Today

Niger’s nationalisation of Somair mine operated by Orano comes as it moves away from France and seeks closer ties with Russia.

Niger plans to nationalise a uranium mine operated by French nuclear firm Orano as it continues to pivot away from former colonial ruler, France.

The company, which is 90 percent owned by the French state, said on Friday that Niger’s military rulers’ planned nationalisation of the Somair mine was part of a “systematic policy of stripping mining assets”, threatening to take legal action over the move.

The military government – which came to power in a 2023 coup, pledging to review mining concessions – had said a day prior that it intended to take control of the Somair mine, accusing Orano of taking a disproportionate share of uranium produced at the site.

Orano holds a 63 percent stake in Somair, while Niger’s state-owned Sopamin owns the remainder, but the government said that Orano had taken 86.3 percent of production between the mine’s launch in 1971 and 2024.

“Faced with the irresponsible, illegal, and unfair behaviour by Orano, a company owned by the French state, a state openly hostile toward Niger since July 26, 2023 … the government of Niger has decided, in full sovereignty, to nationalise Somair,” the authorities said on Thursday.

Wave of nationalisations

Niger’s military leaders have turned their back on France since taking power, seeking closer ties with Russia instead.

In 2024, Niger removed Orano’s operational control of its three main mines in the country: Somair, Cominak and Imouraren, which has one of the largest uranium deposits in the world.

On Friday, Orano said it intended “to claim compensation for all of its damages and assert its rights over the stock corresponding to Somair’s production to date”.

Orano, which has been operating in Niger for 50 years, is involved in several arbitration processes with the country.

Last month, it sued the Nigerien authorities after the disappearance of its director and the raiding of its local offices.

Niger’s decision to nationalise Somair comes amid a wave of mine nationalisations across West Africa, notably in Mali and Burkina Faso, both of which are governed by military governments.

EPA-EFE/Shutterstock

Trump: Iran doesn’t want to speak to Europe

“You’re a wolf pretending to be a diplomat”

Iranian and Israeli officials clashed during a heated UN Security Council session. Iran said it would continue to defend itself until Israeli attacks end, while Israel vowed to keep striking until Iran’s “nuclear threat” is dismantled.

The court declined to fast-track the review of the dispute over Trump having legal power to impose broad tariffs.

The United States Supreme Court has declined to speed up its consideration of whether to take up a challenge to President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs even before lower courts have ruled in the dispute.

The Supreme Court denied on Friday a request by a family-owned toy company, Learning Resources, that filed the legal challenge against Trump’s tariffs to expedite the review of the dispute by the nation’s top judicial body.

The company, which makes educational toys, won a court ruling on May 29 that Trump cannot unilaterally impose tariffs using the emergency authority he had claimed. That ruling is currently on hold, leaving the tariffs in place for now.

Learning Resources asked the Supreme Court to take the rare step of immediately hearing the case to decide the legality of the tariffs, effectively leapfrogging the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Washington, where the case is pending.

Two district courts have ruled that Trump’s tariffs are not justified under the law he cited, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Both of those cases are on appeal. No court has yet backed the sweeping emergency tariff authority Trump has claimed.

The home secretary will move to proscribe Palestine Action group in the coming weeks, effectively branding them as a terrorist organisation, the BBC understands.

Yvette Cooper is preparing a written statement before Parliament on Monday – which if passed will make becoming a member of the group illegal.

The decision comes as a security review begins at military bases across the UK, after pro-Palestinian activists broke into RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire and sprayed two military planes with red paint.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer condemned the action as “disgraceful,” describing it as an “act of vandalism”.

South East counter terrorism police confirmed its specialist officers were investigating the incident alongside Thames Valley Police and the Ministry of Defence (MoD).

Counter-terrorism police added the incident happened in the early hours of Friday and that enquiries were “ongoing to establish the exact circumstances”.

Footage posted online by Palestine Action on Friday showed two people inside the Oxfordshire airbase in darkness, with one riding on a scooter up to an Airbus Voyager and spraying paint into its jet engine.

After sharing the footage, a Palestine Action spokesperson said: “Despite publicly condemning the Israeli government, Britain continues to send military cargo, fly spy planes over Gaza and refuel US and Israeli fighter jets.”

The group claimed its activists had evaded security and had put the air-to-air refuelling tankers “out of service”.

However RAF engineers have been assessing the damage, with a defence source earlier telling the BBC that they did not expect the incident would affect operations.

Thames Valley Police earlier said it had received a report about people gaining access to the base and causing criminal damage.

“Inquiries are ongoing to locate and arrest those responsible,” the force said.

It is understood this incident was not the first time the group has targeted military sites.

RAF Brize Norton serves as the hub for UK strategic air transport and refuelling, including flights to RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus. The air force has conducted reconnaissance flights over Gaza out of the Cyprus base.

Despite the order for a ceasefire aimed at facilitating the Doha peace talks between the government forces of the Democratic Republic of Congo (FARDC) and various armed groups, heavy fighting has persisted in South Kivu. Since June 18, 2025, clashes have intensified between M23/AFC rebels and the Wazalendo militia, particularly in Kabare, Kalehe, and Walungu territories.

On June 18, reports from several local sources indicate that heavy and light arms detonations occurred in the Walungu territory, particularly in Nyangezi and its surrounding areas. A local informant mentioned that a similar situation is unfolding in Walungu territory, with clashes reported in Lurhala and nearby regions; however, the casualty figures remain unknown.

Intense combat has been reported in the Kabare territory, particularly in Cirunga, Mumosho, and Katana. According to a local source in Cirunga who spoke to HumAngle early this morning, “the Wazalendo attempted to drive out M23/AFC rebels in Cirunga, which led to the deaths of two people.”

Local civil society sources report widespread panic in Mumosho and Katana and conflicts around Kigabi. The clashes in Mumosho extended to Nyantende, where gunshots were heard, causing panic in the Panzi area.

“I heard at least four gunshots, but they were rather far away from where I was,” said one student, adding that “we were in class and we heard gunshots and were forced to seek shelter”. The situation in Kahele remains tense. Yesterday, inhabitants reported hearing gunshots around 3:30 a.m., forcing them to stay indoors.

The recent clashes violate the ceasefire intended to support various peace talks to establish peace in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DR Congo). The DR Congo government is currently conducting peace negotiations in Doha, Qatar’s capital.

In April, representatives from the DR Congo government and the M23/AFC affirmed their commitment to an immediate cessation of hostilities and categorically rejected hate speech and intimidation. They urged all communities to adhere to these commitments.

The head of the UN atomic watchdog, Rafael Grossi, told the Security Council that an Israeli strike on Iran’s Bushehr nuclear plant would cause a nuclear disaster. The Israeli military had said on Thursday that it had struck the facility, but later clarified that the comment had been made in error.

Nikol Pashinyan’s visit marks Ankara and Yerevan’s second attempt at reconciliation.

Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan is on a rare visit to Istanbul to hold talks with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in what Yerevan has described as a “historic” step towards regional peace.

The visit forms part of the two countries’ efforts to normalise ties strained over historical disputes and Ankara’s alliance with Azerbaijan, which has been in a long-simmering conflict with Armenia.

“This is a historic visit, as it will be the first time a head of the Republic of Armenia visits Turkiye at this level. All regional issues will be discussed,” Armenian parliament speaker Alen Simonyan told reporters on Friday. “The risks of war [with Azerbaijan] are currently minimal, and we must work to neutralise them. Pashinyan’s visit to Turkiye is a step in that direction.”

Pashinyan’s visit comes a day after Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev held talks in Turkiye with Erdogan, during which he praised the Turkish-Azerbaijani alliance as “a significant factor, not only regionally but also globally”, and Erdogan reiterated his support for “the establishment of peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia”.

Baku and Yerevan agreed on the text of a peace deal in March, but Baku has since outlined a host of demands, including changes to Armenia’s constitution, that it wants met before it will sign the document.

Pashinyan is scheduled to meet Erdogan at Istanbul’s Dolmabahce Palace at 15:00 GMT, Erdogan’s office said.

An Armenian Ministry of Foreign Affairs official told the AFP news agency that the pair will discuss efforts to sign a comprehensive peace treaty.

The regional fallout from the Israel-Iran conflict, which began last Friday when Israel launched several waves of air strikes targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities and military sites, will also be discussed.

Armenia and Turkiye have never established formal diplomatic ties, and their shared border has been closed since 1993.

Attempts at normalisation

Relations between the two nations have been historically strained over the World War I-era mass killings of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire – atrocities historians and Yerevan say amount to genocide. Turkiye rejects the label, contending that while many people died in that era, the death toll is inflated and the deaths resulted from civil unrest.

Ankara has also backed its close ally, Turkic-speaking Azerbaijan, in the long-running Nagorno-Karabakh conflict with Armenia. This region, which had a mostly ethnic Armenian population at the time, broke away from Azerbaijan with support from Armenia in the late 1980s. In 2020, Turkiye backed Azerbaijan in its second war with Armenia, which ended after six weeks with a Russia-brokered peace deal that saw Azerbaijan gain control of a significant part of the region.

Pashinyan has actively sought to normalise relations with both Baku and Ankara.

Ankara and Yerevan appointed special envoys in late 2021 to lead a normalisation process, and resumed commercial flights in 2022 after a two-year pause.

Earlier this year, Pashinyan announced Armenia would halt its campaign for international recognition of the 1915 mass killings of Armenians as genocide – a major concession to Turkiye that sparked widespread criticism at home.

Pashinyan’s first visit to Turkiye was to attend Erdogan’s inauguration in 2023.

This is Ankara and Yerevan’s second attempt at reconciliation. Turkiye and Armenia reached an agreement in 2009 to establish formal relations and open their shared border, but the deal was never ratified because of strong opposition from Azerbaijan.

On May 25, Olorato Mongale, a 30-year-old woman from South Africa, went on a date with a man she had recently met.

Less than two hours later, she was dead.

Her half-naked body was found by the roadside in Lombardy West, a suburb north of Johannesburg. It showed signs of severe trauma and bruising. Investigators concluded that she had been murdered elsewhere and dumped at the scene.

Her brutal and senseless killing led to a wave of grief and outrage on social media. Days later, a family spokesperson revealed that Mongale – a master’s student at the University of the Witwatersrand – had once worked as a journalist. She left the profession seven years ago due to the emotional toll of reporting on gender-based violence and femicide (GBVF).

Her family said Mongale had grown increasingly anxious about her own vulnerability to male violence. In particular, the 2017 murder of 22-year-old Karabo Mokoena haunted her. Mokoena was stabbed to death by her ex-boyfriend, Sandile Mantsoe, who then burned her body beyond recognition and buried the remains in open grassland in Lyndhurst – a suburb just kilometres from where Mongale’s body was found.

Despite her conscious efforts to avoid Mokoena’s fate, Mongale ultimately became what she had feared most: another name added to the long and growing list of South African women murdered by men.

At her funeral on June 1, her mother, Keabetswe Mongale, said her daughter had tried desperately to fight off her attacker.

“When I saw her at the government mortuary, I could see that my daughter fought. She fought until her nails broke,” she said.

Her devastating death serves as a stark reminder that women and girls across South Africa continue to face an existential threat from gender-based violence, despite years of government promises and reforms.

On May 24, 2024, President Cyril Ramaphosa signed into law a bill establishing the National Council on Gender-Based Violence and Femicide. The body is mandated to provide leadership and coordination in the fight against GBVF. While it appeared to be a step forward, it did not represent a transformative policy shift.

This is not the first such initiative. In 2012, then-Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe launched the National Council Against Gender-Based Violence, with a similar mandate to coordinate national anti-GBV efforts.

More than a decade later, with yet another council in place, GBVF crimes continue.

In November 2023, the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) of South Africa released the country’s first national study on GBVF. It found that the persistence of gender-based violence is rooted in “deeply ingrained societal norms and structures that perpetuate male dominance and reinforce gender hierarchies … leading to female subordination, systemic inequalities, and violence against women”.

The destructive effect of entrenched patriarchy is undeniable. In South Africa, a woman is murdered every three hours. That is approximately 8 women a day. One study estimates that around 7.8 million women in the country have experienced physical or sexual violence.

While women of all races and backgrounds are affected, Black women face higher rates of GBVF – an enduring legacy of apartheid and its structural inequalities.

This crisis is not unique to South Africa. The terror faced by women and girls is a continent-wide phenomenon.

In November 2024, the United Nations published its report Femicides in 2023: Global Estimates of Intimate Partner/Family Member Femicides, revealing that Africa had the world’s highest rate of partner-related femicide that year.

Kenya stands out for its staggering figures.

Between September 2023 and December 2024, the country recorded more than 7,100 cases of sexual and gender-based violence. These included the murders of at least 100 women by male acquaintances, relatives, or intimate partners in just four months.

Among the victims was Rebecca Cheptegei, a Ugandan Olympian and mother of two, who competed in the marathon at the 2024 Paris Games. On September 5, 2024, she died in Eldoret, Kenya, from severe burns after her former partner doused her in petrol and set her alight during a domestic dispute. He himself later died in a hospital from his injuries.

The Kenyan government later recognised GBVF as the most pressing security challenge facing the country — a belated but crucial move.

On May 26, Kenya’s National Gender and Equality Commission noted that the surge in GBVF crimes was driven by “a complex interplay of cultural, social, economic, and legal factors”. Patriarchal traditions continue to fuel inequality and legitimise violence, while harmful practices such as forced marriage, female genital mutilation (FGM), and dowry-related violence further endanger women’s lives. Economic hardship and women’s financial dependence only deepen their vulnerability.

Across the continent, we are witnessing a dangerous resurgence of archaic patriarchal norms.

The COVID-19 lockdowns in 2020 further exposed the scale of the crisis. Since then, countless behavioural change campaigns have been launched, but they have largely failed.

This is no surprise.

According to Afrobarometer data from November 2023, nearly 48 percent of all Africans believe domestic violence is a private matter, not a criminal offence.

The uncomfortable truth is that many African men, regardless of education or economic status, do not prioritise the safety or rights of women and girls.

On International Women’s Day last year, South African rugby captain Siya Kolisi said it plainly: “Men are not doing enough.”

Indeed, many continue to uphold harmful customs such as child marriage and remain disengaged from efforts to protect women. Years of empty rhetoric have led to a growing body count.

It is time for African men to take full ownership of this crisis and commit to radical change.

They must reject cultural practices and ideals of manhood that dehumanise women. African cultures are not unchangeable, and patriarchy is not destiny. A new, egalitarian model of African masculinity must be nurtured — one based on dignity, equality, and nonviolence.

This cultural reorientation must begin in families and be sustained through schools, religious and traditional forums, and community life.

It must happen for Olarato Mongale. For Rebecca Cheptegei. For the thousands of others whose lives were stolen.

And most urgently, it must happen for the women and girls across Africa who live each day knowing that their greatest threat may come from the men closest to them.

There can be no just African future unless African manhood is transformed.

Pro-Palestinian activists have broken into RAF Brize Norton and sprayed two military planes with red paint in a major security breach.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has condemned the action as “disgraceful”, saying that it was an “act of vandalism”.

Footage posted online by Palestine Action on Friday showed two people inside the Oxfordshire airbase in darkness, with one riding on a scooter up to an Airbus Voyager and spraying paint into its jet engine.

The Ministry of Defence, which has also condemned the move, is now expected to conduct a review of security at UK military bases. It is working with Thames Valley Police, which is leading the investigation.

Palestine Action said the activists evaded security and claimed they had put the air-to-air refuelling tankers “out of service”.

However, RAF engineers are assessing the damage and a defence source told the BBC they did not expect the incident to affect operations.

In a statement, a Palestine Action spokesperson said: “Despite publicly condemning the Israeli government, Britain continues to send military cargo, fly spy planes over Gaza and refuel US and Israeli fighter jets.”

RAF Brize Norton serves as the hub for UK strategic air transport and refuelling, including flights to RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus. The air force has conducted reconnaissance flights over Gaza out of the Cyprus base.

The base is encircled by a large perimeter fence, with security camera and sensors in the area in addition to manned security checkpoints. Patrols around the base are also carried out from time to time.

But a defence source said these measures would not have been able to provide complete cover around the large airbase.

Palestine Action has engaged in similar activity since the start of the current war in Gaza, predominantly targeting arms companies. In May, it claimed responsibility for the daubing of a US military plane in Ireland.

The group said the activists who entered RAF Brize Norton used repurposed fire extinguishers to spray red paint into the planes’ engines.

It also said they caused “further damage” using crowbars – though this is not visible in the bodycam footage it provided.

Video shows the activists then roaming around the airbase.

The protesters did not spray paint on the Vespina aircraft – used by the prime minister for international travel – which was also on the base.

The MoD told the BBC that RAF Voyager aircraft had not been involved in refuelling or supporting Israeli Air Force jets.

A spokesman said Voyagers have been used in the Middle East to refuel RAF Typhoon jets involved in the ongoing international efforts to tackle the so-called Islamic State in eastern Iraq and Syria.

They have also been used in operations in the Red Sea in the past in operations against Yemen’s Houthi rebels.

Thames Valley Police confirmed it had received a report about people gaining access to the base and causing criminal damage.

“Inquiries are ongoing to locate and arrest those responsible,” the force said.

Lord West, Labour minister for UK security and former head of the Royal Navy, said earlier that while he was not aware of the full details, the break-in was “extremely worrying”.

“We can’t allow thing like this to happen at all,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, adding that breaches like it were “really a problem” for national security.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said the security breach was “deeply concerning”.

“This is not lawful protest, it is politically motivated criminality,” she said in a statement.

“We must stop tolerating terrorist or extremist groups that seek to undermine our society.”

Shadow armed forces minister Mark Francois told the BBC any attempt to interfere with the engines of large aircraft was “totally reprehensible”.

He added there were “serious questions for the MoD to answer” about how protesters were able to “gain access to what is supposed to be a secure RAF airbase”.

The local Liberal Democrat MP Charlie Maynard described the activists’ actions as “stupid and dangerous”.

He said the investigations should establish “how this happened and what can be done in future to make sure no further breaches occur”.

In the digital age, where power dynamics are increasingly defined by information flows and algorithmic influence, cyberspace has evolved from a mere technical domain into a fully fledged geopolitical arena. As Thomas Rid has argued, cyberwar is not a rupture but an extension of politics by other means, characterized by ambiguity, plausible deniability, and the absence of clear thresholds. In this new order, cybersecurity acts as an adaptive shield, protecting vital systems, while cyber defense becomes the digital sword, mobilizing state capabilities to detect, neutralize, and retaliate. This strategic pairing gives rise to an integrated doctrine, where every firewall becomes a sensor and every breach an opportunity for strategic hardening.

Thus, twenty-first-century conflicts no longer begin with declarations of war but with lines of malicious code. State-sponsored cyberattacks, technological espionage, and mass disinformation campaigns are the weapons of the future: silent yet potentially paralyzing. In this shadow war, financial systems, smart grids, healthcare infrastructures, and state institutions become critical pressure points, exposed to systemic shocks that can dislocate national continuity. In response, digital resilience is no longer a defensive posture but a vital imperative. It rests on the fusion of preventive cybersecurity and active cyber defense, forming an invisible architecture that balances anticipation with response. Partnerships like the one between Microsoft and U.S. Cyber Command, where Azure Sentinel’s AI bolsters offensive operations against Chinese APTs, illustrate the hybridization of technological shield and geopolitical weapon. Yet attribution remains a strategic Achilles’ heel; opacity and decentralization of attacks hamper deterrence logic.

For these reasons and inspired by nuclear doctrines, some states are now developing cyber deterrence strategies based on denial (making the attack ineffective) and targeted retaliation (imposing dissuasive costs). The U.S. Cyber Command’s “persistent engagement” model exemplifies this approach, where anticipation, calibrated response, and cognitive dominance form a triptych of integrated deterrence. On the other hand, the rise of artificial intelligence is disrupting this balance at dizzying speed. China’s DeepSeek R1, for instance, demonstrates that AI is no longer merely a tool for data processing but an autonomous force capable of identifying threats, executing countermeasures, and even making tactical decisions. This signals the emergence of a new form of algorithmic sovereignty, where strategic initiative shifts from human to calculated agency.

This paradigm shift is reshaping the military domain as well. Autonomous drones, automated intelligence platforms, and smart weapons systems are redefining doctrines of technological supremacy. Ukraine’s “Spider Web” operation marked a doctrinal rupture, deploying swarms of AI-coordinated micro-drones capable of dynamic, adaptive targeting in cluttered environments. It heralds the advent of fluid, decentralized warfare and prefigures future algorithmic conflicts.

Big Tech: Geopolitical Hydras

When Big Tech dictates the rules of cyberspace, states become variables in someone else’s equation. It is no longer armies but platforms that shape power balances. This paradigm shift cements the rise of an extraterritorial technological power not based on monopoly of legitimate violence but on mastery of data flows and digital architectures. Then, GAFAM (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft) now operates as systemic entities, wielding influence that eclipses traditional state sovereignty. Their power, driven by an unprecedented concentration of computational, financial, and informational capital, grants them a structuring role in international relations, rivaling even the core prerogatives of the state.

This rise isn’t merely economic or technological; it redefines global governance. These corporations act as the architects of the “matrix politica,” enforcing opaque algorithmic regulation of public discourse, social behaviors, and collective perception. By replacing legitimate legal norms with proprietary logic, they institute an unelected algorithmic order, generating “invisible prisons” where individuals become exploitable variables and national sovereignty becomes a residual fiction.

In this context, any viable cyber defense or deterrence strategy must confront this structural asymmetry. Strengthening state defenses against conventional cyber threats is no longer sufficient. The relationship between public authority and private technological hegemony must be recalibrated. Effective digital resilience demands a democratic reconquest of communication infrastructures and political oversight of the normative power wielded by platforms. Absent such rebalancing, cyberspace will continue to slide into a deterritorialized algorithmic sovereignty that deeply reconfigures the exercise of power in the 21st century.

This silent capture of normative power presents a strategic challenge to cyber deterrence doctrines. After all, what is the purpose of state deterrence if critical infrastructures, codebases, and mass cognitive systems are controlled by transnational private entities? Digital sovereignty must encompass offensive capabilities against state-backed cyber aggressors and against hegemonic drifts of platforms capable of reshaping cognitive battlegrounds, manipulating public perception, and influencing political decisions in real time.

This revolution comes at a cost. Deep learning algorithms can now launch sophisticated cyberattacks, detect invisible vulnerabilities, and strike without warning, pushing human intervention into the background. AI thus generates a strategic paradox: it enhances resilience while simultaneously magnifying vulnerabilities. Advances like DeepMind’s AlphaFold show how such technologies permeate critical domains, from biology to cybersecurity, blurring the lines between scientific progress and digital militarization. In this new era, AI is no longer a tool; it is a geopolitical actor.

In fact, major powers and actors are investing in this revolution in different ways. The United States, a pioneer in AI research, focuses on innovation and developing offensive and defensive cyber capabilities. China, aiming for technological supremacy by 2030, is coupling digital sovereignty with state surveillance to bolster its global position. The European Union adopts a more regulatory and ethical approach, seeking to govern AI use while preserving its technological autonomy.

Warfare in the Age of AI

The military domain, too, is being swept into the vortex of AI-led automation. Autonomous drones, smart weapon systems, and automated intelligence platforms are reshaping defense doctrines, ushering in a new form of technological supremacy. These tools offer asymmetric advantages to well-equipped powers but also pave the way for an unprecedented militarization of cyberspace.

Delegating lethal decisions to machines raises profound ethical dilemmas: who bears responsibility for algorithmic misfires? How do we regulate autonomous weapons in a world where legal norms lag behind innovation? Without clear answers, AI risks transforming the battlefield into a dehumanized theater of operations beyond political and moral control.

Subsequently, the proliferation of hybrid threats, cyberattacks, disinformation, and covert operations underscores the urgency of enhanced international cooperation. In fact, the Russo-Ukrainian conflict has highlighted cyberspace’s centrality in modern warfare, with the rise of cyber-volunteers, hacktivists, and destabilization campaigns. Ukraine’s IT Army exemplifies a new form of cyber mobility, where citizens and transnational collectives become key players in cyber conflict.

In this regard, Ukraine’s “Spider Web” operation against Russian targets demonstrates a new military application of AI in hybrid warfare. Here, AI no longer acts as a mere optimizer but as a digital war commander, orchestrating data collection, target identification, battlefield navigation, and dynamic strike execution. This machine-learning-powered architecture transforms each drone into both a sensor and a lethal vector, capable of real-time adaptation. More than a technological feat, Spider Web signals a metamorphosis of warfare, with AI assuming operational control and ushering in an era of autonomous algorithmic wars.

Fragmented Tech Ecosystems and Strategic Rivalries

Meanwhile, the militarization of cyberspace is accelerating. Leading powers are developing advanced cyber weapons, espionage tools, and surveillance systems to maintain digital supremacy. China’s “Made in China 2025” strategy channels massive investment into cybersecurity and tech sovereignty, while the U.S. doubles down on proactive defense to safeguard its hegemonic edge.

This trend drives increasing fragmentation of the global digital landscape, undermining the ideal of an open internet and encouraging the formation of rival digital blocs. The Sino-American tech rivalry extends beyond infrastructure development, despite enduring interdependencies in key sectors. While semiconductor and 5G decoupling advances, shared reliance persists in AI, cloud computing, and components. This duality complicates strategic choices. Each power must navigate between tech independence and global innovation access, accelerating cyber-nationalism and deepening digital polarization. Huawei’s Harmony OS and U.S. bans on Chinese semiconductors are clear signs of a growing digital decoupling that could redefine global tech ecosystems.

In this climate of intensifying threats and systemic interdependence, states are turning to cyber sovereignty strategies to secure critical infrastructure and reduce exposure to foreign interference. This forms part of a broader reconfiguration of global digital order, where control over data and information flows becomes a strategic lever.

International bodies such as NATO and the EU are gradually adapting. The EU’s Cyber Rapid Response Teams (CRRTs) and NATO’s adoption of offensive cyber doctrines signal a growing intent to pool resources and establish collective response mechanisms. Thus, China exemplifies the sovereigntist approach: its Great Firewall symbolizes a strategy combining national infrastructure protection, strict data regulation, and bolstered cyber-offensive capabilities.

From Code to Context: Redefining Cyberwarfare

Cyberwarfare is no longer about code but about context. Victory lies in merging civilian neural networks, predictive algorithms, and bio-neural systems, where every smartphone becomes a sensor and every hacktivist a cognitive disruptor. Tomorrow’s cyber defense rests on algorithmic sovereignty: an ecosystem where tactical metaverses, morphic AI drones, and quantum blockchains redefine resilience. In addition, Ukraine has shown that the future belongs to those who break hierarchies to build combat bio-networks—info-centric systems powered by quantum geolocation and operational proliferation of cyber volunteers. In this borderless arena, victory is won not by hacking machines but by hacking perceptions, hybridizing human agency, generative AI, and legal ambiguity.

Furthermore, cybersecurity is no longer a static defense line but a fractal weapon with evolutionary capabilities, where every intrusion becomes a counter-weapon and every psychokinetic attack an information battleground. That’s to say, this next-gen cyber architecture is based on adaptive algorithmic systems capable of dynamic reconfiguration in the face of ever-mutating threats. Its strength lies in an advanced synergy of AI, quantum cryptography, and autonomous protocols—modular, decentralized, and self-replicating systems that respond proportionately to the intensity and nature of cyberattacks. In a world shaped by asymmetry and uncertainty, this model grants states algorithmic superiority, shaping tomorrow’s deterrence and digital resilience.

Therefore, in the face of this accelerating tech revolution, global AI governance is no longer optional—it’s an existential necessity. Without robust legal frameworks and multilateral oversight, the world risks plunging into a digital arms race defined by opacity, irresponsibility, and strategic instability. It is no longer about regulating innovation; it is about preserving global balance in a world where the boundaries between war and peace, civil and military, and human and machine are increasingly blurred. Namely, an international architecture of trust and transparency is essential to prevent AI from becoming the unaccountable arbiter of tomorrow’s conflicts.

Disruption Scenario: Toward Unchecked Algorithmic Warfare

By 2032, the lack of international regulation on military AI triggers an uncontrolled rise of autonomous weapons and AI-powered cyber capabilities. Amid mounting tensions between the West and the Sino-Russian bloc, the race for AI military supremacy enters a tipping point. China, after scaling up AI militarization with Central Asian partners, unleashes targeted cyberattacks against European logistics and energy systems, paralyzing large parts of the continent. Simultaneously, autonomous drone swarms developed under a Sino-Russian program infiltrate NATO airspace disguised as meteorological probes.

Behind the scenes, Russia orchestrates a massive cognitive warfare operation using generative AI trained to manipulate Western public opinion. Deepfakes, forged documents, and fake military orders—Europe’s political systems are plunged into information chaos. In several capitals, key decisions are based on alerts fabricated by hostile AI. Thus, a devastating strike then hits a NATO logistics hub in the Baltic Sea, causing significant casualties. No state claims responsibility, but suspicion falls on Russia. Western attribution systems, despite being AI-enhanced, are circumvented by adversarial AI obfuscation networks. Indeed, caught in a spiral of disinformation and decision paralysis, a NATO member launches a massive cyber counterattack on Russian civilian infrastructure. Moscow retaliates with a hybrid strike combining autonomous weapons, electronic warfare, and satellite disruption. Within a week, a high-intensity hybrid conflict erupts regionally, with immediate nuclear escalation risk. Traditional command chains are disabled, decisions are made under AI pressure, and human agency vanishes. Strategic equilibrium, once upheld by nuclear deterrence and diplomacy, collapses under the weight of self-evolving, autonomous algorithms.

Moreover, conflicts no longer begin with declarations of war: they emerge, self-perpetuate, and unfold in an algorithmic fog where the line between peace and hostility vanishes. Humanity then realizes that, in failing to regulate, it has surrendered control to hostile, elusive, and autonomous intelligences.

Coding Sovereignty in the Algorithmic Fog

The future of cybersecurity lies in the ability of states to reconcile innovation, regulation, and strategic cooperation. The implementation of robust cyber doctrines, blending deterrence, algorithmic resilience, and control over critical infrastructure, will be key to preserving national sovereignty and global stability. That is to say, in the age of information supremacy, building cyber coalitions, massively investing in sovereign digital infrastructures, and establishing binding international norms are essential to secure peace and security. Cybersecurity is no longer a defensive tool; it is a core pillar of state power.

This indicates that cyberwar is no longer a future scenario; it is a strategic reality where supremacy depends on integrating offensive and defensive capabilities into a deterrent cyber ecosystem. The convergence of cyber intelligence, algorithmic resilience, and anticipatory response is reshaping defense doctrines, establishing a digital sovereignty rooted in system self-learning, cognitive warfare, and adversary vulnerability exploitation.

Finally, in this asymmetrical theatre, mastery over critical infrastructure and the ability to conduct hybrid operations will determine the balance of power in a cyberspace that has become the epicenter of global strategic rivalries. In the algorithmic fog of tomorrow’s wars, sovereignty is no longer declared, but it is coded, learned, and defended with every line of data.

President Donald Trump hails decision as ‘big win’, but Governor Gavin Newsom promises to pursue legal challenge.

A United States appeals court has ruled the administration of President Donald Trump could keep control of National Guard troops in Los Angeles, over the objections of California Governor Gavin Newsom.

The decision on Thursday comes against a backdrop of heightened tensions in California’s largest city, which has become ground zero of Trump’s immigration crackdown across the US.

In a 38-page unanimous ruling, a three-judge panel said Trump was within his rights earlier this month when he ordered 4,000 members of the National Guard into service for 60 days to “protect federal personnel performing federal functions and to protect federal property”.

“Affording appropriate deference to the President’s determination, we conclude that he likely acted within his authority in federalising the National Guard,” the panel of the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeal said.

Trump, a Republican, had appointed two of the judges on the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit panel while his Democratic predecessor, Joe Biden, had named the third, according to US media reports.

Last week, a lower court judge had ordered Trump to return control of the California National Guard to Newsom, saying the president’s decision to deploy them during protests over federal immigration detentions in Los Angeles was “illegal”. That decision by US District Judge Charles Breyer on June 12 prompted the appeal.

On Thursday night, Trump hailed the appeal court’s decision in a post on his Truth Social social media platform, calling it a “BIG WIN”.

“All over the United States, if our Cities, and our people, need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should State and Local Police be unable, for whatever reason, to get the job done,” Trump wrote.

‘Not a king’

The state of California had argued that Trump’s order was illegal because it did not follow the procedure of being issued through the governor.

It was the first time since 1965 that a US president deployed the National Guard over the wishes of a state governor.

The judges said Trump’s “failure to issue the federalisation order directly ‘through’ the Governor of California does not limit his otherwise lawful authority to call up the National Guard”.

But they said the panel disagreed with the defendant’s primary argument that the president’s decision to federalise members of the California National Guard “is completely insulated from judicial review”.

“Nothing in our decision addresses the nature of the activities in which the federalized National Guard may engage,” it wrote in its opinion.

Newsom could still challenge the use of the National Guard and Marines under other laws, including the bar on using troops in domestic law enforcement, it added.

The governor could raise those issues at a court hearing on Friday in front of Breyer, it also said.

In a social media post after the decision, Newsom promised to pursue his challenge.

“Donald Trump is not a king and not above the law,” he wrote.

“Tonight, the court rightly rejected Trump’s claim that he can do whatever he wants with the National Guard and not have to explain himself to a court.

“We will not let this authoritarian use of military soldiers against citizens go unchecked.”

Iran has re-emerged at the centre of international attention, following Israeli attacks on the Middle East’s second-largest country on June 13.

Stretching from the Caspian Sea in the north to the Gulf of Oman in the south, Iran’s landscape is as varied as its history, with key access to critical waterways, including the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of the world’s oil flows.

Iran’s history spans millennia, making it one of the world’s most ancient and culturally rich nations, continuously inhabited and influential throughout history.

In this visual explainer, Al Jazeera provides a snapshot of Iran’s geography, key cities, population makeup, and ethnic diversity.

Iran at a glance

With a population of 92 million, Iran is the 17th-largest country in the world by population and land area.

Iran’s nominal gross domestic product (GDP) is $418bn, ranking it 36th in terms of the economy size. It has an unemployment rate of about 7.2 percent.

The country’s adult literacy rate is 89 percent, with youth literacy nearing 99 percent, though these rates vary between rural and urban areas.

The country is rich in oil and gas, ranking as the world’s ninth-largest oil producer and third-largest natural gas producer.

How big is Iran?

Located in Western Asia, Iran is the second-largest country in the Middle East after Saudi Arabia and the 17th-largest in the world, covering approximately 1.65 million square kilometres (636,000 square miles).

Iran shares land borders with seven countries, the longest being Iraq, followed by Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Turkiye and Armenia.

Iran covers about one-sixth the equivalent land area of the United States, nearly as large as the state of Alaska.

It is about one-sixth the size of Europe, about one-fifth the size of Australia, roughly half the size of India and about 80 times larger than Israel.

Where are Iran’s main population centres?

Most of Iran’s 92 million people live in the western half of the country, where the terrain features rugged mountains alongside fertile valleys and river basins that sustain much of the population.

With 9.6 million inhabitants, Tehran has been the capital since 1795 and is the country’s largest city. Situated beneath the Alborz Mountains, Tehran’s history dates back more than 6,000 years.

Mashhad, in the northeast, is Iran’s second-largest city with 3.4 million people and a history spanning more than 1,200 years. It is a major religious and cultural centre and is home to the Imam Reza Shrine, which brings in millions of pilgrims from around the world.

Isfahan, the third-largest city, is home to some 2.3 million people. More than 2,500 years old, the city was once the capital of the Safavid Empire, which lasted from 1501 to 1722. Isfahan hosts major educational institutions and is a centre for textiles, steel and manufacturing, along with nuclear and aerospace industries.

Other populous cities across Iran include: Shiraz (1.7 million), Tabriz (1.7 million), Karaj (1.6 million), Qom (1.4 million) and Ahvaz (1.3 million).

Demographic breakdown

Nearly 60 percent of Iran’s population is below the age of 39, according to figures from the United Nations Statistics Division.

The country’s median age is 33-34 years, and about 77 percent of Iranians live in urban areas.

The largest age groups in Iran are those aged 30-34 and 35-39, meaning most of the population was born after the 1979 Islamic Revolution that toppled the Pahlavi Shah regime.

However, there has been a significant emigration of Iranian professionals in recent years, largely driven by economic hardship.

What are Iran’s ethnicities?

Iran is a highly diverse country, both ethnically and culturally. Persians make up approximately 61 percent of the population, while significant minority groups include Azerbaijanis (16 percent), Kurds (10 percent) and others, such as Lurs (6 percent), Arabs (2 percent), Baloch (2 percent) and Turkic groups (2 percent).

Iran is predominantly Shia Muslim, making up about 90 percent of the population, while Sunni Muslims and other Muslim sects account for roughly 9 percent. The remaining 1 percent includes roughly 300,000 Baha’i, 300,000 Christians, 35,000 Zoroastrians, 20,000 Jews, and 10,000 Sabean Mandeans according to the Minority Rights Group.

In border regions such as Kurdistan, Khuzestan and Sistan-Baluchestan, ethnic groups play a key role in shaping the country’s ethnic and religious diversity as well as its regional politics.

While Persian (Farsi) is the official national language, many regions across the country speak a variety of other languages.

The 22nd Shangri-La Dialogue, held in late May 2025 in Singapore, continued to clearly reflect the escalating strategic tensions between the United States and China in the Indo-Pacific region. Mutual criticism of freedom of navigation, militarization of the South China Sea, and the “rules-based” international order created an atmosphere of near-confrontation.

In that context, Vietnam—a country with a strategic position and close relations with both the United States and China—has once again attracted the attention of international analysts as a potential model of the “soft balancing” strategy. The question is, can Vietnam continue to maintain an independent and autonomous foreign policy while the great powers are increasingly exerting pressure?

US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s speech at Shangri-La Dialogue 2025 reaffirmed America’s “unwavering” commitment to the security of its allies and partners in Asia, with a particular emphasis on “freedom of navigation in the South China Sea” and opposition to “unilateral actions that change the status quo.” Hegseth also announced the expansion of defense cooperation with many Southeast Asian countries, including Vietnam.

In turn, China has criticized the United States for using the Shangri-La Dialogue to “create disputes, sow discord, provoke confrontation, and pursue selfish interests,” after US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth called China a threat in the Indo-Pacific region.

The war of words between the United States and China at Shangri-La 22 not only reflects the stance of the two powers but also an effort to shape the understanding of regional security, leaving countries like Vietnam facing many difficult choices.

Since 2023, when upgrading relations with the US to a “comprehensive strategic partnership,” Vietnam has entered a new phase in its policy of “multilateralization and diversification” of international relations. Bilateral trade turnover between Vietnam and the US has exceeded the 124 billion USD mark in 2024, while the US has also actively promoted cooperation in technology, cybersecurity, and maritime patrol support.

However, China remains Vietnam’s largest trading partner, with total two-way trade reaching a peak of over 230 billion USD in 2023. In addition, China is also an important source of input materials in many manufacturing and processing sectors.

Geostrategically, Vietnam is caught between two increasingly clear poles of influence. Leaning too heavily toward one side not only violates Hanoi’s principle of independent and autonomous diplomacy but also carries the risk of being drawn into conflicts that are not its own.

Vietnam’s “four no’s” defense policy—no participation in military alliances; no alliance with one country against another; no allowing foreign countries to set up military bases; No use of force or threat of use of force—continues to be affirmed after Shangri-La.

However, the challenge lies in practical implementation in the context of the US increasing its military presence in the East Sea, while China continues to consolidate artificial outposts and increase its maritime law enforcement forces.

Vietnam has been strengthening its defense capabilities, but it is not seeking a rigid alliance. Its defense procurement from multiple sources (Russia, Israel, South Korea, India, etc.) reflects its desire to maintain a flexible neutrality. In addition, Vietnam prioritizes bilateral and multilateral defense dialogues—including the ADMM+ and the ASEAN Maritime Security Capacity Building Initiative—to maintain regional stability.

For many experts, Vietnam is currently one of the few ASEAN countries with the capacity and courage to maintain a “dual pivot ”strategy”—maintaining warm relations with the US while maintaining stability with China. After the 22nd Shangri-La Dialogue, Vietnam will continue to play an active role in maintaining the stability of the regional power structure. By raising its voice, it will strengthen ASEAN’s central role, from the East Sea issue to building military-security dialogue mechanisms.

However, it cannot be denied that the increasing strategic pressure from both sides may hurt Vietnam’s independent policy space, especially when some countries in the region have begun to lean heavily towards one side; for example, the Philippines has increased military exercises and signed many extensive military agreements with the US.

Vietnam needs to continue moving in the direction of “not choosing sides, but choosing interests.” This means prioritizing substantive projects: energy transition, green technology, improving maritime security capacity, and responding to climate change.

Equally important is to promote bilateral and multilateral dialogue channels to resolve disagreements, especially the East Sea issue. In the context of the Code of Conduct (COC) still not reaching consensus after nearly two decades of negotiations, Vietnam’s proactive mediating role in ASEAN is extremely necessary.

Finally, Vietnam needs to invest more heavily in its domestic “strategic analytical capacity” and foreign policy advisory apparatus to provide flexible, realistic options and respond promptly to strategic movements in the region.

Thus, after the 22nd Shangri-La Dialogue, although no solution to regional security conflicts emerged, it was a clear reminder that US-China competition will continue, even more fiercely. In that environment, Vietnam has no other choice but to uphold the principles of independence, self-reliance, and cooperation while strengthening internal strength, expanding partnerships, and firmly maintaining a principled stance.

It is not an easy road. But as history has shown, Vietnam’s sobriety and steadfastness in the midst of major strategic currents is the foundation for long-term stability and development.

US President Donald Trump has made his administration “a subcontractor, a junior partner” to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s objectives in the Middle East, argues Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen.

As the president mulls further involvement in Israel’s attack on Iran, Senator Van Hollen tells host Steve Clemons that “This notion that you can just drop a few big bombs and be done with it misunderstands history, because there is a real risk that the United States will get dragged deeper and deeper into this war.”

Van Hollen also criticised the US-Israeli Gaza Humanitarian Foundation as “death traps” for Palestinians.

Israel has bombed the northern Iranian city of Rasht, causing a massive fireball to rise through the night sky, not long after it sent out a warning for people to evacuate the area. One of the strikes reportedly hit the Sefidrood Industrial park.

Washington, DC – Over the past week, United States President Donald Trump has been issuing statements on Iran that appear to be contradictory.

He has called for ending the war and hinted at peace coming “soon”, only to then suggest that assassinating Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei could be an option for the US along with joining Israel’s bombing campaign.

In the latest turn, the White House said on Thursday that Trump will make a decision on whether to join the war within two weeks.

These changes in the president’s stance have some observers thinking that Trump may not have a clear strategy or endgame; rather he is being dragged to war by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been seeking US attacks on Iran for decades.

Alternatively, could Trump be using his increasingly bellicose rhetoric against Iran to compel Tehran to agree to entirely give up its nuclear programme?

If so, experts warn that brinkmanship could turn into an all-out war between the US and Iran.

Jamal Abdi, president of the National Iranian American Council, said Trump could be attempting to build leverage with threats to strongarm Iran into accepting his demands of “total surrender”.

“I think he’s trying to present himself as this madman who is unpredictable, and in so doing, he can then insist on this very hard line that Iran has refused to accept for decades of full dismantlement of its enrichment programme,” Abdi told Al Jazeera.

Another possible explanation of Trump’s latest statements, Abdi added, is that he is “being taken for a ride by Bibi Netanyahu to commit the United States to a full-on war with Iran”.

‘He says one thing. He does another’

Iranian American analyst Negar Mortazavi also said that Trump is being “outmaneuvered” by Netanyahu.

“I don’t even know if President Trump knows what he wants,” Mortazavi told Al Jazeera.

“He campaigned as the president of peace … he promised he’s going to end conflicts. Russia-Ukraine hasn’t ended. Gaza has escalated, and he just let the third big Middle East war – which looks like a regime-change war – start under his watch. So, he says one thing. He does another.”

Israel launched its bombing campaign against Iran last week, two days before US and Iranian officials were set to meet for a sixth round of talks in Oman.

Hours before the Israeli assault began, Trump renewed his commitment to diplomacy. And the initial US response to the Israeli strikes was to stress that Washington is not involved in the attacks.

In subsequent days, however, Trump appeared to take credit for the Israeli bombing campaign.

“We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran,” he wrote in a social media post on Tuesday, without elaborating on who the “we” was.

“Iran had good sky trackers and other defensive equipment, and plenty of it, but it doesn’t compare to American made, conceived, and manufactured ‘stuff.’ Nobody does it better than the good ol’ USA.”

Israel’s strikes have targeted Iran’s air defences, military and nuclear facilities, oil infrastructure and residential buildings, killing hundreds of people, including top military and political officials as well as many civilians. Iran has responded with hundreds of ballistic missiles that have killed at least 24 Israelis and left widespread destruction across the country.

Israeli officials claim they are trying to destroy Iran’s nuclear and missile programmes, but also note that their military campaign could lead to the collapse of the Iranian governing system, which they say would be a welcome development.

However, it is widely believed that Israel would need US help to destroy Iran’s main uranium enrichment facility, Fordow, which is buried inside a mountain.

Mortazavi said war hawks and Israeli officials appear to be making the case to Trump that bombing Fordow will be an easy task.

“Instead of a regime change war – a devastating, unnecessary war with Iran, which he has been warning everyone and running against in his campaigns, they’re just making this look like, ‘Oh, you just use your bunker busters once and done.’”

But Iran has promised to retaliate harshly against any US attack.

Thousands of US troops in the region could come under Iranian missile strikes. If the war escalates, Iran could also disrupt shipping lanes in the Gulf – a major lifeline for global energy.

Iranian lawmakers have already suggested that Iran could close the Strait of Hormuz that connects the Gulf to the Indian Ocean and through which 20 percent of the world’s oil flows.

‘Catastrophic’ war

Mortazavi said escalating the conflict will have “catastrophic” consequences for the region.

“It will look like Iraq and Afghanistan combined, if not worse. Iran is a big country,” she said.

In Iraq, Bush’s regime-change war led to years of sectarian bloodshed and the rise of groups like ISIL (ISIS). In Afghanistan, US forces fought for 20 years after deposing the Taliban from the capital Kabul, only to see the group swiftly return to power as US troops withdrew.

Even if Iran’s governing system is toppled under US and Israeli blows, experts warn that US war hawks should be careful what they wish for.

Iran is a country of more than 90 million people. The fall of the government could lead to internal conflict, displacement crises and regional – if not global – instability, analysts say.

“This is not a colour revolution. This is going to be war and chaos, potentially civil war, and unrest,” Mortazavi said.

Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of the rights group DAWN, said that even if Trump is trying to gain leverage with his threats and is not seeking war or regime change in Iran, it’s a risky strategy.

“The possibilities of the assaults on Iran escalating into not just a broader regional war, but potentially a global war, are extremely high,” Whitson told Al Jazeera.

“And so, continued belligerence and hostile rhetoric from President Trump is only throwing fuel on the fire.”