-35. It also comes with the option for lucrative exports.

With the strongest signs yet that Ankara is ready to relinquish its S-400s, it would represent a remarkable reversal of one of the most consequential defense procurement decisions in Turkey’s recent history. Whether that proves sufficient to reopen the door to the F-35 program, however, will ultimately depend as much on Congress as on the White House.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

“HE just has that youthful energy,” says Ronnie Wood of his Rolling Stones bandmate Mick Jagger.

It’s not a term often used to describe someone in their Eighties but, in this case, entirely accurate.

Anyone who’s seen the consummate frontman in recent times will know he still has the voice, the moves — and the swagger.

Nearly four years Mick’s junior and, at 79, the “baby” of the band, Ronnie could still be forgiven for thinking, “I want some of whatever he’s on.”

But, as the Stones release their high-octane LP Foreign Tongues, Ronnie can also claim to have some of that “youthful energy”.

“I’m the same as Mick,” he tells me. “I’m a Gemini, I’m pulling in all directions — and I’m just loving it.”

serving glam

Lily James wows in a polka dot dress with busty Hannah Waddingham at Wimbledon

J-LO CUT

Jennifer Lopez rocks sheer dress as she attends PFW with rarely-seen sister

By that, he means his ongoing endeavours with the Stones, his work as a highly skilled portrait artist and the not-so-small matter of his first solo tour in years, beginning next week in Austria on a bill with Van Morrison.

Not to mention being husband to wife Sally and dad to their ten-year-old twin daughters Gracie Jane and Alice Rose.

Ronnie continues: “I just love to be inspired and putting my ideas into action — whether it’s on a canvas or through my guitar or harmonica or whatever I’m playing.

“And I even try my hand at singing every now and again!”

Right now, says Ronnie, “I’m in my art studio preparing an exhibition and I’m getting rehearsals together with my band.

“I even had a little rehearsal with Mick because we’re keeping our hands in, keeping our chops together. So, it’s all go.”

The main purpose of our chat is, of course, all things Stones but you’ll hear more about his extra-curricular activities later.

I discover that Ronnie has a wonderfully old-school approach to tech — none of that new-fangled Zoom stuff for him — so he calls me on the dog and bone.

Which means that I have to go half way up a steep hill on the Cornish coast, not far from Land’s End, in an attempt to get decent signal.

Thankfully, the guitar legend comes through loud and clear — and full of enthusiasm.

First, he explains why the Stones have another new studio album of original material in the bag so soon after 2023’s Hackney Diamonds.

(If you remember, the previous one, A Bigger Bang, came out in 2005.)

He replies that American producer Andrew Watt “hadn’t finished with us and we hadn’t finished with him”.

“We just sparked the fire that was already cooking with Hackney Diamonds.”

Ronnie is quick to praise the 35-year-old producer with bleach-blond hair who has worked with Paul McCartney, Ozzy Osbourne, Lady Gaga and Post Malone.

“We’re on to a good one there,” he says. “The Stones haven’t had someone with so much input since Jimmy Miller.”

Praise indeed because Miller produced a stellar run of consecutive albums — Beggar’s Banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile On Main St and Goat’s Head Soup — between 1968 and 1973.

Ronnie adds: “Andrew’s a big fan of ours and he knows what he’s talking about. He can play different instruments and knows my guitar playing better than I do.”

So what was the catalyst for Foreign Tongues? “We had a few tracks like Covered In You left over,” replies Ronnie.

“But basically we started reworking all these songs that Mick had been kicking around, some with Keith, and some by himself. Mick would come to us, saying, ‘Look, I’ve got this idea — let’s develop it’.

“The Stones are his plaything, so I just let him take the helm and get on with it. It’s great.”

Key to the success of Foreign Tongues, a big beast of an album with 14 tracks spanning 63 minutes, was a gathering in London to bring the project to fruition.

Ronnie explains: “We started working in New York at Electric Lady, then we took it to Henson studio in LA and messed around with it there — but we finished off the whole thing at Metropolis in Chiswick.

“It was a great feeling to be in London, to go down to the studio that was not far [from where I live] with all the boys there.”

Ronnie wallowed in the “great studio atmosphere” and was particularly chuffed to have an old mucker like Steve Winwood on board — “he was so lovely”.

Steve, who plays organ or piano on nine of the Foreign Tongues songs, came to prominence in the early Sixties as a fresh-faced teenager in The Spencer Davis Group.

Stints in Traffic and Blind Faith were followed by his hugely successful solo career with hit Eighties albums including Arc Of A Diver and Back In The High Life.

Ronnie says: “The Americans had Little Stevie Wonder and Britain had Little Stevie Winwood.

“I first met him at The Ship pub on Wardour Street and he’s one of the only musicians from my era who’s younger than me.” (Ronnie was born in 1947 and Steve a year later.)

Back in the day, The Ship was one of Ronnie’s favourite haunts because of its proximity to fabled music venues like The 100 Club and The Marquee.

He says: “I used to meet all the musicians in this packed little pub. Just up the road, I met Rod Stewart for the first time in the Intrepid Fox. He came up to me and went, ‘Hello Face!’ ”

They bonded over their mod-style haircuts, as you do, and soon started playing music together, first in The Jeff Beck Group and then, from 1969, The Faces.

In 1975, Ronnie left The Faces to land the job he’d dreamed of since he was a teenager — to become a member of the most rock and roll band on the planet, the Rolling Stones.

His first album as a full-time member with them was 1978’s Some Girls, a sleazy tour de force featuring some dazzling Keith Richards and Ronnie Wood guitar interplay, most notably on the ballad Beast Of Burden.

Which brings us neatly back to Foreign Tongues because it is drawing comparisons with that classic LP.

Ronnie says: “We like to keep the youthful feel we had in Paris when we were doing Some Girls and Emotional Rescue. There was a lot of energy on Respectable and Summer Romance, all those mad songs . . . and we still have that kind of energy going.

“I call this Foreign Tongues album ‘more solos for me, thanks Mick’ and he loves it.”

So which songs feature Ronnie solos? I venture. “There’s one on Back In Your Life which everyone seems to like,” he answers. “It’s the last one I did and there’s a lot of feeling there.

“I also enjoyed doing solos on Mr Charm, Side Effects, In The Stars and Hit Me On The Head.

“And there are lots of songs I loved to jam on, with me and Keith bouncing off each other.”

Hit Me On The Head is one of the few tracks saved from the Hackney Diamonds sessions, a breathless three-minute blast featuring much-missed drummer Charlie Watts.

Ronnie says: “We’ve got a few Charlie tracks saved and it’s lovely to keep his memory going with these little reminders.”

He adds that Steve Jordan, the powerhouse American drummer who stepped in after Charlie died in 2021 “loved Charlie so much and to pay tribute to him on Hackney Diamonds and Foreign Tongues is so great”.

I ask Ronnie which of the other new tracks he’s fond of.

He says: “I love Rough And Twisted which reminds me of my old Faces days — a modern-day blues.”

And he singles out yearning country song Ringing Hollow, which he and Mick gave a debut live airing to at this week’s album launch party in London.

“That’s a great one,” he says. “It reminds me of the songs inspired by the Stones’ first visits to America like Dead Flowers [also performed at the party], Wild Horses and Sweet Virginia.”

Ronnie’s a big fan of the Let It Bleed track Country Honk, a rustic, fiddle-drenched take on Honky Tonk Women, which he’s promising to play with his solo band at his forthcoming shows.

He says: “I’m a big fan of Merle Haggard and Hank Williams along with Chuck Berry and Muddy Waters — a little mix of country and blues.”

This brings us to the raw and authentic cover of Berry’s Beautiful Delilah, which closes Foreign Tongues, done in the style of Mississippi Fred McDowell.

Just Mick and Keith on 12-string guitars with empathetic drumming from Red Hot Chili Peppers’ Chad Smith. As with so many musicians of Ronnie’s generation, Berry was a massive influence.

“I used to have a dance in my bedroom when I was a kid,” he recalls. “Then I’d learn the solos just by ear.

“I was so inspired by this mystery man from America. In those days, you never saw a picture of Chuck Berry, Howlin’ Wolf or Jimmy Reed.

“When you did, it was like, ‘Wow!’ Like aliens come to life. Then, when I grew up, I got to hang out with them. It was a dream come true.

“Chuck came up to me once when I was on stage with him and said, ‘Where did you get that riff from?’ And I said, ‘From you!’ He nearly fell over.”

Next, we move on to Ronnie’s solo tour, organised because a gap appeared after the Stones ruled out live dates after Keith announced he was stepping back from touring.

He’ll be performing material from his storied life in music that includes The Jeff Beck Group, The Faces, the Stones and solo work — much of it gathered up in his recent retrospective album Fearless.

Ronnie will sing Seven Days, “the song Bob Dylan gave me, one of the special moments in my musical career.”

He will be reuniting with drummer Andy Newmark and bassist Willie Weeks for the first time in 50 years — “they’re playing as great as ever”.

His jaunts will take to Lucca in Italy, London’s Kentish Town Forum, Zurich, Cologne, Paris, Amsterdam, Barcelona and Lisbon. It all starts at an open-air shindig on the Royal Sandringham Estate in Norfolk on August 23, headlined by blues maestro Eric Clapton.

Ronnie adds: “Eric said, ‘Hey Ron, get a band together and come and join me at Sandringham!’

“That’s what spurred me on. I thought, ‘Wow! While I’m at it, I may as well get my favourite girl singers like Imelda May and Chanel Haynes’.”

If Stones and solo work wasn’t enough, Ronnie gives me an update on the mouthwatering prospect of a new Faces album — a further reunion with Rod Stewart after last year’s Glastonbury outing for Stay With Me.

“Rod loves what’s going on with us,” he says. “He has so much respect for the Stones and he’s gone his own Hollywood merry way.

“But we’ve been putting our heads together and rejoining the dots and getting some Faces stuff together again.

“Next year, we’re going to get stuck in and finish these tracks. We’ve got a lot on the hob and we’ll stir them up.”

Lastly, Ronnie reflects on the enduring appeal of both the Rolling Stones and The Beatles more than 60 years after they began their journeys.

Having just released his Andrew Watt-produced solo album The Boys Of Dungeon Lane, Paul McCartney returns on Foreign Tongues song Covered In You, following his bass cameo on Hackney Diamonds track Bite My Head Off.

Ronnie says: “I was just out with Paul recently and he was going, ‘Ron, ain’t it wonderful that we can still give this and keep making people happy. That’s what we do!’

“I said, ‘It’s so great Paul’, and he gave me a hug. He’s such a lovely man.

“We have that spirit going around in the Stones as well. There’s a lot of love there and a lot of respect.”

THE ROLLING STONES – Foreign Tongues

★★★★★