Deploying two US carrier strike groups to the Middle East represents a significant concentration of firepower, limiting carrier availability elsewhere. Former head of US Naval Forces Central Command Vice Admiral John Miller told Al Jazeera’s ‘This is America’ it comes at a cost.
Published On 25 Aug 202625 Aug 2026
Share
A tanker was struck by a projectile near the Strait of Hormuz early Tuesday. File Photo by EPA
Aug. 24 (UPI) — An unidentified projectile struck an oil tanker off the coast of Oman early Tuesday, a British sponsored maritime security organization said, the latest attack in the U.S.-Iran war over control of the Strait of Hormuz.
The UKMTO center said in a statement that it received a report of the strike at about 12:25 a.m. local time. It said the vessel was struck roughly 9 nautical miles northeast of Ash Shishan, Oman.
The tanker, which was not identified, sustained damage to its engine room, disabling the vessel.
“Crew reported safe,” the UKMTO center said. “Environmental impact is unknown at the time of the report.”
The UKMTO did not identify who launched the projectile nor has anyone yet taken responsibility. However, the strike comes as Iran has been enforcing a military blockade of the Strait of Hormuz since joint U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran started the ongoing war in late February.
The Trump administration has for months employed military operations combined with economic measures to secure a diplomatic end to the conflict, its focus has since shifted to restoring freedom of navigation to the Strait of Hormuz, a vital energy shipping route. Meanwhile, Iran continues to use the strait as a bargaining chip in negotiations and has said it is seeking to maintain sovereignty over vessels that pass through it.
President Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed that the United States has control of the Strait of Hormuz and that vessels are transiting it. Over the weekend, Trump posted an image of the strait, calling it a “new U.S. territory” on his Truth Social media platform.
However, despite Trump’s claims, the number of vessels trainsiting the strait has drop from about 140 to a handful a day, according to a maritime tracker by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Over the weekend, the Persian Gulf Strait Authority, an Iranian government entity formed to oversee the Strait of Hormuz, warned that vessels violating its protocols face with punitive measures, such as restrictions on future passages, fines, detention or confiscations.
On Monday, the Trump administration unveiled even more stringent sanctions targeting Iran, tightening its financial vises on Tehran.
U.S. Central Command also said a blockade of Iran’s ports, enforced since July 14 in response to Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, has redirected 71 commercial vessels, disabled three and boarded two others.
An investigation by Amnesty International says the Indian government used lethal weapons, including pellet-firing shotguns, grenades, batons and electric shock devices against Cockroach Janta Party-led protesters. The Modi government has denied it used excessive force.
Published On 25 Aug 202625 Aug 2026
Share
Aug. 24 (UPI) — The U.S. State Department officially delisted Syria as a state sponsor of terrorism on Monday, marking a significant step toward the country’s reintegration into the global economy and the international community.
The announcement by Secretary of State Marco Rubio comes about a month and a half after President Donald Trump informed Congress of his intent to lift Syria’s decades-old terrorism designation that barred it from most U.S. foreign assistance and clamped down on what could be exported to it. It also meant the United States would oppose foreign institutions, such as the World Bank, granting it loans.
Along with the delisting of Syria, Rubio said he also removed Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, the coalition of northern Syria-based Sunni Islamist groups that led the military campaign that toppled Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad in late 2024, from its list of specially designated global terrorists.
“These actions were all taken in recognition of the positive actions taken and further commitments by the Syrian government under President Ahmed al-Sharaa to fully distance Syria from acts of international terrorism,” Rubio said in a statement, listing as reasons Damascus’ joining the Global Coalition to Defeat the Islamic State and conducting terrorism-disrupting operations targeting ISIS and Iran-backed Hezbollah.
Rubio said removing the designations “eliminates the final major barrier for private sector investment in Syria and promotes economic recovery and reintegration into the global economy.”
Al-Sharaa issued a statement congratulating the Syrian people on their country’s removal from the U.S. state sponsors of terrorism list.
“Today, Syria is casting off a black mark from its shoulders, and with its own hands, tearing out a page from its painful past, so that it may set out toward development, reconstruction and building,” he said in a recorded statement.
“Great people of Syria, you have done it again. The sanctions have been lifted from you and the restrictions have been removed. I ask almighty God to help us serve you.”
Syria was among the first countries designated by the United States as a state sponsor of terrorism in 1979 over its hostility to Israel, fighting with Lebanon, partnership with Iran, alignment with Russia, support for terrorist groups and development of weapons of mass destruction, according to a Congressional Research Service report.
Since the fall of al-Assad in late 2024, Syria’s relations with the United States — and much of the Western world — have steadily improved. In June, Trump signed an executive order ending most U.S. sanctions on Damascus and informed Congress in July of his intent to delist it as a state sponsor of terrorism, starting the 45-day congressional notification clock before it could be formally removed.
“Lifting Syria’s designation as a state sponsor of terrorism is a historic step that returns it to its natural place within the global economic system,” Safwat Raslan, the governor of the Central Bank of Syria, said in a statement Monday.
“And we at the Central Bank of Syria are working to build a modern and reliable financial system, capable of keeping pace with and benefiting from all opportunities. And what is to come is better, God willing.”
Kinshasa, DR Congo – President Felix Tshisekedi is due to leave office in 2028 under the current Constitution of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Yet with more than two years to go, a battle over the rules governing what happens when his mandate ends is already reshaping Congolese politics.
In May, Tshisekedi said he had not sought a third term but would accept one if the Congolese people wanted him to continue. The remarks revived opposition fears that constitutional reform could eventually open a path beyond the existing two-term limit.
Under the current constitution, the president is elected for five years, renewable once, while the number and length of presidential terms are protected from constitutional revision.
Tshisekedi’s camp says the country needs institutional reform. Opponents of the reform fear the process could ultimately be used to change the rules governing presidential succession.
The dispute is unfolding as the DRC fights a rebellion in the east led by M23, an armed group that operates within the broader Alliance Fleuve Congo (AFC), a political-military coalition that controls Goma and Bukavu, the capitals of North Kivu and South Kivu.
With an opposition mobilisation planned for September and Tshisekedi preparing to outline an inclusive national dialogue, the confrontation is entering a critical phase.
The confrontation accelerated in June when the Parliament of the Democratic Republic of the Congo passed legislation setting out conditions for organising a referendum.
The Constitutional Court ruled in July that the law complied with the constitution, while raising concerns about some of its provisions. On August 10, Tshisekedi formally asked the presidents of the National Assembly and Senate to reconsider the legislation in light of the court’s observations. The National Assembly said the fresh deliberation would be placed on the agenda for its September session.
The legislation provides for a constituent assembly followed by a referendum in the event of what it describes as a “major dysfunction” of state institutions.
Critics of the process say the mechanism could eventually be used to alter provisions that currently prevent Tshisekedi from seeking a third term. The government, meanwhile, has presented constitutional reform as a broader institutional issue rather than an explicit bid to extend the president’s tenure.
The main opposition group campaigning against the process is known as C64, or the Article 64 coalition. Its name refers to Article 64 of the DRC’s constitution, which calls on citizens to oppose anyone who takes power in violation of the constitutional order.
C64 says it will resist any attempt to use constitutional reform to extend Tshisekedi’s mandate beyond 2028. The coalition announced a nationwide mobilisation for September 15, with demonstrations in Kinshasa expected to converge on the Palais du Peuple, the seat of parliament.
The dispute has already spilled onto the streets.
Thousands demonstrated in Goma and Bukavu on July 28 against proposed constitutional changes and any attempt to extend Tshisekedi’s time in office.
In Kinshasa, protesters are expected to converge on the Palais du Peuple.
For C64, the destination is deliberate: the coalition wants to take its protest to the institution at the centre of the constitutional process.
Jean-Marc Kabund, a Congolese opposition politician, told Al Jazeera that no constitutional revision, referendum or legal manoeuvre should be allowed to circumvent the current constitution.
He warned that this happening while the country is at war could deepen divisions and threaten national cohesion.
The constitutional dispute is unfolding alongside a conflict that has transformed eastern Congo.
M23 and the AFC have seized large areas of territory, including Goma and Bukavu. The Congolese government accuses Rwanda of supporting M23, a charge that Kigali denies.
The war is also raising questions about the 2028 elections.
Tshisekedi has warned that elections may not be possible if the fighting continues, arguing that it would be difficult to organise a credible vote while parts of the country remain outside government control.
Emmanuel Bugama, a Congolese political analyst based in Bunia, told Al Jazeera that national interests should come before political disputes.
“The nation’s best interests should take precedence over these political squabbles,” he said.
In Goma, the argument is being watched from a city no longer under Kinshasa’s control.
Gentil Mulume, a civil society activist in Goma, told Al Jazeera that any constitutional change extending Tshisekedi’s mandate would not be recognised in territory controlled by M23 and the AFC.
“If Tshisekedi dares to amend this constitution to extend his term of office, it will not be recognised here,” he said.
Mulume said the dispute was part of a deeper divide between Kinshasa and the east. He argued that continued Tshisekedi rule could be viewed there as a form of domination and that self-determination should be part of the political debate.
His comments illustrate how a constitutional confrontation in Kinshasa is being interpreted in territory already beyond the government’s effective control.
There is also a more basic question: how much do ordinary citizens understand about the proposed changes?
Kevin Kalala, a 30-year-old mobile-credit retailer in Kinshasa, told Al Jazeera that he does not know enough about the constitution to take a position.
“We do not know what our constitution entails,” he said. “The Congolese state should start by teaching us about our constitution.”
Kalala said citizens should first be shown which provisions need changing, why they need changing, and what the benefits would be.
“I am neither for nor against amending the constitution,” he said.
As tensions rise, Tshisekedi has proposed an inclusive national dialogue involving political parties, civil society and religious groups.
While in Libreville, Gabon, on August 16, he said he would soon address the nation to set out his vision and the contours of the talks. The date and format of the dialogue have yet to be announced.
Tshisekedi has ruled out sitting with people he accuses of siding with Rwanda or the armed rebellion.
Martin Fayulu, who challenged Tshisekedi in the 2018 presidential election, has called for former President Joseph Kabila and Corneille Nangaa, the political leader of the AFC, to participate.
For now, the constitutional dispute is running alongside the war in the east and the uncertainty over the 2028 elections.
The question is no longer only whether the constitution will change. It is whether Congo’s political forces can agree on the rules for what happens when Tshisekedi’s current mandate ends.
“We are certainly heading towards one of the most decisive periods in our recent history,” Bugama told Al Jazeera. “The country is under the control of an armed group, whilst the government in Kinshasa is posturing over constitutional reform instead of tackling what matters most.”
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announces new sanctions on Tehran to sever financial support for the regime, urging US allies to support the measures.
Published On 25 Aug 202625 Aug 2026
Share
Aug. 24 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled that President Donald Trump can begin implementing measures from an executive order intended to restrict mail-in voting in many states and Washington, D.C.
However, legal challenges to that order could still cause issues for that plan before the midterm elections in November.
The ruling Monday means that the Department of Homeland Security can begin moving forward with compiling state-specific lists of people it believes are eligible to vote in the states — all led by Democrats – that had challenged the executive order.
Another part of the executive order required the U.S. Postal Service to require states that want to send ballots through the mail to submit lists of eligible voters with information allowing those ballots to be tracked by the government. A lower court had blocked that policy nationwide in a separate case, meaning that more legal action will be needed before the postal service can continue.
The high court’s ruling did not address the overall legality of the executive order.
“If the Postal Service’s final rule harms the states, theymay challenge that rule,” the ruling said.
The postal service entered an unpublished version of that final rule into the Federal Register late Friday despite the court injunctions against it.
Trump has repeatedly and without evidence claimed that mail-in voting is “inherently corrupt” and full of fraud, although voting experts have criticized the order and say such fraud is exceedingly rare. The president himself has voted by mail as recently as this year, NPR reported.
The high court handed down the ruling in an unsigned order over the dissent of three of its members: Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
In a dissent, Jackson said the ruling “needlessly injects chaos and uncertainty into the upcoming midterm elections,” CNN reported.
She noted that, in the past, the Supreme Court has turned away challenges to election law because they were too close to elections. “Today’s revelation is that such claims can also come too early — never mind that an election is looming and related harms are presently occurring.”