NewzIntel.com

Category: Trumpism

  • MIL-OSI USA: Rep. Dan Goldman Bashes Elise Stefanik for Using Congressional Committee for Her Gubernatorial Campaign, Condemns Republicans for Rubber Stamping Trump’s Authoritarian ICE Raids

    Source: US Congressman Dan Goldman (NY-10)

    Rep. Dan Goldman: “I’m sorry you have to deal with this crap. Governor Hochul, I want you to know, as a proud member of the delegation of your state, I am not going to use my five minutes to mount a campaign for governor against you as my colleague from the North chose to do.” 

     

    Goldman: “You’re going after people who actually are going through the lawful process you say they should. But just because Donald Trump and Stephen Miller need to bump up their numbers because they can’t do a good enough job in actually finding convicted criminals, you’re going after Moms and Dads, separating parents from children. You have a voice, Republicans. Speak up.” 

     

    Watch the Full Committee Exchange Here 

    Washington, D.C. – Congressman Dan Goldman (NY-10) today excoriated Rep. Elise Stefanik for her desperate theatrics in the Oversight Committee that were clearly designed to generate five minutes of internet fame in pursuit of her quixotic 2026 gubernatorial campaign. Goldman then challenged committee Republicans to stand up to the Trump administration’s authoritarian crackdown on law-abiding, non-violent immigrants. 

    A rough transcript of the committee is available below. Watch Congressman Goldman’s committee remarks here. 

    Rep. Dan Goldman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  

    I would urge you to reserve comment on what happened to Mr. Padilla until you get full information. In fact, I would urge all of my Republican colleagues to take a breath before you once again desperately run to bend the knee to Donald Trump and to Kristi Noem, because anyone with two eyes that can see can see that that was authoritarian, lawless behavior that no person in America, much less a senator conducting constitutional oversight, should have received. 

    And I know it’s hard for all of you to speak up against Donald Trump and that’s why we’re here at this hearing, talking all about Joe Biden, talking all about Joe Biden’s policy. 

    Is it just because you’re consistently trying to ignore the fact that Joe Biden is not President? Donald Trump is President. And what he’s doing right now, which you all know, is he is going after people who are lawfully present. 

    Now, I appreciate the governors being here. I’m sorry you have to deal with this crap. Governor Hochul, I want you to know, as a proud member of the delegation of your state, I am not going to use my five minutes to mount a campaign for governor against you as my colleague from the North chose to do. 

    I will give you the opportunity to actually answer some questions, unlike she did. And I will allow you to explain exactly what the policies in New York are, as it relates to cooperation between the state and federal agents.  

    Governor Hochul: 

    First of all, I’m glad you’re not running against me. Thank you. Secondly, I appreciate the opportunity to break through all the noise here today and to stop the talking points that keep mischaracterizing our policies in the great state of New York. 

    New York is not a sanctuary or a haven for criminals. We devote an enormous amount of our energy working to keep New Yorkers safe. $2.5 billion, I’ve allocated just in the last few years.  

    We do cooperate with ICE when it comes to investigating or building a case against criminals.  

    We do this all the time, and when someone goes through the criminal justice system in the state of New York, they do their time in prison. 

    We alert ICE 30 days in advance of when they’re to be removed, and we send them away. That’s how it’s supposed to work. But what we do not do under our laws is divert our essential resources that protect everyday New Yorkers from crimes themselves, and have that help ICE with civil immigration enforcement. That is their job. That is the federal government’s job. And we cannot be told to enforce federal laws.  

    Goldman: Or to use all your limited resources to spend all that time doing their job.   

    Hochul: My concern is that every minute that ICE officers are going after moms and dads and kids and separating families, perhaps one more criminal is still out there at large. 

    Goldman: I actually, in my district office down in lower Manhattan, witnessed ICE officers waiting for immigrants to come out of a courtroom.  

    These are immigrants who have asylum applications. And I’m sure you agree with me that asylum is a lawful pathway to immigrate to this country. Is that correct? 

    Hochul: That is absolutely correct.  

    Goldman: So, in order to make these immigrants here unlawfully, the DHS is now dismissing their cases, their own removal proceedings against them to void out the asylum claim. That way, when they go downstairs in the elevator, there are ICE agents that can be there to arrest them and put them in expedited removal. 

    And they don’t have an asylum claim that is live anymore because they’ve just voided it out. These are non-criminal, nonviolent immigrants who are here going through the lawful process. And this is who the Trump Administration is going after every single day. It’s a disgrace. 

    You said you were going to go after the worst of the worst. You were going to go after convicted criminals. You’re here questioning about all these criminals.  

    You’re going after people who actually are going through the lawful process you say they should. But just because Donald Trump and Stephen Miller need to bump up their numbers because they can’t do a good enough job in actually finding convicted criminals, you’re going after moms, dads, separating parents from children.   

    You have a voice. Republicans speak up. 

    ### 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: ICYMI: Rep. Hinson Joins The Signal Sitdown

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Ashley Hinson (IA-01)

    Washington, D.C. – Congresswoman Ashley Hinson (IA-02) joined Daily Signal’s Bradley Devlin on The Signal Sitdown podcast. The two discussed the media bias contributing to the cover-up of President Biden’s mental decline, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, countering the CCP’s illicit practices, and more.

    In case you missed it…

    Click here to watch the full episode of The Signal Sitdown.

    China Has Secret Police in the US. This Congresswoman Is Trying to Stop It.
    The Daily Signal
    Bradley Devlin
    June 12, 2025

    In December 2024, Chen Jinping, a 60-year-old Manhattan resident, pleaded guilty to opening and operating a secret Chinese police station for China’s Ministry of Public Security in Manhattan’s Chinatown neighborhood. Chen was arrested with “Harry” Lu Jianwang in April 2023, following an FBI investigation into the outpost.

    Though these arrests were the first of their kind, according to Justice Department officials, American authorities suspect that China has these kinds of outposts all over the country. 

    And China’s nefarious activities in New York City hardly scratch the surface. For decades, Chinese operatives have infiltrated American universities and companies, smuggled drugs and human beings across America’s borders, and stolen American intellectual property and technology—even corn seeds from fields in Iowa.

    President Donald Trump was one of the first to see the threat of China clearly. Under the president’s leadership, Republicans in Congress are trying to prevent and punish this malign Chinese activity. This week, one of the House Republicans spearheading that effort, Rep. Ashley Hinson, R-Iowa, joins “The Signal Sitdown” to discuss.

    “My passion for this policy started in my district,” Hinson said. The aforementioned seed-stealing spies were operating in Hinson’s backyard. “There was actually a Chinese spy ring busted stealing seeds out of a cornfield in Dysart, Iowa.”

    “They wanted to take them back to China. They want to cheat,” Hinson explained. “It’s all about reverse engineering because there is so much R&D that has gone into seed technology so that we can grow the most resilient, best yielding plants in the world.”

    China’s unfair trade practices can often be more subtle than outright theft, however. “[The Chinese] are using tactics like transnational shipment,” Hinson told The Daily Signal.

    “So, especially in the auto-parts industry, for example,” Hinson explained, “something coming in from China is gonna be tariffed, so then they ship it through Singapore or Vietnam or someplace with a lesser tariff to get around our tariff laws.”

    “They’re economically cheating and getting a better deal,” Hinson continued. “Meanwhile, you’ve got American producers trying to play on that same playing field and it’s not level.”

    Hinson has introduced the Protecting American Industry and Labor from International Trade Crimes Act with Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party Chairman John Moolenaar, R-Mich., and Ranking Member Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill., to provide federal law enforcement more capacity to crack down on these trade practices.

    “What we’re trying to do is make sure that President Trump’s Department of Justice… [will have] the resources and a specific task force to be able to go after these malign actors who are, again, intentionally cheating,” she explained.

    “We think this cost is hundreds of billions of dollars every year on the low end,” Hinson said. “This has been decades in the making, right? You’ve got entire industries that have been ceded and now China owns them.”

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: The battle for TikTok is at the forefront of a deeper geopolitical trend

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Shweta Singh, Assistant Professor, Information Systems and Management, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick

    Mijansk786/Shutterstock

    After years of mounting scrutiny over TikTok’s data practices, in 2024 the Chinese video platform was threatened with a forced sale in the US or a nationwide ban. With the deadline looming on June 19, US–China tech rivalry has entered a new and more aggressive phase. TikTok vowed to fight forced divestment, claiming it would “trample” free speech.

    But what started as a controversy over data privacy now has global implications. This conflict is about more than just an app. It represents a shift in the balance of digital power — one that could redefine how nations view national security, economic sovereignty and the internet itself.

    In light of my research on AI bias, algorithmic fairness, and the societal impact of digital platforms and my experience advising government on AI regulation and digital ethics, I see TikTok as the flashpoint of a broader, more dangerous trend. Digital spaces are becoming battlefronts for geopolitical influence.

    TikTok has evolved from a social media app to – in the eyes of some policymakers – a digital weapon. Its massive global following has made it a cultural juggernaut. But this viral success has also made it a prime target in the escalating US-China tech war.

    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

    US politicians worry that its owner, ByteDance, could be forced by the Chinese government to hand over American user data, or manipulate TikTok’s algorithm to serve Beijing’s political agenda.

    The concerns are serious, even if not proven. Platforms have been used to sway political sentiment before — as with Facebook in the Cambridge Analytica scandal. But TikTok is different. Its algorithm isn’t like those of other social platforms that rely on a user’s social graph (what you follow, who you know) to connect people, organisations and places.

    Instead, TikTok uses a real-time recommendation system based on micro-interactions: how long you watch a video, whether you pause or replay it and even your swipe patterns. The result is an ultra-addictive content stream. This gives TikTok an almost unprecedented power to shape opinions, whether intentionally or not.

    TikTok in the US: three possible scenarios

    There are three potential outcomes for TikTok. The first is a forced sale to a US-based entity, which could satisfy lawmakers but likely provoke severe retaliation from China.

    The second is a ban, which may be more symbolic than effective, but would send a strong message. The third, and perhaps most likely, is a long, drawn-out legal battle that results in a stalemate. Trump seems set to extend the June 19 deadline, after all.

    But there’s a deeper issue here. The world is becoming increasingly divided along digital lines. The US and China are building rival digital ecosystems, each suspicious of the other’s platforms.

    Like past restrictions on Huawei and Nvidia chip exports, this case signals how national security and economic policy are merging in the digital age. This threatens to splinter the internet, with countries choosing sides for their suppliers based on political and economic allegiances rather than technical merit.

    For China, TikTok is a symbol of national pride. It’s one of the few Chinese apps to achieve global success and become a household name in western markets. Forcing ByteDance to sell TikTok, or banning it, could be seen as an affront to China’s ambitions on the global digital stage. It’s no longer just about a platform — it’s about control over the future of technology.

    TikTok’s defenders argue that banning the app would undermine free speech, stifle creativity and unfairly target a foreign-owned platform. These concerns are valid, but the broader landscape of digital platforms is far from straightforward.

    Other platforms have faced criticism over allegations of spreading misinformation, amplifying bias and contributing to social harm. However, the key distinction with TikTok lies in its algorithm and its ability to sway opinions on a global scale.

    TikTok’s “for you” feed tracks micro-interactions, serving up personalised content with an addictive intensity. As a result, users can find themselves pulled deeper into curated content streams without realising the extent to which their preferences are being shaped.

    While its competitors might be able to spread misinformation and stoke division in more traditional ways, TikTok could potentially do so through the finely tuned manipulation of the user’s attention. This is a potent tool in the world of digital politics.

    It also raises critical questions about how the US approaches regulation. Is TikTok a genuine national security threat or simply a symbol of the growing strategic competition between two superpowers?

    Rather than relying on bans and trade wars, what is needed is robust, cross-border frameworks that prioritise transparency, data protection, algorithmic accountability and the mitigation of online harms.

    Concerns about harassment, disinformation, addictive design and algorithms that amplify toxic content are not unique to TikTok. US legislation such as the Kids Online Safety Act and the proposed Platform Accountability and Transparency Act signal growing concern. But these efforts remain piecemeal.

    The EU’s Digital Services Act is a welcome model for accountability. But global coordination is now essential. Without it, there is the risk of further fragmentation of the internet (what has been called the “splinternet” — where access is determined by geopolitics rather than universal principles).

    The digital world has long been dominated by a handful of powerful corporations. Now it is increasingly shaped by state rivalries. The battle over TikTok is a harbinger of deeper tensions around how data, influence and trust are distributed online.

    The real question now is not whether TikTok survives, but whether nations can craft a digital future that prioritises democratic values, cross-border collaboration and the public good. This isn’t just about national security or free speech. It’s a defining moment in the battle for the future of the internet.

    Shweta Singh does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. The battle for TikTok is at the forefront of a deeper geopolitical trend – https://theconversation.com/the-battle-for-tiktok-is-at-the-forefront-of-a-deeper-geopolitical-trend-258341

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Iran-Israel ‘threshold war’ has rewritten nuclear escalation rules

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Farah N. Jan, Senior Lecturer in International Relations, University of Pennsylvania

    Smoke rises from locations targeted in Tehran amid the third day of Israel’s waves of strikes against Iran, on June 15, 2025. Photo by Khoshiran/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images

    Israel’s conflict with Iran represents far more than another Middle Eastern crisis – it marks the emergence of a dangerous new chapter in nuclear rivalries that has the potential to reshape global proliferation risks for decades to come.

    What began with Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and other targets on June 13, 2025 has now spiraled into the world’s first full-scale example of what I as an expert in nuclear security call a “threshold war” – a new and terrifying form of conflict where a nuclear weapons power seeks to use force to prevent an enemy on the verge of nuclearization from making that jump. As missiles continue to rain down on both Tehran and Tel Aviv – with hundreds dead in Iran and at least 24 killed in Israel – the international community is witnessing the collapse of traditional deterrence frameworks in real time.

    Unlike traditional nuclear rivalries where both sides possess declared arsenals – like India and Pakistan, who despite their tensions operate under mutual deterrence – this new threshold dynamic creates an inherently unstable escalation spiral. Iran increasingly believes it cannot deter Israeli aggression without nuclear weapons, yet every step toward acquiring them invites more aggressive Israeli strikes. Israel, for its part, cannot permanently eliminate Iran’s nuclear knowledge through military means – it can only delay it through means that would seemingly guarantee future Iranian determination to acquire the ultimate deterrent.

    Under this dynamic, neither side can step back without accepting an intolerable outcome: for Israel, an Iran more determined than even in becoming a nuclear weapons nation capable of deterring Israeli action and ending its regional military dominance; for Iran, the risk of regime change through devastating Israeli strikes. The consequences of this deadly logic extend far beyond the Middle East.

    Flames rise from an oil storage facility after it appeared to have been hit by an Israeli strike in Tehran, Iran, on June 15, 2025.
    AP Photo/Vahid Salemi

    The preventive strike precedent

    The stakes could not be higher, as Iranian officials have called the attack “a declaration of war” and vowed that destroyed nuclear facilities “would be rebuilt.” Israel, meanwhile has warned its campaign will continue “for as many days as it takes.”

    Most ominously, the scheduled nuclear talks between the U.S. and Iran were called off, with Tehran dismissing any such dialogue as “meaningless.” This may suggest diplomacy’s window – which opened for just a few months under Trump’s second administration, after being closed during his first – was deliberately slammed shut.

    More broadly, the Israeli strikes mark a dangerous evolution in international norms around preventive warfare. While Israeli officials called this a “preemptive strike,” the legal and strategic reality is different. Preemptive strikes respond to imminent threats – like Israel’s 1967 Six-Day War against Arab armies preparing to attack. Preventive strikes, by contrast, target distant future threats when conditions seem favorable – like Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.

    Israel justified its action by claiming Iran could rapidly assemble up to 15 nuclear bombs. Yet, as the International Atomic Energy Agency director, Rafael Grossi, warned beforehand, an Israeli strike could solidify rather than deter Iran’s nuclear ambitions, potentially prompting withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. True to that warning, on June 16, Iran announced it was preparing a parliamentary bill that would see the country leave the 1968 treaty.

    Israel’s calculations in opting to strike build on the same erosion of international legal frameworks that has legitimized preemptive warfare since the United States’ military action in Afghanistan and Iraq after the Sept. 11, 2001 attack. America’s “war on terror” fundamentally challenged sovereignty norms through practices like drone strikes and preemptive attacks. More recently, operations in Gaza and elsewhere have demonstrated that violations of international humanitarian law carry limited consequences in practice. For Israel, this permissive environment has seemingly created both opportunity and justification regarding striking Iran – something that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been pursuing for decades.

    Already, Russia’s attacks on Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant demonstrated nuclear facilities’ vulnerability in modern warfare. I believe Israel’s actions further risk normalizing attacks on nuclear infrastructure, potentially legitimizing similar preventive actions by India, China or the U.S. against emerging nuclear programs elsewhere.

    From strikes to regional conflagration

    Israel’s initial strike quickly triggered inevitable escalation. Iran’s retaliation came in waves: first hundreds of drones and missiles on June 13, then sustained barrages throughout the following days. By the morning of June 15, both countries were trading strikes on energy infrastructure, military bases and civilian areas, with no immediate end in sight.

    The Houthis in Yemen have since joined the fight, by launching ballistic missiles at Tel Aviv. Notably absent are Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran’s Iraqi militias – all significantly damaged by recent action by Israel. This degradation of Iran’s “axis of resistance” – its traditional forward deterrent – fundamentally alters Tehran’s strategic calculations. Without strong proxies to threaten retaliation, Iran is more exposed to Israeli strikes, making nuclear weapons seem like the only reliable deterrent against future attacks.

    The escalation pattern illustrates what can happen when when a government casts aggression as prevention. Having initiated the recent escalation of hostilities, Israel now faces the consequences. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian’s vow that destroyed facilities “would be rebuilt” underscores that Israeli action designed to prevent nuclearization may instead result in Iran pursuing it with renewed determination.

    The commitment trap

    This creates what strategists call the “commitment trap” – a dynamic where both sides face escalating costs but cannot back down. Israel faces its own strategic dilemma. The strikes may ultimately accelerate rather than prevent Iranian nuclearization, yet backing down would mean accepting a nuclear Iran. Netanyahu’s promise that current strikes are “nothing compared to what they will feel in coming days” shows how quickly strikes sold as preventative escalate toward total war.

    Missiles fired from Iran are pictured in the night sky over Jerusalem on June 14, 2025.
    Photo by Menahem Kahana/AFP via Getty Images

    Unlike established nuclear powers that can negotiate from positions of strength, threshold states, such as Iran, face a stark choice: remain vulnerable to preventive strikes and regime change or race toward the protection that nuclear deterrence provides.

    North Korea offers the clearest example of this dynamic. Despite decades of sanctions and military threats, Pyongyang’s nuclear program has made it essentially immune to preventive strikes. Iranian leaders understand this lesson well – the question is whether they can reach the same protected status before suffering decisive preventive action.

    Traditional nuclear deterrence theory assumes rational actors operating under mutual vulnerability. But threshold wars break these assumptions in fundamental ways. Iran cannot fully deter Israeli action because it lacks confirmed weapons, while Israel cannot rely on deterrence to prevent Iranian weaponization because Iran’s nuclear program continues advancing.

    This creates “use it or lose it” dynamics: Israel faces shrinking windows to act preventively as Iran approaches weaponization; Iran faces incentives to accelerate its program before suffering additional strikes.

    The absence of effective external mediation compounds these risks. U.S. President Donald Trump’s response to the strikes reveals this dynamic starkly. Initially opposing military action and preferring diplomacy to “bombing the hell out of” Iran, Trump pivoted dramatically after the strikes began, and warned that “there’s more to come. A lot more.”

    His post on Truth Social – “Two months ago I gave Iran a 60-day ultimatum to ‘make a deal.’ They should have done it!” – demonstrates how quickly diplomatic efforts can collapse once threshold wars begin.

    Global implication

    The international response reveals how thoroughly Israel’s Operation Rising Lion has normalized aggression against nuclear facilities. While European leaders called for “maximum restraint,” none condemned Israel’s initial attacks. Russia and China condemned the attacks but took no concrete action. The U.N. Security Council produced only statements of “concern” about “escalation.”

    This normalization sets what I believe to be a catastrophic precedent. The threshold war model threatens to unravel decades of nuclear governance based on deterrence rather than preemption.

    Indeed, the Iran-Israel threshold war sets dangerous precedents for other regional nuclear competitions. Successful preventive strikes could incentivize similar actions elsewhere, eroding diplomatic nonproliferation efforts. Conversely, rapid nuclearization by Iran could encourage other threshold states, like Saudi Arabia, to pursue nuclear capabilities swiftly and secretly.

    When preventive strikes become the enforcement mechanism for nonproliferation norms, the entire architecture of nuclear governance begins to crumble. Without these frameworks, the world faces an unstable future defined by cycles of preventive strikes and accelerated nuclear proliferation – far more dangerous than the Cold War-era standoffs that shaped nuclear governance.

    Farah N. Jan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Iran-Israel ‘threshold war’ has rewritten nuclear escalation rules – https://theconversation.com/iran-israel-threshold-war-has-rewritten-nuclear-escalation-rules-258965

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Iran-Israel ‘threshold war’ has rewritten nuclear escalation rules

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Farah N. Jan, Senior Lecturer in International Relations, University of Pennsylvania

    Smoke rises from locations targeted in Tehran amid the third day of Israel’s waves of strikes against Iran, on June 15, 2025. Photo by Khoshiran/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images

    Israel’s conflict with Iran represents far more than another Middle Eastern crisis – it marks the emergence of a dangerous new chapter in nuclear rivalries that has the potential to reshape global proliferation risks for decades to come.

    What began with Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and other targets on June 13, 2025 has now spiraled into the world’s first full-scale example of what I as an expert in nuclear security call a “threshold war” – a new and terrifying form of conflict where a nuclear weapons power seeks to use force to prevent an enemy on the verge of nuclearization from making that jump. As missiles continue to rain down on both Tehran and Tel Aviv – with hundreds dead in Iran and at least 24 killed in Israel – the international community is witnessing the collapse of traditional deterrence frameworks in real time.

    Unlike traditional nuclear rivalries where both sides possess declared arsenals – like India and Pakistan, who despite their tensions operate under mutual deterrence – this new threshold dynamic creates an inherently unstable escalation spiral. Iran increasingly believes it cannot deter Israeli aggression without nuclear weapons, yet every step toward acquiring them invites more aggressive Israeli strikes. Israel, for its part, cannot permanently eliminate Iran’s nuclear knowledge through military means – it can only delay it through means that would seemingly guarantee future Iranian determination to acquire the ultimate deterrent.

    Under this dynamic, neither side can step back without accepting an intolerable outcome: for Israel, an Iran more determined than even in becoming a nuclear weapons nation capable of deterring Israeli action and ending its regional military dominance; for Iran, the risk of regime change through devastating Israeli strikes. The consequences of this deadly logic extend far beyond the Middle East.

    Flames rise from an oil storage facility after it appeared to have been hit by an Israeli strike in Tehran, Iran, on June 15, 2025.
    AP Photo/Vahid Salemi

    The preventive strike precedent

    The stakes could not be higher, as Iranian officials have called the attack “a declaration of war” and vowed that destroyed nuclear facilities “would be rebuilt.” Israel, meanwhile has warned its campaign will continue “for as many days as it takes.”

    Most ominously, the scheduled nuclear talks between the U.S. and Iran were called off, with Tehran dismissing any such dialogue as “meaningless.” This may suggest diplomacy’s window – which opened for just a few months under Trump’s second administration, after being closed during his first – was deliberately slammed shut.

    More broadly, the Israeli strikes mark a dangerous evolution in international norms around preventive warfare. While Israeli officials called this a “preemptive strike,” the legal and strategic reality is different. Preemptive strikes respond to imminent threats – like Israel’s 1967 Six-Day War against Arab armies preparing to attack. Preventive strikes, by contrast, target distant future threats when conditions seem favorable – like Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.

    Israel justified its action by claiming Iran could rapidly assemble up to 15 nuclear bombs. Yet, as the International Atomic Energy Agency director, Rafael Grossi, warned beforehand, an Israeli strike could solidify rather than deter Iran’s nuclear ambitions, potentially prompting withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. True to that warning, on June 16, Iran announced it was preparing a parliamentary bill that would see the country leave the 1968 treaty.

    Israel’s calculations in opting to strike build on the same erosion of international legal frameworks that has legitimized preemptive warfare since the United States’ military action in Afghanistan and Iraq after the Sept. 11, 2001 attack. America’s “war on terror” fundamentally challenged sovereignty norms through practices like drone strikes and preemptive attacks. More recently, operations in Gaza and elsewhere have demonstrated that violations of international humanitarian law carry limited consequences in practice. For Israel, this permissive environment has seemingly created both opportunity and justification regarding striking Iran – something that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been pursuing for decades.

    Already, Russia’s attacks on Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant demonstrated nuclear facilities’ vulnerability in modern warfare. I believe Israel’s actions further risk normalizing attacks on nuclear infrastructure, potentially legitimizing similar preventive actions by India, China or the U.S. against emerging nuclear programs elsewhere.

    From strikes to regional conflagration

    Israel’s initial strike quickly triggered inevitable escalation. Iran’s retaliation came in waves: first hundreds of drones and missiles on June 13, then sustained barrages throughout the following days. By the morning of June 15, both countries were trading strikes on energy infrastructure, military bases and civilian areas, with no immediate end in sight.

    The Houthis in Yemen have since joined the fight, by launching ballistic missiles at Tel Aviv. Notably absent are Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran’s Iraqi militias – all significantly damaged by recent action by Israel. This degradation of Iran’s “axis of resistance” – its traditional forward deterrent – fundamentally alters Tehran’s strategic calculations. Without strong proxies to threaten retaliation, Iran is more exposed to Israeli strikes, making nuclear weapons seem like the only reliable deterrent against future attacks.

    The escalation pattern illustrates what can happen when when a government casts aggression as prevention. Having initiated the recent escalation of hostilities, Israel now faces the consequences. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian’s vow that destroyed facilities “would be rebuilt” underscores that Israeli action designed to prevent nuclearization may instead result in Iran pursuing it with renewed determination.

    The commitment trap

    This creates what strategists call the “commitment trap” – a dynamic where both sides face escalating costs but cannot back down. Israel faces its own strategic dilemma. The strikes may ultimately accelerate rather than prevent Iranian nuclearization, yet backing down would mean accepting a nuclear Iran. Netanyahu’s promise that current strikes are “nothing compared to what they will feel in coming days” shows how quickly strikes sold as preventative escalate toward total war.

    Missiles fired from Iran are pictured in the night sky over Jerusalem on June 14, 2025.
    Photo by Menahem Kahana/AFP via Getty Images

    Unlike established nuclear powers that can negotiate from positions of strength, threshold states, such as Iran, face a stark choice: remain vulnerable to preventive strikes and regime change or race toward the protection that nuclear deterrence provides.

    North Korea offers the clearest example of this dynamic. Despite decades of sanctions and military threats, Pyongyang’s nuclear program has made it essentially immune to preventive strikes. Iranian leaders understand this lesson well – the question is whether they can reach the same protected status before suffering decisive preventive action.

    Traditional nuclear deterrence theory assumes rational actors operating under mutual vulnerability. But threshold wars break these assumptions in fundamental ways. Iran cannot fully deter Israeli action because it lacks confirmed weapons, while Israel cannot rely on deterrence to prevent Iranian weaponization because Iran’s nuclear program continues advancing.

    This creates “use it or lose it” dynamics: Israel faces shrinking windows to act preventively as Iran approaches weaponization; Iran faces incentives to accelerate its program before suffering additional strikes.

    The absence of effective external mediation compounds these risks. U.S. President Donald Trump’s response to the strikes reveals this dynamic starkly. Initially opposing military action and preferring diplomacy to “bombing the hell out of” Iran, Trump pivoted dramatically after the strikes began, and warned that “there’s more to come. A lot more.”

    His post on Truth Social – “Two months ago I gave Iran a 60-day ultimatum to ‘make a deal.’ They should have done it!” – demonstrates how quickly diplomatic efforts can collapse once threshold wars begin.

    Global implication

    The international response reveals how thoroughly Israel’s Operation Rising Lion has normalized aggression against nuclear facilities. While European leaders called for “maximum restraint,” none condemned Israel’s initial attacks. Russia and China condemned the attacks but took no concrete action. The U.N. Security Council produced only statements of “concern” about “escalation.”

    This normalization sets what I believe to be a catastrophic precedent. The threshold war model threatens to unravel decades of nuclear governance based on deterrence rather than preemption.

    Indeed, the Iran-Israel threshold war sets dangerous precedents for other regional nuclear competitions. Successful preventive strikes could incentivize similar actions elsewhere, eroding diplomatic nonproliferation efforts. Conversely, rapid nuclearization by Iran could encourage other threshold states, like Saudi Arabia, to pursue nuclear capabilities swiftly and secretly.

    When preventive strikes become the enforcement mechanism for nonproliferation norms, the entire architecture of nuclear governance begins to crumble. Without these frameworks, the world faces an unstable future defined by cycles of preventive strikes and accelerated nuclear proliferation – far more dangerous than the Cold War-era standoffs that shaped nuclear governance.

    Farah N. Jan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Iran-Israel ‘threshold war’ has rewritten nuclear escalation rules – https://theconversation.com/iran-israel-threshold-war-has-rewritten-nuclear-escalation-rules-258965

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI USA: LaLota and Stefanik Renew Charge Against Hochul’s Commuter Tax

    Source: US Representative Nick LaLota (NY-01)

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — Congressman Nick LaLota (R-NY), Chairwoman Elise Stefanik (R-NY), and Members of the New York and New Jersey Congressional Delegations sent a letter to President Donald J. Trump and U.S. Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy, thanking them for their leadership in fighting to block New York Governor Kathy Hochul’s controversial congestion pricing plan, calling it an unfair commuter tax on hardworking families and small businesses. They further urged the Administration to continue their work in stopping this proposal from moving forward, emphasizing that congestion pricing would disproportionately burden middle- and working-class commuters from Long Island, the Hudson Valley, and New Jersey.

    “Hochul’s commuter tax was never about improving transit—it’s about squeezing hardworking suburban families to paper over the MTA’s bloated, mismanaged budget,” said Rep. LaLota. “She’s forcing law-abiding, taxpaying commuters into a system riddled with crime, delays, and dysfunction—without demanding a shred of accountability. I’m proud to stand with President Trump and Secretary Duffy in the fight to stop Hochul’s commuter tax and protect our constituents from this reckless and unfair scheme.”

    “I stand strongly with President Donald Trump, Secretary Sean Duffy, and my fellow New Yorkers fighting Kathy Hochul’s insane and costly congestion pricing tax scheme that harms New York workers and families — all while Hochul further exacerbates subway crime! New Yorkers across the political spectrum oppose this insane and costly failed policy,” said Chairwoman Stefanik.

    “Governor Hochul’s congestion pricing is a shameless cash grab—punishing hardworking New Yorkers to cover up her own mismanagement. I’m grateful to President Trump and his Administration for standing up for our commuters and pushing back against this disastrous plan, and I urge them to keep up the fight,” said Rep. Andrew Garbarino. 

    “Thank you, President Trump and Secretary Duffy, for standing up to Kathy Hochul’s disgraceful commuter tax scheme on behalf of middle and working-class commuters. Hochul’s ridiculous push to stick them with a tax or ride a subway system plagued by violent crime. This out-of-touch tax grab is a slap in the face to hardworking New Yorkers, and I’ll keep fighting alongside this administration for real solutions that prioritize safety and affordability,” said Rep. Mike Lawler. 

    “The MTA’s reckless mismanagement has left law-abiding commuters to foot the bill, while fare evasion skyrockets, service and public safety decline — yet the Governor refuses to take responsibility. The Trump Administration is right and acting well within its legal discretion to rescind the Biden Administration’s rubber-stamping of this tax. We’ll keep fighting this cash grab by using every tool at our disposal and look forward to working with President Trump and Secretary Duffy,” said Rep. Nicole Malliotakis. 

    “Since January 5th, New Jersey commuters have faced a flawed and unfair cash grab under New York City’s congestion pricing plan,” said Congressman Kean. “We must put an end to this extremely dysfunctional program, created by Governor Hochul and New York State Democrats, which places many commuters at a disadvantage—especially New Jersey residents, who already pay some of the highest taxes in the nation. I am committed to standing up for New Jersey taxpayers to ensure this unfair burden is lifted, and I will continue working closely with President Trump and Secretary Duffy until congestion pricing is permanently canceled.”

    “I am proud to stand with my colleagues in thanking President Trump and Secretary Duffy for their unwavering commitment to stopping the deeply flawed commuter tax scheme peddled by Kathy Hochul,” said Congressman Langworthy. “It is heartening to finally have an administration who stands with working families, small businesses, and everyday commuters across our state. Thank you for standing with us and being steadfast advocates for the people of New York State and I look forward to our continued partnership.”

    In the letter, the Members highlighted the public safety crisis plaguing New York’s transit system, the MTA’s mismanagement and ongoing financial irresponsibility, and the devastating impact that congestion pricing would have on suburban communities across New York and New Jersey. They further emphasized that while the fight against this ill-conceived tax is not yet over, the Administration’s leadership offers hope to the thousands of commuters across the region who deserve better.

    To read the full text of the letter, click HERE.

    Background: 

    The Central Business District Tolling Program is part of New York City’s broader congestion pricing plan, which charges vehicles for entering Manhattan’s Central Business District below 60th Street. New York Governor Hocul’s plan for congestion pricing began on January 5, 2025.

    In November 2024, LaLota, former Rep. Anthony D’Esposito, and Reps. Garbarino, Lawler, and Malliotakis sent a letter to President Trump requesting an end to the planned implementation of the congestion pricing.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Conflicted, disillusioned, disengaged: The unsettled center of Jewish student opinion after Oct. 7

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jonathan Krasner, Associate Professor of Jewish Education Research, Brandeis University

    Pro-Palestinian students pass the flag of Israel while walking out of commencement in protest at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on May 30, 2024. AP Photo/Charles Krupa

    As commencement season comes to a close, many campuses remain riven by the Israel-Hamas war. At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the undergraduate class president was banned from walking at her graduation after delivering a fiery – and unauthorized – speech accusing her school of complicity in Israel’s campaign to “wipe out Palestine off the face of the earth.” Anti-Israel protests broke out at graduation ceremonies across the United States, from Columbia to the University of California at Berkeley.

    Since Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack and Israel’s retaliatory invasion of Gaza, many American campuses have been punctuated by vigils, demonstrations and disruptions. But the loudest voices aren’t necessarily the most representative. Activists’ pronouncements on either side fail to capture the range of student opinion about the war and its reverberations at home, including the documented rise in antisemitism and Islamophobia.

    This is certainly true for Jewish students – buffeted by the war, the hostage crisis, campus protests and federal politics. Since January 2025, the Trump administration has used campus antisemitism and anti-Zionism as a pretext to assault higher education and implement hard-line immigration policies.

    Indeed, one of the most striking findings of my study
    on Jewish undergraduate attitudes, published in May 2025, is how many students described themselves as conflicted, uncertain, disaffected and even detached. Interviews across the country convinced my research team that any attempt to gauge Jewish student opinion with either/or categories are reductive and misleading.

    Moving beyond numbers

    In the wake of Oct. 7, my office hours quickly became a refuge for distraught Jewish students as they processed their thoughts. Few were content with pat answers.

    Students at USC attend a vigil on Oct. 10, 2023, days after Hamas’ attack on Israel.
    Luis Sinco/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

    I began wondering how representative they were. Tufts researchers Eitan Hersh and Dahlia Lyss found that since Oct. 7, more students were valuing and prioritizing their Jewish identities, even while an increased number were hiding their Jewishness on campus.

    My Brandeis colleagues Graham Wright, Leonard Saxe and their research team, meanwhile, found that a clear majority of Jewish students said they felt a connection to Israel but were sharply divided in their views of its government. While most considered statements calling for the country’s destruction to be antisemitic, they differed about where to draw the line between reasonable and illegitimate criticisms of Israel.

    These findings were instructive. But I was interested in learning more about the “how” and the “why” behind the numbers. Over the spring 2024 semester, my team and I interviewed 38 students on 24 campuses across 16 states and the District of Columbia. Participants reflected the broad religious, political, economic, geographical, sexual and racial diversity within the American Jewish population, particularly among Jews under 30. Some of the campuses were relatively placid; others were hotbeds of protest.

    The ‘missing middle’

    As my team analyzed transcripts, we identified six categories.

    About one-third of the Jewish students we spoke with were actively engaged on either side of the conflict, whether through demonstrations or online advocacy. “Affirmed” students’ connection to Israel deepened after Oct. 7. “Aggrieved” students, on the other hand, had joined anti-war protests and voiced anger at Jewish organizations for ignoring Israel’s culpability for Palestinian suffering.

    Many more of our participants, however, were ambivalent, despondent or even apathetic. As journalist Arno Rosenfeld put it in an article about my research, the majority of Jewish students inhabit a “great missing middle” in Israeli-Palestinian discourse.

    Two-thirds of the students we spoke with are in this “missing middle,” divided into four categories:

    • “Conflicted” students were inconclusively grappling with the moral and political complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
    • “Disillusioned” students struggled to reconcile their sentimental attachment to Israel with their disappointment – their sense that the country betrayed its own values in its treatment of Palestinians.
    • “Retrenched” students turned inward, fearful of being identified as Jewish on campuses they perceived as hostile to Jews.
    • The last category, “disengaged” students, were detached or actively steering clear of controversy.
    Students gather at the University of Maryland to celebrate Hanukkah with a menorah lighting ceremony in 2007.
    Jahi Chikwendiu/The Washington Post via Getty Images

    Out of the fray

    The most straightforward of these categories is the “disengaged” students. Some, like Bella, on the West Coast – all of the names in this article are pseudonyms – knew little about the conflict before the war. What they learned since convinced them it was unsolvable and that they were powerless to promote change.

    The distance that some students felt from events in Israel and Gaza made it all the more baffling and odious to them when peers protested in ways that implied Jewish Americans were complicit.

    “I’m not personally doing anything,” complained Salem, a first-year student in the Midwest. “I don’t have anything to do with this.”

    Students whom we classified as “retrenched” reported anxiety, loss of sleep and a sense of isolation. Many of them were concerned that rejecting Zionism – that is, the movement supporting the creation and preservation of Israel as a national homeland for the Jewish people – had become a litmus test in their progressive circles. That was untenable for these students, because they viewed Zionism as a constituent part of being Jewish.

    Interviewees like Jack, a junior in the Pacific Northwest, spoke of removing their Star of David necklaces and censoring elements of their biography, because they perceived a social penalty for being Jewish.

    Since the start of the war, more students have said they try to hide their Jewish identity at times.
    Maor Winetrob/iStock via Getty Images

    Rejecting simple narratives

    By far, the largest group of Jewish students were struggling with mixed feelings about the war and its reverberations. What united these “conflicted” or “disillusioned” students was wariness of grand narratives and talking points that reduce the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to a contest between good and evil, or the powerful and the powerless. They also eschewed labels such as “Zionist” or “anti-Zionist,” saying they lacked nuance.

    Consider Elana, a “conflicted” sophomore in the mid-Atlantic, who told us she was uncomfortable in most Jewish spaces on campus because they effectively demanded that she declare her Israel politics at the door. It seemed to her that activists on both sides were more comfortable retreating into echo chambers than engaging in dialogue across differences.

    Then there was Shira, a “disillusioned” first year in the Midwest who viewed Israeli-Palestinian coexistence, however implausible, as the only alternative to mutual destruction. She refused to participate in anti-war demonstrations on her campus because she couldn’t abide the organizers’ confrontational tactics – but also to avoid blowback from pro-Israel family and friends.

    Students from Bowdoin College light Shabbat candles during a visit to Shaarey Tphiloh Synagogue in Portland, Maine, in 2011.
    Gregory Rec/Portland Press Herald via Getty Images

    ‘Safe spaces’ and ‘groupthink’

    One unambiguous finding from our study was how often our interviewees used language prevalent in progressive discourse. They spoke repeatedly about the importance of “safe spaces,” and felt that listeners’ understandings mattered more than speakers’ intentions when evaluating “hate speech” and “microaggressions.”

    Leo, a “conflicted” junior in the Deep South who uses they/them pronouns, acknowledged that some protesters who chant slogans such as “Free Palestine” and “Globalize the Intifada” may not recognize how many Jewish students interpret them: as antisemitic calls for Israel’s destruction. But that was no excuse, they insisted. “What I’ve noticed is that the people who are at those demonstrations have created their own definition of antisemitism,” without input from the vast majority of Jews – something progressive protesters would not have stood for if another racial, religious or ethnic minority were being discussed.

    The use of provocative and arguably antisemitic language was responsible for keeping Jews like Leo and Shira, who evinced deep sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians, from joining the protests.

    Fundamentally, however, many of the Jewish students we spoke with said they’d welcome opportunities to discuss the war and the broader conflict. But the “groupthink” on campus was stifling, they complained, whether in Hillel centers that toe a reflexively pro-Israel line or student organizations that demand unquestioned buy-in to a set of progressive orthodoxies.

    Joe, a “disillusioned” student in New England who just received his diploma two weeks ago, reflected, “When my friends complain that the ‘Free Palestine’ stickers on my campus are antisemitic, I think they just don’t want to be uncomfortable.” Discomfort can be productive, he added – as long as it is expressed in an environment that values intellectual risk-taking, dialogue across difference, and empathy.

    Research discussed in this article was sponsored by the Mandel Center for Studies in Jewish Education at Brandeis University.

    – ref. Conflicted, disillusioned, disengaged: The unsettled center of Jewish student opinion after Oct. 7 – https://theconversation.com/conflicted-disillusioned-disengaged-the-unsettled-center-of-jewish-student-opinion-after-oct-7-257521

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Most Americans believe misinformation is a problem — federal research cuts will only make the problem worse

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By H. Colleen Sinclair, Associate Research Professor of Social Psychology, Louisiana State University

    Americans say the government and social media companies need to do something about misinformation and disinformation. Boris Zhitkov/Getty Images

    Research on misinformation and disinformation has become the latest casualty of the Trump administration’s restructuring of federal research priorities.

    Following President Donald Trump’s executive order on “ending federal censorship,” the National Science Foundation canceled hundreds of grants that supported research on misinformation and disinformation.

    Misinformation refers to misleading narratives shared by people unaware that content is false. Disinformation is deliberately generated and shared misleading content, when the sharer knows the narrative is suspect.

    The overwhelming majority of Americans – 95% – believe misinformation’s misleading narratives are a problem.

    Americans also believe that consumers, the government and social media companies need to do something about it. Defunding research on misinformation and disinformation is, thus, the opposite of what Americans want. Without research, the ability to combat misleading narratives will be impaired.

    The attack on misleading narrative research

    Trump’s executive order claims that the Biden administration used research on misleading narratives to limit social media companies’ free speech.

    The Supreme Court had already rejected this claim in a 2024 case.

    Still, Trump and GOP politicians continue to demand disinformation researchers defend themselves, including in the March 2025 “censorship industrial complex” hearings, which explored alleged government censorship under the Biden administration.

    The U.S. State Department, additionally, is soliciting all communications between government offices and disinformation researchers for evidence of censorship.

    Trump’s executive order to “restore free speech,” the hearings and the State Department decision all imply that those conducting misleading narrative research are enemies of the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech.

    These actions have already led to significant problems – death threats and harassment included – for disinformation researchers, particularly women.

    So let’s tackle what research on misinformation and disinformation is and isn’t.

    Misleading content

    Misinformation and disinformation researchers examine the sources of misleading content. They also study the spread of that content. And they investigate ways to reduce its harmful impacts.

    For instance, as a social psychologist who studies disinformation and misinformation, I examine the nature of misleading content. I study and then share information about the manipulation tactics used by people who spread disinformation to influence others. My aim is to better inform the public about how to protect themselves from deception.

    Sharing this information is free speech, not barring free speech.

    Yet, some think this research leads to censorship when platforms choose to use the knowledge to label or remove suspect content or ban its primary spreaders. That’s what U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan argued in launching investigations in 2023 into disinformation research.

    It is important to note, however, that the constitutional definition of censorship establishes that only the government – not citizens or businesses – can be censors.

    So private companies have the right to make their own decisions about the content they put on their platforms.

    Trump’s own platform, Truth Social, bans certain material such as “sexual content and explicit language,” but also anything moderators deem as trying to “trick, defraud, or mislead us and other users.” Yet, 75% of the conspiracy theories shared on the platform come from Trump’s account.

    Further, both Trump and Elon Musk, self-proclaimed free speech advocates, have been accused of squelching content on their platforms that is critical of them.

    Musk claimed the suppression of accounts on X was a result of the site’s algorithm reducing “the reach of a user if they’re frequently blocked or muted by other, credible users.” Truth Social representatives claim accounts were banned due to “bot mitigation” procedures, and authentic accounts may be reinstated if their classification as inauthentic was invalid.

    Research shows that conservatives are more susceptible to misinformation than liberals.
    klevo/Getty Images

    Is it censorship?

    Republicans say social media companies have been biased against their content, censoring it or banning conservatives unfairly.

    The “censorship industrial complex” hearings held by the House Foreign Affairs South and Central Asia Subcommittee were based on the premise that not only was misleading narrative research part of the alleged “censorship industrial complex,” but that it was focused on conservative voices.

    But there isn’t evidence to support this assertion.

    Research from 2020 shows that conservative voices are amplified on social media networks.

    When research does show that conservative authors have posts labeled or removed, or that their accounts are suspended at higher rates than liberal content, it also reveals that it is because conservative posts are significantly more likely to share misinformation than liberal posts.

    This was found in a recent study of X users. Researchers tracked whose posts got tagged as false or misleading more in “community notes” – X’s alternative and Meta’s proposed alternative to fact checking – and it was conservative posts, because they were more likely to include false content than liberal posts.

    Furthermore, an April 2025 study shows conservatives are more susceptible to misleading content and more likely to be targeted by it than liberals.

    Misleading America

    Those accusing misleading narrative researchers of censorship misrepresent the nature and intent of the research and researchers. And they are using disinformation tactics to do so.

    Here’s how.

    The misleading information about censorship and bias has been repeated so much through the media and from political leaders, as evident in Trump’s executive order, that many Republicans believe it’s true. This repetition produces what psychologists call the illusory truth effect, where as few as three repetitions convince the human mind something is true.

    Researchers have also identified a tactic known as “accusation in a mirror.” That’s when someone falsely accuses one’s perceived opponents of conducting, plotting or desiring to commit the same transgressions that one plans to commit or is already committing.

    So censorship accusations from an administration that is removing books from libraries, erasing history from monuments and websites, and deleting data archives constitute “accusations in a mirror.”

    Other tactics include “accusation by anecdote.” When strong evidence is in short supply, people who spread disinformation point repeatedly to individual stories – sometimes completely fabricated – that are exceptions to, and not representative of, the larger reality.

    Facts on fact-checking

    Similar anecdotal attacks are used to try to dismiss fact-checkers, whose conclusions can identify and discredit disinformation, leading to its tagging or removal from social media. This is done by highlighting an incident where fact-checkers “got it wrong.”

    These attacks on fact-checking come despite the fact that many of those most controversial decisions were made by platforms, not fact-checkers.

    Indeed, fact-checking does work to reduce the transmission of misleading content.

    Research shows little bias in choice of who is fact-checked.
    Liudmila Chernetska/Getty Images

    In studies of the perceived effectiveness of professional fact-checkers versus algorithms and everyday users, fact-checkers are rated the most effective.

    When Republicans do report distrust of fact-checkers, it’s because they perceive the fact-checkers are biased. Yet research shows little bias in choice of who is fact-checked, just that prominent and prolific speakers get checked more.

    When shown fact-checking results of specific posts, even conservatives often agree the right decision was made.

    Seeking solutions

    Account bans or threats of account suspensions may be more effective than fact-checks at stopping the flow of misinformation, but they are also more controversial. They are considered more akin to censorship than fact-check labels.

    Misinformation research would benefit from identifying solutions that conservatives and liberals agree on.

    Examples include giving people the option, like on social media platform Bluesky, to turn misinformation moderation on or off.

    But Trump’s executive order seeks to ban that research. Thus, instead of providing protections, the order will likely weaken Americans’ defenses.

    H. Colleen Sinclair receives funding from a variety of government and foundation sources. The statements and opinions included in this The Conversation article are solely the author’s. Any statements and opinions included in these pages are not those of the Social Research and Evaluation Center, the College of Human Sciences & Education, the Louisiana State University, or the LSU Board of Supervisors.

    – ref. Most Americans believe misinformation is a problem — federal research cuts will only make the problem worse – https://theconversation.com/most-americans-believe-misinformation-is-a-problem-federal-research-cuts-will-only-make-the-problem-worse-255355

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • Israel says Tehran residents to ‘pay price’ after Tel Aviv, Haifa attacks

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (2)

    srael and Iran kept up their attacks, killing and wounding civilians and raising concern among world leaders at a G7 meeting in Canada this week that the biggest battle between the two old enemies could lead to a broader regional conflict.

    The Iranian death toll in four days of Israeli strikes, carried out with the declared aim of wiping out Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs, had reached at least 224, with 90% of the casualties reported to be civilians, an Iranian health ministry spokesperson said.

    Early on Monday, the Israeli military said it had detected more missiles launched from Iran towards Israel.

    “At this time, the (Israeli Air Force) is operating to intercept and strike where necessary to eliminate the threat,” the Israeli Defence Forces said. Live video footage showed several missiles over Tel Aviv and Reuters witnesses said explosions could be heard there and over Jerusalem.

    At least 10 people in Israel, including children, have been killed so far, according to authorities there.

    Group of Seven leaders began gathering in the Canadian Rockies on Sunday with the Israel-Iran conflict expected to be a top priority.

    German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said his goals for the summit include for Iran to not develop or possess nuclear weapons, ensuring Israel’s right to defend itself, avoiding escalation of the conflict and creating room for diplomacy.

    “This issue will be very high on the agenda of the G7 summit,” Merz told reporters.

    Before leaving for the summit on Sunday, U.S. President Donald Trump was asked what he was doing to de-escalate the situation. “I hope there’s going to be a deal. I think it’s time for a deal,” he told reporters. “Sometimes they have to fight it out.”

    Iran has told mediators Qatar and Oman that it is not open to negotiating a ceasefire while it is under Israeli attack, an official briefed on the communications told Reuters on Sunday.

    FIRST DAYLIGHT ATTACK ON ISRAEL

    Explosions shook Tel Aviv on Sunday during Iran’s first daylight missile attack since Israel’s strike on Friday. Shortly after nightfall, Iranian missiles hit a residential street in Haifa, a mixed Jewish-Arab city, and in Israel’s south.

    In Bat Yam, a city near Tel Aviv, residents braced on Sunday evening for another sleepless night after an overnight strike on an apartment tower.

    “It’s very dreadful. It’s not fun. People are losing their lives and their homes,” said Shem, 29.

    Images from Tehran showed the night sky lit up by a huge blaze at a fuel depot after Israel began strikes against Iran’s oil and gas sector – raising the stakes for the global economy and the functioning of the Iranian state.

    Brent crude futures were up $1.04, or 1.4%, to $75.39 a barrel by 0115 GMT, having jumped as much as $4 earlier in the session. While the spike in oil prices has investors on edge, stock and currency markets were little moved in early trading in Asia on Monday.

    “It’s more of an oil story than an equity story at this point,” said Jim Carroll, senior wealth adviser and portfolio manager at Ballast Rock Private Wealth. “Stocks right now seem to be hanging on.”

    TRUMP VETOES PLAN TO TARGET KHAMENEI, OFFICIALS SAY

    In Washington, two U.S. officials told Reuters that Trump had vetoed an Israeli plan in recent days to kill Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

    When asked about the Reuters report, Netanyahu told Fox News on Sunday: “There’s so many false reports of conversations that never happened, and I’m not going to get into that.”

    “We do what we need to do,” he told Fox’s “Special Report With Bret Baier.”

    Israel began the assault with a surprise attack on Friday that wiped out the top echelon of Iran’s military command and damaged its nuclear sites, and says the campaign will escalate in the coming days.

    The intelligence chief of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, Mohammad Kazemi, and his deputy were killed in attacks on Tehran on Sunday, Iran’s semi-official Tasnim news agency said.

    Iran has vowed to “open the gates of hell” in retaliation.

    TRUMP WARNS IRAN NOT TO ATTACK

    Trump has lauded Israel’s offensive while denying Iranian allegations that the U.S. has taken part and warning Tehran not to widen its retaliation to include U.S. targets.

    Two U.S. officials said on Friday the U.S. military had helped shoot down Iranian missiles that were headed toward Israel.

    The U.S. president has repeatedly said Iran could end the war by agreeing to tough restrictions on its nuclear program, which Iran says is for peaceful purposes but which Western countries and the IAEA nuclear watchdog say could be used to make an atomic bomb.

    The latest round of nuclear negotiations between Iran and the U.S., due on Sunday, was scrapped after Tehran said it would not negotiate while under Israeli attack.

    (Reuters)

  • MIL-Evening Report: ‘Be brave’ warning to nations against deepsea mining from UNOC

    By Laura Bergamo in Nice, France

    The UN Ocean Conference (UNOC) concluded today with significant progress made towards the ratification of the High Seas Treaty and a strong statement on a new plastics treaty signed by 95 governments.

    Once ratified, it will be the only legal tool that can create protected areas in international waters, making it fundamental to protecting 30 percent of the world’s oceans by 2030.

    Fifty countries, plus the European Union, have now ratified the Treaty.

    New Zealand has signed but is yet to ratify.

    Deep sea mining rose up the agenda in the conference debates, demonstrating the urgency of opposing this industry.

    The expectation from civil society and a large group of states, including both co-hosts of UNOC, was that governments would make progress towards stopping deep sea mining in Nice.

    UN Secretary-General Guterres said the deep sea should not become the “wild west“.

    Four new pledges
    French President Emmanuel Macron said a deep sea mining moratorium is an international necessity. Four new countries pledged their support for a moratorium at UNOC, bringing the total to 37.

    Attention now turns to what actions governments will take in July to stop this industry from starting.

    Megan Randles, Greenpeace head of delegation regarding the High Seas Treaty and progress towards stopping deep sea mining, said: “High Seas Treaty ratification is within touching distance, but the progress made here in Nice feels hollow as this UN Ocean Conference ends without more tangible commitments to stopping deep sea mining.

    “We’ve heard lots of fine words here in Nice, but these need to turn into tangible action.

    “Countries must be brave, stand up for global cooperation and make history by stopping deep sea mining this year.

    “They can do this by committing to a moratorium on deep sea mining at next month’s International Seabed Authority meeting.

    “We applaud those who have already taken a stand, and urge all others to be on the right side of history by stopping deep sea mining.”

    Attention on ISA meeting
    Following this UNOC, attention now turns to the International Seabed Authority (ISA) meetings in July. In the face of The Metals Company teaming up with US President Donald Trump to mine the global oceans, the upcoming ISA provides a space where governments can come together to defend the deep ocean by adopting a moratorium to stop this destructive industry.

    Negotiations on a Global Plastics Treaty resume in August.

    John Hocevar, oceans campaign director, Greenpeace USA said: “The majority of countries have spoken when they signed on to the Nice Call for an Ambitious Plastics Treaty that they want an agreement that will reduce plastic production. Now, as we end the UN Ocean Conference and head on to the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations in Geneva this August, they must act.

    “The world cannot afford a weak treaty dictated by oil-soaked obstructionists.

    “The ambitious majority must rise to this moment, firmly hold the line and ensure that we will have a Global Plastic Treaty that cuts plastic production, protects human health, and delivers justice for Indigenous Peoples and communities on the frontlines.

    “Governments need to show that multilateralism still works for people and the planet, not the profits of a greedy few.”

    Driving ecological collapse
    Nichanan Thantanwit, project leader, Ocean Justice Project, said: “Coastal and Indigenous communities, including small-scale fishers, have protected the ocean for generations. Now they are being pushed aside by industries driving ecological collapse and human rights violations.

    “As the UN Ocean Conference ends, governments must recognise small-scale fishers and Indigenous Peoples as rights-holders, secure their access and role in marine governance, and stop destructive practices such as bottom trawling and harmful aquaculture.

    “There is no ocean protection without the people who have protected it all along.”

    The anticipated Nice Ocean Action Plan, which consists of a political declaration and a series of voluntary commitments, will be announced later today at the end of the conference.

    None will be legally binding, so governments need to act strongly during the next ISA meeting in July and at plastic treaty negotiations in August.

    Republished from Greenpeace Aotearoa with permission.

    Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: ‘Be brave’ warning to nations against deepsea mining from UNOC

    By Laura Bergamo in Nice, France

    The UN Ocean Conference (UNOC) concluded today with significant progress made towards the ratification of the High Seas Treaty and a strong statement on a new plastics treaty signed by 95 governments.

    Once ratified, it will be the only legal tool that can create protected areas in international waters, making it fundamental to protecting 30 percent of the world’s oceans by 2030.

    Fifty countries, plus the European Union, have now ratified the Treaty.

    New Zealand has signed but is yet to ratify.

    Deep sea mining rose up the agenda in the conference debates, demonstrating the urgency of opposing this industry.

    The expectation from civil society and a large group of states, including both co-hosts of UNOC, was that governments would make progress towards stopping deep sea mining in Nice.

    UN Secretary-General Guterres said the deep sea should not become the “wild west“.

    Four new pledges
    French President Emmanuel Macron said a deep sea mining moratorium is an international necessity. Four new countries pledged their support for a moratorium at UNOC, bringing the total to 37.

    Attention now turns to what actions governments will take in July to stop this industry from starting.

    Megan Randles, Greenpeace head of delegation regarding the High Seas Treaty and progress towards stopping deep sea mining, said: “High Seas Treaty ratification is within touching distance, but the progress made here in Nice feels hollow as this UN Ocean Conference ends without more tangible commitments to stopping deep sea mining.

    “We’ve heard lots of fine words here in Nice, but these need to turn into tangible action.

    “Countries must be brave, stand up for global cooperation and make history by stopping deep sea mining this year.

    “They can do this by committing to a moratorium on deep sea mining at next month’s International Seabed Authority meeting.

    “We applaud those who have already taken a stand, and urge all others to be on the right side of history by stopping deep sea mining.”

    Attention on ISA meeting
    Following this UNOC, attention now turns to the International Seabed Authority (ISA) meetings in July. In the face of The Metals Company teaming up with US President Donald Trump to mine the global oceans, the upcoming ISA provides a space where governments can come together to defend the deep ocean by adopting a moratorium to stop this destructive industry.

    Negotiations on a Global Plastics Treaty resume in August.

    John Hocevar, oceans campaign director, Greenpeace USA said: “The majority of countries have spoken when they signed on to the Nice Call for an Ambitious Plastics Treaty that they want an agreement that will reduce plastic production. Now, as we end the UN Ocean Conference and head on to the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations in Geneva this August, they must act.

    “The world cannot afford a weak treaty dictated by oil-soaked obstructionists.

    “The ambitious majority must rise to this moment, firmly hold the line and ensure that we will have a Global Plastic Treaty that cuts plastic production, protects human health, and delivers justice for Indigenous Peoples and communities on the frontlines.

    “Governments need to show that multilateralism still works for people and the planet, not the profits of a greedy few.”

    Driving ecological collapse
    Nichanan Thantanwit, project leader, Ocean Justice Project, said: “Coastal and Indigenous communities, including small-scale fishers, have protected the ocean for generations. Now they are being pushed aside by industries driving ecological collapse and human rights violations.

    “As the UN Ocean Conference ends, governments must recognise small-scale fishers and Indigenous Peoples as rights-holders, secure their access and role in marine governance, and stop destructive practices such as bottom trawling and harmful aquaculture.

    “There is no ocean protection without the people who have protected it all along.”

    The anticipated Nice Ocean Action Plan, which consists of a political declaration and a series of voluntary commitments, will be announced later today at the end of the conference.

    None will be legally binding, so governments need to act strongly during the next ISA meeting in July and at plastic treaty negotiations in August.

    Republished from Greenpeace Aotearoa with permission.

    Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI NGOs: Global: Urgent action needed as climate crisis leads to devastating new harms to human rights

    Source: Amnesty International –

    States must urgently deliver ambitious climate action by mapping out a just transition away from fossil fuels in all sectors to prevent even worse human rights harms around the world, Amnesty International said in a new briefing to mark the start of the Bonn Climate Conference which takes place between 16-26 June.

    Despite the challenges posed by the US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, increases in authoritarian practices globally and the growing environmental devastation of the escalating armed conflicts in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Sudan and Ukraine, among others, it is not too late for states to find common ground and ramp up climate ambition for the planet and the rights of current and future generations.

    In 2024, for the first time, the world breached the threshold of 1.5°C of global heating above pre-industrial levels. During the hottest year on record, wildfires ripped through Latin America, the Caribbean was hit by the earliest Category 5 Atlantic hurricane on record, and parts of Central Europe were deluged with three months’ worth of rain in five days as the climate emergency worsened, driven by human activity and the continued burning of fossil fuels.

    “The devastating new human rights harms resulting from climate change will escalate dramatically unless global heating is kept in check. More people will be driven deeper into poverty, lose their homes or suffer the effects of drought and food insecurity. Despite the deepening climate crisis, governments’ action to limit fossil fuel production and use has been wholly inadequate,” said Ann Harrison, Amnesty International’s Climate Justice Advisor.  

    “Governments are in thrall to fossil fuel companies which have sought to downplay climate harms and discredit climate science. States continue to provide subsidies to these companies, effectively incentivizing the continuation of the fossil fuel industry. Everyone has the right to live in a clean, healthy and sustainable environment – but as the climate crisis intensifies, this right, and others, are under growing threat.”

    Across the globe, unnatural disasters exacerbated by climate change, such as worsening droughts and severe floods, are damaging harvests and leading to food scarcity and water shortages, contributing to displacement, migration and conflict.

    Protecting and listening to grassroots voices

    Marginalized frontline and fence line communities that use fossil fuels the least continue to suffer some of the worst impacts of climate change. They include subsistence farmers, Indigenous Peoples and those living in low lying island states, threatened by rising sea levels and more powerful storms, or those living beside fossil fuel production and transport facilities.

    For example, Pakistan contributes less than 1% of greenhouse gas emissions annually but is one of the countries most vulnerable to climate disasters. In a report published last month, Amnesty International documented how increasingly frequent floods and heatwaves are leading to preventable deaths, particularly among young children and older adults.

    Despite the urgency of the climate crisis, those demanding action from the authorities are being harassed, stigmatized, attacked and criminalized. Around the world, environmental human rights defenders (EHRDs) are risking their lives and liberty for defending their lands and communities’ right to a healthy environment, such as the Warriors for the Amazon in Ecuador.

    “The voices, views, knowledge and wisdom of Indigenous Peoples, frontline and fence line communities and human rights defenders must be incorporated into climate policies, plans and action.

    Ann Harrison, Amnesty International’s Climate Justice Advisor

    The conference is an opportunity to spotlight the situation in COP29 host Azerbaijan, where environmental human rights defender Anar Mammadli and journalist Nargiz Absalamova who reported on environmental issues remain behind bars. Other journalists who reported on the human rights situation including during COP29 were arrested afterwards in apparent reprisals. Brazil, the host of COP30, is one of the most dangerous countries for EHRDs, who face killings, violence, threats and stigmatization for their work.

    “The voices, views, knowledge and wisdom of Indigenous Peoples, frontline and fence line communities and human rights defenders must be incorporated into climate policies, plans and action,” said Ann Harrison.

    “Once again, we have heard reports of limited badges and visa problems for those from the majority world wishing to attend the conference in Bonn. Nor are the COP Host Country Agreements – a key tool that must be strengthened to ensure freedom of expression and peaceful assembly for participants – available publicly as a matter of routine.”

    Climate finance must be addressed

    Amnesty International is also calling for states to tackle climate finance. Currently, lower-income countries are paying more in debt repayments than they are receiving as climate finance from high-income countries.

    High income historically high emitting countries are most responsible for climate change, yet continue to shirk their obligations to provide climate finance to lower income countries to cut emissions and to help communities to adapt to climate change, as well as providing reparations for loss and damage, which could ease the burden in countries suffering climate harms.

    “Taxing fossil fuel companies, corporate windfall profits and high net worth individuals, as well as ending subsidies and investments in fossil fuels and ending global tax abuses, could raise over USD 3 trillion per year which could go a huge way towards the cost of tackling climate change,” said Ann Harrison.

    Huge changes need to be made

    The Bonn Climate Conference is a key preparatory moment for the annual UN Climate Conference, which takes place as COP30 later this year in Brazil – a country that wants to publicly lead a message of global environmental protection. Yet, internally some of its institutions are taking actions contrary to this agenda, including requiring less stringent licensing for environmentally destructive projects and expanding fossil fuel production.

    “If climate change is to be taken seriously and to keep global warming below 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, we need to see concrete progress with clear timelines towards massively scaled-up needs-based climate finance, particularly for adaptation and loss and damage, in the form of grants, not loans, with those most responsible for emissions contributing the most,” said Ann Harrison.

    Amnesty International is calling for states commit to a full, fast, fair and funded fossil fuel phase out through just transitions across all sectors, without relying on risky and unproven technologies or offsets that do not lead to genuine emissions reductions. It is also calling for inclusive discussions around climate change, involving the people most affected by it, and ensuring they can meaningfully access these high-level negotiations without discrimination.

    MIL OSI NGO –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Samoan fashion designer fatally shot at Salt Lake City ‘no kings’ protest

    RNZ Pacific

    A renowned Samoan fashion designer was fatally shot at the “No Kings” protest in Salt Lake City on Saturday, the Salt Lake City Police Department (SLCPD) has confirmed.

    Arthur Folasa Ah Loo, known as Afa Ah Loo, an “innocent bystander” at the protest, died despite efforts by paramedics to save his life, police said.

    Ah Loo, a Utah resident, died at the hospital. The Utah Office of the Medical Examiner will determine the official cause and manner of death.

    The SLPCD said the incident began about 7.56pm local time when a sergeant assigned to the SLCPD Motor Squad reported hearing gunfire near 151 South State Street.

    It said the sergeant and his squad were working to facilitate traffic and help to ensure public safety during a permitted demonstration that drew an estimated 10,000 participants.

    “As panic spread throughout the area, hundreds of people ran for safety, hiding in parking garages, behind barriers, and going into nearby businesses.

    “The first officers on scene notified SLCPD’s incident management team using their police radios.”

    The SLCPD said officers quickly moved in to secure the scene and search for any active threats and found a man who had been shot and immediately began life-saving efforts.

    “Our thoughts are with the family and friends of the 39-year-old man who was killed, and with the many community members who were impacted by this traumatic incident,” Salt Lake City police chief Brian Redd said.

    “When this shooting happened, the response of our officers and detectives was fast, brave, and highly coordinated. It speaks to the calibre of this great department and our law enforcement partners.”

    Detectives working to thoroughly investigate
     The SLCPD said about 8pm, members of its Violent Criminal Apprehension Team (VCAT) and Gang Unit were flagged down near 102 South 200 East, where officers found a man crouching among a group of people with a gunshot wound.

    The man is identified as 24-year-old Arturo Gamboa, who was dressed in all black clothing and wearing a black mask.

    “As officers approached, community members pointed out a nearby firearm, which was described as an AR15-style rifle.

    “Officers also located a gas mask, black clothing, and a backpack in close proximity. The items were collected and processed by the SLCPD Crime Lab.

    “Paramedics took Gamboa to the hospital. Detectives later booked Gamboa into the Salt Lake County Metro Jail on a charge of murder.

    Police said officers also detained two men who were wearing high-visibility neon green vests and carrying handguns.

    Peacekeeping team
    These men were apparently part of the event’s peacekeeping team.

    According to the police, detectives learned during interviews that the two peacekeepers saw Gamboa move away from the crowd and move into a secluded area behind a wall — behavior they found suspicious.

    “One of the peacekeepers told detectives he saw Gamboa pull out an AR15-style rifle from a backpack and begin manipulating it.

    “The peacekeepers drew their firearms and ordered Gamboa to drop the weapon.

    “Witnesses reported Gamboa instead lifted the rifle and began running toward the crowd gathered on State Street, holding the weapon in a firing position.

    “In response, one of the peacekeepers fired three rounds. One round struck Gamboa, while another tragically wounded Mr Ah Loo.”

    “Our detectives are now working to thoroughly investigate the circumstances surrounding this incident,” Redd said.

    “We will not allow this individual act to create fear in our community.”

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Samoan fashion designer fatally shot at Salt Lake City ‘no kings’ protest

    RNZ Pacific

    A renowned Samoan fashion designer was fatally shot at the “No Kings” protest in Salt Lake City on Saturday, the Salt Lake City Police Department (SLCPD) has confirmed.

    Arthur Folasa Ah Loo, known as Afa Ah Loo, an “innocent bystander” at the protest, died despite efforts by paramedics to save his life, police said.

    Ah Loo, a Utah resident, died at the hospital. The Utah Office of the Medical Examiner will determine the official cause and manner of death.

    The SLPCD said the incident began about 7.56pm local time when a sergeant assigned to the SLCPD Motor Squad reported hearing gunfire near 151 South State Street.

    It said the sergeant and his squad were working to facilitate traffic and help to ensure public safety during a permitted demonstration that drew an estimated 10,000 participants.

    “As panic spread throughout the area, hundreds of people ran for safety, hiding in parking garages, behind barriers, and going into nearby businesses.

    “The first officers on scene notified SLCPD’s incident management team using their police radios.”

    The SLCPD said officers quickly moved in to secure the scene and search for any active threats and found a man who had been shot and immediately began life-saving efforts.

    “Our thoughts are with the family and friends of the 39-year-old man who was killed, and with the many community members who were impacted by this traumatic incident,” Salt Lake City police chief Brian Redd said.

    “When this shooting happened, the response of our officers and detectives was fast, brave, and highly coordinated. It speaks to the calibre of this great department and our law enforcement partners.”

    Detectives working to thoroughly investigate
     The SLCPD said about 8pm, members of its Violent Criminal Apprehension Team (VCAT) and Gang Unit were flagged down near 102 South 200 East, where officers found a man crouching among a group of people with a gunshot wound.

    The man is identified as 24-year-old Arturo Gamboa, who was dressed in all black clothing and wearing a black mask.

    “As officers approached, community members pointed out a nearby firearm, which was described as an AR15-style rifle.

    “Officers also located a gas mask, black clothing, and a backpack in close proximity. The items were collected and processed by the SLCPD Crime Lab.

    “Paramedics took Gamboa to the hospital. Detectives later booked Gamboa into the Salt Lake County Metro Jail on a charge of murder.

    Police said officers also detained two men who were wearing high-visibility neon green vests and carrying handguns.

    Peacekeeping team
    These men were apparently part of the event’s peacekeeping team.

    According to the police, detectives learned during interviews that the two peacekeepers saw Gamboa move away from the crowd and move into a secluded area behind a wall — behavior they found suspicious.

    “One of the peacekeepers told detectives he saw Gamboa pull out an AR15-style rifle from a backpack and begin manipulating it.

    “The peacekeepers drew their firearms and ordered Gamboa to drop the weapon.

    “Witnesses reported Gamboa instead lifted the rifle and began running toward the crowd gathered on State Street, holding the weapon in a firing position.

    “In response, one of the peacekeepers fired three rounds. One round struck Gamboa, while another tragically wounded Mr Ah Loo.”

    “Our detectives are now working to thoroughly investigate the circumstances surrounding this incident,” Redd said.

    “We will not allow this individual act to create fear in our community.”

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • Seeking unity, G7 meets amid escalating Ukraine, Middle East conflicts

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Leaders from the Group of Seven nations begin annual talks on Monday amid wars in Ukraine and the Middle East that add to global economic uncertainty, as host Canada tries to avoid a clash with U.S. President Donald Trump.

    The G7 leaders from Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the U.S., along with the European Union, are convening in the resort of Kananaskis in the Canadian Rockies until Tuesday.

    But beyond the serene and picturesque mountain setting, they confront challenges. The first five months of Trump’s second term upended foreign policy on Ukraine, raised anxiety over his closer ties to Russia and resulted in tariffs on U.S. allies.

    With an escalating Israel-Iran conflict, which is spiking global oil prices, the summit in Canada is seen as a vital moment to try and restore a semblance of unity between democratic powerhouses.

    “The most important goal will be for the world’s seven largest industrial nations to reach agreement and take action,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said before attending his first G7.

    That will not be easy. After years of consensus, the traditional allies have scrambled to keep Trump engaged and maintain unity.

    Canada has abandoned any effort to adopt an all-encompassing comprehensive communique to avert a repeat of a 2018 summit in Quebec, when Trump instructed the U.S. delegation to withdraw its approval of the final communique after leaving.

    Instead, Ottawa has sought to get consensus for a chair’s statement that summarizes the key discussions and six other pre-negotiated declarations on issues such as migration, artificial intelligence and forest fires.

    Talks on Monday will centre around the economy, advancing trade deals, and China.

    Efforts to reach an agreement to lower the G7 price cap on Russian oil even if Trump decided to opt out have been complicated by the surge in oil prices since Israel launched strikes on Iran on June 12, two diplomatic sources said.

    The escalation between the two regional foes is on the agenda, with diplomatic sources saying they hope to achieve at least a joint statement to urge restraint and a return to diplomacy.

    “We are united. Nobody wants to see Iran get a nuclear weapon and everyone wants discussions and negotiations to restart,” France’s President Emmanuel Macron told reporters in Greenland on Sunday before travelling to Canada.

    He added that given Israel’s dependence on U.S. weapons and munitions, Washington had the capacity to restart negotiations.

    Trump said on Sunday many calls and meetings were taking place to broker peace.

    RUSSIAN ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM

    Highlighting the unease among some of Washington’s allies, Trump spoke on Saturday with Russian President Vladimir Putin and suggested the Russian leader could play a mediation role.

    Macron dismissed the idea, arguing that Moscow could not be a negotiator because it had started an illegal war against Ukraine.

    A European diplomat said Trump’s suggestion showed that Russia, despite being kicked out of the group in 2014 after annexing Crimea, was very much on U.S. minds.

    “In the eyes of the U.S., there’s no condemnation for Ukraine; no peace without Russia; and now even credit for its mediation role with Iran. For Europeans, this will be a really tough G7,” the diplomat said.

    Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte will attend the summit on Tuesday. European officials said they hoped to use the meeting, and next week’s NATO summit, to convince Trump to toughen his stance on Putin.

    “The G7 should have the objective for us to converge again, for Ukraine to get a ceasefire to lead to a robust and lasting peace, and in my view it’s a question of seeing whether President Trump is ready to put forward much tougher sanctions on Russia,” Macron said.

    (Reuters)

  • Seeking unity, G7 meets amid escalating Ukraine, Middle East conflicts

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Leaders from the Group of Seven nations begin annual talks on Monday amid wars in Ukraine and the Middle East that add to global economic uncertainty, as host Canada tries to avoid a clash with U.S. President Donald Trump.

    The G7 leaders from Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the U.S., along with the European Union, are convening in the resort of Kananaskis in the Canadian Rockies until Tuesday.

    But beyond the serene and picturesque mountain setting, they confront challenges. The first five months of Trump’s second term upended foreign policy on Ukraine, raised anxiety over his closer ties to Russia and resulted in tariffs on U.S. allies.

    With an escalating Israel-Iran conflict, which is spiking global oil prices, the summit in Canada is seen as a vital moment to try and restore a semblance of unity between democratic powerhouses.

    “The most important goal will be for the world’s seven largest industrial nations to reach agreement and take action,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said before attending his first G7.

    That will not be easy. After years of consensus, the traditional allies have scrambled to keep Trump engaged and maintain unity.

    Canada has abandoned any effort to adopt an all-encompassing comprehensive communique to avert a repeat of a 2018 summit in Quebec, when Trump instructed the U.S. delegation to withdraw its approval of the final communique after leaving.

    Instead, Ottawa has sought to get consensus for a chair’s statement that summarizes the key discussions and six other pre-negotiated declarations on issues such as migration, artificial intelligence and forest fires.

    Talks on Monday will centre around the economy, advancing trade deals, and China.

    Efforts to reach an agreement to lower the G7 price cap on Russian oil even if Trump decided to opt out have been complicated by the surge in oil prices since Israel launched strikes on Iran on June 12, two diplomatic sources said.

    The escalation between the two regional foes is on the agenda, with diplomatic sources saying they hope to achieve at least a joint statement to urge restraint and a return to diplomacy.

    “We are united. Nobody wants to see Iran get a nuclear weapon and everyone wants discussions and negotiations to restart,” France’s President Emmanuel Macron told reporters in Greenland on Sunday before travelling to Canada.

    He added that given Israel’s dependence on U.S. weapons and munitions, Washington had the capacity to restart negotiations.

    Trump said on Sunday many calls and meetings were taking place to broker peace.

    RUSSIAN ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM

    Highlighting the unease among some of Washington’s allies, Trump spoke on Saturday with Russian President Vladimir Putin and suggested the Russian leader could play a mediation role.

    Macron dismissed the idea, arguing that Moscow could not be a negotiator because it had started an illegal war against Ukraine.

    A European diplomat said Trump’s suggestion showed that Russia, despite being kicked out of the group in 2014 after annexing Crimea, was very much on U.S. minds.

    “In the eyes of the U.S., there’s no condemnation for Ukraine; no peace without Russia; and now even credit for its mediation role with Iran. For Europeans, this will be a really tough G7,” the diplomat said.

    Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte will attend the summit on Tuesday. European officials said they hoped to use the meeting, and next week’s NATO summit, to convince Trump to toughen his stance on Putin.

    “The G7 should have the objective for us to converge again, for Ukraine to get a ceasefire to lead to a robust and lasting peace, and in my view it’s a question of seeing whether President Trump is ready to put forward much tougher sanctions on Russia,” Macron said.

    (Reuters)

  • MIL-OSI Russia: D. Trump vetoes Israeli plan to assassinate Iran’s supreme leader – media

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    WASHINGTON, June 16 (Xinhua) — U.S. President Donald Trump has vetoed an Israeli plan to assassinate Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, media reported Sunday.

    As CBS News reported, citing an American official, Israel had the opportunity to kill A. Khamenei, and D. Trump told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that “it’s not a very good idea.”

    But when asked about the assassination plan in an interview on Fox News Sunday, Netanyahu said: “There are so many false reports about conversations that never happened, and I’m not going to go into detail.”

    Senior US officials have been in constant contact with Israeli officials in the days following Israel’s massive attack on Iran on Friday, Reuters reported.

    D. Trump said Sunday that while the United States is not currently involved in Israel’s military strikes on Iran, future involvement remains a possibility.

    “We’re not involved in that. Maybe we could be involved. But we’re not involved at this point,” the president told ABC News in an interview.

    Since the Israeli strikes on Iran, Trump has repeatedly called on Tehran to make a deal. In an interview with ABC News, the president said he had given Iran a “60-day ultimatum” to “make a deal,” but he was not setting a new deadline.

    Later Sunday, before leaving the White House for the Group of Seven (G7) summit in Canada, the US president reiterated his view that he sees a “good chance” for a nuclear deal amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: D. Trump vetoes Israeli plan to assassinate Iran’s supreme leader – media

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    WASHINGTON, June 16 (Xinhua) — U.S. President Donald Trump has vetoed an Israeli plan to assassinate Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, media reported Sunday.

    As CBS News reported, citing an American official, Israel had the opportunity to kill A. Khamenei, and D. Trump told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that “it’s not a very good idea.”

    But when asked about the assassination plan in an interview on Fox News Sunday, Netanyahu said: “There are so many false reports about conversations that never happened, and I’m not going to go into detail.”

    Senior US officials have been in constant contact with Israeli officials in the days following Israel’s massive attack on Iran on Friday, Reuters reported.

    D. Trump said Sunday that while the United States is not currently involved in Israel’s military strikes on Iran, future involvement remains a possibility.

    “We’re not involved in that. Maybe we could be involved. But we’re not involved at this point,” the president told ABC News in an interview.

    Since the Israeli strikes on Iran, Trump has repeatedly called on Tehran to make a deal. In an interview with ABC News, the president said he had given Iran a “60-day ultimatum” to “make a deal,” but he was not setting a new deadline.

    Later Sunday, before leaving the White House for the Group of Seven (G7) summit in Canada, the US president reiterated his view that he sees a “good chance” for a nuclear deal amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI: T1 Energy Advances $850 Million Planned 5 GW Solar Cell Plant

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    AUSTIN, Texas and NEW YORK, June 16, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — T1 Energy Inc. (NYSE: TE) (“T1,” “T1 Energy,” or the “Company”) announced the selection of Yates Construction as contractor for preconstruction services and site preparations for its planned $850 million, G2_Austin 5 GW Solar Cell Facility. The project is enabled by the Trump Administration’s tariffs and other policies supporting American advanced manufacturing, jobs and energy dominance.

    The commissioners of Milam County, Texas, also unanimously voted to provide T1 Energy with a long-term tax abatement package, subject to the Company meeting or exceeding employment and investment thresholds at the facility. The facility is expected to begin producing cells by the end of 2026, and create up to 1,800 full-time jobs.

    G2_Austin is a key part of T1’s strategy to build a domestic solar and battery supply chain to provide America with scalable, reliable and low-cost energy. In combination with the Company’s fully operational G1_Dallas 5 GW Solar Module Facility, T1 plans to address unmet customer demand for U.S. solar cells and modules using TOPCon technology.

    “Solar energy is a foundational part of American power grids. Our facilities will manufacture solar cells and modules to invigorate our economy with abundant energy. We’re excited to work with Yates and Milam County to bring American advanced manufacturing to the heart of Texas and to unlock our most scalable energy resources,” said T1 Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Daniel Barcelo.

    “We look forward to working with T1 Energy and leveraging our extensive experience in advanced manufacturing facility construction,” said William G. Yates III, President and CEO of Yates Construction. “This is an exciting project, and Yates Construction is committed to being a collaborative partner throughout the execution of the project.” Yates Construction is part of The Yates Companies, Inc., one of the country’s top builders of complex construction projects.

    “We’re thrilled to welcome T1 Energy to Milam County—this partnership brings not just innovation, but the kind of high-quality, good-paying jobs that empower our local families and strengthen our community. It’s a powerful step toward a future of sustainable growth and opportunity, right here at home,” said Milam County Judge Bill Whitmire.

    T1 Energy has engaged Yates to provide preconstruction services for G2_Austin and anticipates finalizing commercial terms with the company as General Contractor. Yates joins SSOE Group which has been providing project engineering for G2_Austin since December 2024.

    About T1 Energy

    T1 Energy Inc. (NYSE: TE) is an energy solutions provider building an integrated U.S. supply chain for solar and batteries. In December 2024, T1 completed a transformative transaction, positioning the Company as one of the leading solar manufacturing companies in the United States, with a complementary solar and battery storage strategy. Based in the United States with plans to expand its operations in America, the Company is also exploring value optimization opportunities across its portfolio of assets in Europe.

    To learn more about T1, please visit www.T1energy.com and follow us on social media.

    Investor contact:

    Jeffrey Spittel
    EVP, Investor Relations and Corporate Development
    jeffrey.spittel@T1energy.com
    Tel: +1 409 599 5706

    Media contact:

    Russell Gold
    EVP, Strategic Communications
    russell.gold@T1energy.com
    Tel: +1 214 616 9715

    Cautionary Statement Concerning Forward-Looking Statements:

    This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. All statements contained in this press release that do not relate to matters of historical fact should be considered forward-looking statements, including without limitation with respect to: the success and timeline of the construction of G2_Austin and T1’s ability to manufacture solar cells and modules; any anticipated benefits of the Trump Administration’s tariffs and other policies; the ability of T1 Energy to meet the required threshold for the long-term tax abatement from Milam County, Texas; the timeline for commencement of cell production at G2_Austin and the creation of jobs in connection therewith; T1 Energy’s strategy to build a domestic solar and battery supply chain to provide America with energy; T1 Energy’s plans to address unmet customer demand for U.S. solar cells and modules and unlock the United States’ energy resources; T1 Energy’s vision and ability to bring American advanced manufacturing to the heart of Texas and to invigorate the United States’ economy with abundant energy, and bring sustainable growth and opportunity to Milam County; and finalizing the commercial terms of engagement with Yates. These forward-looking statements are based on management’s current expectations. These statements are neither promises nor guarantees, but involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other important factors that may cause actual future events, results, or achievements to be materially different from the Company’s expectations and projections expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. Important factors include, but are not limited to, those discussed under the caption “Risk Factors” in (i) T1’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on March 31, 2025, as amended and supplemented by Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A filed with the SEC on April 30, 2025, and T1’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025 filed with the SEC on May 15, 2025, (ii) T1’s post-effective Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed with the SEC on January 4, 2024, and (iii) T1’s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC on September 8, 2023 and subsequent amendments thereto filed on October 13, 2023, October 19, 2023 and October 31, 2023. All of the above referenced filings are available on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this press release and are based on information available to the Company as of the date of this press release, and the Company assumes no obligation to update such forward-looking statements, all of which are expressly qualified by the statements in this section, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law.

    T1 intends to use its website as a channel of distribution to disclose information which may be of interest or material to investors and to communicate with investors and the public. Such disclosures will be included on T1’s website in the ‘Investor Relations’ section. T1, and its CEO and Chairman of the Board, Daniel Barcelo, also intend to use certain social media channels, including, but not limited to, X, LinkedIn and Instagram, as means of communicating with the public and investors about T1, its progress, products, and other matters. While not all the information that T1 or Daniel Barcelo post to their respective digital platforms may be deemed to be of a material nature, some information may be. As a result, T1 encourages investors and others interested to review the information that it and Daniel Barcelo posts and to monitor such portions of T1’s website and social media channels on a regular basis, in addition to following T1’s press releases, SEC filings, and public conference calls and webcasts. The contents of T1’s website and its and Daniel Barcelo’s social media channels shall not be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI: T1 Energy Advances $850 Million Planned 5 GW Solar Cell Plant

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    AUSTIN, Texas and NEW YORK, June 16, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — T1 Energy Inc. (NYSE: TE) (“T1,” “T1 Energy,” or the “Company”) announced the selection of Yates Construction as contractor for preconstruction services and site preparations for its planned $850 million, G2_Austin 5 GW Solar Cell Facility. The project is enabled by the Trump Administration’s tariffs and other policies supporting American advanced manufacturing, jobs and energy dominance.

    The commissioners of Milam County, Texas, also unanimously voted to provide T1 Energy with a long-term tax abatement package, subject to the Company meeting or exceeding employment and investment thresholds at the facility. The facility is expected to begin producing cells by the end of 2026, and create up to 1,800 full-time jobs.

    G2_Austin is a key part of T1’s strategy to build a domestic solar and battery supply chain to provide America with scalable, reliable and low-cost energy. In combination with the Company’s fully operational G1_Dallas 5 GW Solar Module Facility, T1 plans to address unmet customer demand for U.S. solar cells and modules using TOPCon technology.

    “Solar energy is a foundational part of American power grids. Our facilities will manufacture solar cells and modules to invigorate our economy with abundant energy. We’re excited to work with Yates and Milam County to bring American advanced manufacturing to the heart of Texas and to unlock our most scalable energy resources,” said T1 Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Daniel Barcelo.

    “We look forward to working with T1 Energy and leveraging our extensive experience in advanced manufacturing facility construction,” said William G. Yates III, President and CEO of Yates Construction. “This is an exciting project, and Yates Construction is committed to being a collaborative partner throughout the execution of the project.” Yates Construction is part of The Yates Companies, Inc., one of the country’s top builders of complex construction projects.

    “We’re thrilled to welcome T1 Energy to Milam County—this partnership brings not just innovation, but the kind of high-quality, good-paying jobs that empower our local families and strengthen our community. It’s a powerful step toward a future of sustainable growth and opportunity, right here at home,” said Milam County Judge Bill Whitmire.

    T1 Energy has engaged Yates to provide preconstruction services for G2_Austin and anticipates finalizing commercial terms with the company as General Contractor. Yates joins SSOE Group which has been providing project engineering for G2_Austin since December 2024.

    About T1 Energy

    T1 Energy Inc. (NYSE: TE) is an energy solutions provider building an integrated U.S. supply chain for solar and batteries. In December 2024, T1 completed a transformative transaction, positioning the Company as one of the leading solar manufacturing companies in the United States, with a complementary solar and battery storage strategy. Based in the United States with plans to expand its operations in America, the Company is also exploring value optimization opportunities across its portfolio of assets in Europe.

    To learn more about T1, please visit www.T1energy.com and follow us on social media.

    Investor contact:

    Jeffrey Spittel
    EVP, Investor Relations and Corporate Development
    jeffrey.spittel@T1energy.com
    Tel: +1 409 599 5706

    Media contact:

    Russell Gold
    EVP, Strategic Communications
    russell.gold@T1energy.com
    Tel: +1 214 616 9715

    Cautionary Statement Concerning Forward-Looking Statements:

    This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. All statements contained in this press release that do not relate to matters of historical fact should be considered forward-looking statements, including without limitation with respect to: the success and timeline of the construction of G2_Austin and T1’s ability to manufacture solar cells and modules; any anticipated benefits of the Trump Administration’s tariffs and other policies; the ability of T1 Energy to meet the required threshold for the long-term tax abatement from Milam County, Texas; the timeline for commencement of cell production at G2_Austin and the creation of jobs in connection therewith; T1 Energy’s strategy to build a domestic solar and battery supply chain to provide America with energy; T1 Energy’s plans to address unmet customer demand for U.S. solar cells and modules and unlock the United States’ energy resources; T1 Energy’s vision and ability to bring American advanced manufacturing to the heart of Texas and to invigorate the United States’ economy with abundant energy, and bring sustainable growth and opportunity to Milam County; and finalizing the commercial terms of engagement with Yates. These forward-looking statements are based on management’s current expectations. These statements are neither promises nor guarantees, but involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other important factors that may cause actual future events, results, or achievements to be materially different from the Company’s expectations and projections expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. Important factors include, but are not limited to, those discussed under the caption “Risk Factors” in (i) T1’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on March 31, 2025, as amended and supplemented by Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A filed with the SEC on April 30, 2025, and T1’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025 filed with the SEC on May 15, 2025, (ii) T1’s post-effective Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed with the SEC on January 4, 2024, and (iii) T1’s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC on September 8, 2023 and subsequent amendments thereto filed on October 13, 2023, October 19, 2023 and October 31, 2023. All of the above referenced filings are available on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this press release and are based on information available to the Company as of the date of this press release, and the Company assumes no obligation to update such forward-looking statements, all of which are expressly qualified by the statements in this section, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law.

    T1 intends to use its website as a channel of distribution to disclose information which may be of interest or material to investors and to communicate with investors and the public. Such disclosures will be included on T1’s website in the ‘Investor Relations’ section. T1, and its CEO and Chairman of the Board, Daniel Barcelo, also intend to use certain social media channels, including, but not limited to, X, LinkedIn and Instagram, as means of communicating with the public and investors about T1, its progress, products, and other matters. While not all the information that T1 or Daniel Barcelo post to their respective digital platforms may be deemed to be of a material nature, some information may be. As a result, T1 encourages investors and others interested to review the information that it and Daniel Barcelo posts and to monitor such portions of T1’s website and social media channels on a regular basis, in addition to following T1’s press releases, SEC filings, and public conference calls and webcasts. The contents of T1’s website and its and Daniel Barcelo’s social media channels shall not be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: President Lai meets delegation led by Representative Bera, co-chair of US Congressional Taiwan Caucus

    Source: Republic of China Taiwan

    Details
    2025-06-13
    President Lai meets delegation led by French National Assembly Taiwan Friendship Group Chair Marie-Noëlle Battistel
    On the morning of June 12, President Lai Ching-te met a delegation led by Marie-Noëlle Battistel, chair of the French National Assembly’s Taiwan Friendship Group. In remarks, President Lai thanked the National Assembly for its long-term support for Taiwan’s international participation and for upholding security in the Taiwan Strait, helping make France the first major country in the world to enact legislation to uphold freedom of navigation in the Taiwan Strait. The president also said that exchanges and cooperation between Taiwan and France are becoming more frequent, and that he hopes this visit by the Taiwan Friendship Group will inject new momentum into Taiwan-France relations and help build closer partnerships in the economy, trade, energy, and digital security.  A translation of President Lai’s remarks follows: First, I would like to welcome Chair Battistel, who is once again leading a visiting delegation. Last year, Chair Battistel co-led a delegation to attend the inauguration ceremony for myself and Vice President Bi-khim Hsiao. This is her fourth visit, and first as chair of the Taiwan Friendship Group, which makes it especially meaningful. This delegation’s visit demonstrates strong support for Taiwan, and on behalf of the people of Taiwan, I want to express my sincerest welcome and thanks. France is a pioneer in promoting free and democratic values. These are values that Taiwan cherishes and is working hard to defend. I want to express gratitude to the French Parliament for their long-term support for Taiwan’s international participation, and for upholding security in the Taiwan Strait. The French Parliament’s two chambers have continued to strongly support Taiwan, with the passage of a resolution supporting Taiwan’s participation in international organizations in 2021, as well as the passage of the seven-year Military Programming Law in 2023. This has made France the first major country in the world to enact legislation to uphold freedom of navigation in the Taiwan Strait. Through it all, the Taiwan Friendship Group has played a key role, and I want to thank all of our distinguished guests for their efforts. Over the past few years, Taiwan and France have continued to deepen cooperation in areas including the economy, technology, culture, and sports. At the Choose France summit held in Paris last month, Taiwanese and French enterprises also announced they will launch cooperation in the semiconductor and satellite fields. The VivaTech startup exhibition, now being held in France, also has many Taiwanese vendors participating. Exchanges and cooperation between Taiwan and France, whether official or people-to-people, are becoming more and more frequent. I hope that this visit by the Taiwan Friendship Group will inject new momentum into Taiwan-France relations, building closer partnerships in the economy, trade, energy, and digital security.  To address current geopolitical and economic challenges, Taiwan will continue to join forces with France and other like-minded countries to jointly safeguard peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region, and contribute our concerted efforts to global prosperity and development. Once again, I want to welcome our visitors to Taiwan. I hope to continue our joint efforts to create a more prosperous future for both Taiwan and France.   Chair Battistel then delivered remarks, thanking President Lai for extending this invitation. Last year on May 20, she said, she and her delegation attended the presidential inauguration ceremony, so she was delighted to visit Taiwan once again with the French National Assembly’s Taiwan Friendship Group and bear witness to their friendship with Taiwan. Chair Battistel noted that this visit has given them an opportunity to strengthen Taiwan-France relations in areas including the economy, culture, the humanities, and diplomacy, and conduct exchanges with numerous heads of government agencies and research institutes. It has also been an opportunity, she said, to witness the importance of exchanges and cooperation with Taiwan in areas including energy, semiconductors, youth, and culture, and the impact created by important issues of mutual concern, including AI and disinformation, on the security of many countries. Chair Battistel praised Taiwan for its youth development efforts, and said that under the Taiwan Global Pathfinders Initiative, 30 Taiwanese young people have embarked on a visit to France, with itineraries including the United Nations Ocean Conference and the VivaTech exhibition, as well as the city of Toulouse, which is strategically important for the aerospace industry. Members of the group are also conducting exchanges at the French National Assembly, she said.  Chair Battistel stated that the Taiwan-France partnership is growing closer, and that she hopes to continue to strengthen bilateral exchanges and cooperation, as supporting peace for Taiwan supports peace around the world.  The delegation also included Taiwan Friendship Group Vice Chair Éric Martineau, as well as National Assembly Committee on Foreign Affairs Vice Chair Laetitia Saint-Paul and Deputies Marie-José Allemand and Claudia Rouaux. The delegation was accompanied to the Presidential Office by French Office in Taipei Deputy Director Cléa Le Cardeur.

    Details
    2025-06-05
    President Lai hosts state banquet for President Bernardo Arévalo of Republic of Guatemala  
    At noon on June 5, President Lai Ching-te hosted a state banquet at the Presidential Office for President Bernardo Arévalo of the Republic of Guatemala and his wife. In his remarks, President Lai noted that Taiwan and Guatemala have both undergone an arduous democratization process, and therefore, in face of the continuous expansion of authoritarian influence, must join hands in brotherhood and come together in solidarity to safeguard our hard-earned freedom and democracy. President Lai also expressed hope that both countries will work together and continue to deepen various exchanges and cooperation, taking a friendship that has lasted over 90 years to new heights. A translation of President Lai’s remarks follows: Once again, I would like to offer a warm welcome to President Arévalo and First Lady Lucrecia Peinado, who are leading this delegation to Taiwan. President Arévalo’s previous visit to Taiwan was 31 years ago. Back then, Taiwan did not have direct presidential elections, and the nation was continuing to make progress toward democratization. Today, 31 years later, Taiwan has conducted direct presidential elections eight times, with three transfers of power between political parties. On this visit, I am sure that President Arévalo will gain a deep appreciation for Taiwan’s free and democratic atmosphere.  Taiwan and Guatemala have both undergone an arduous democratization process. A little over 200 years ago, the people of Guatemala took a stand against colonial oppression, seeking national dignity and the freedom of its people. Eighty-one years ago, President Arévalo’s father, Juan José Arévalo, became Guatemala’s first democratically elected president, establishing an important foundation for subsequent democratic development.  Our two peoples have democracy in their blood. Both know the value of freedom and democracy and are willing to take a stand for those values. Therefore, in face of the continuous expansion of authoritarian influence, our two countries must join hands in brotherhood to respond to threats and challenges, and come together in solidarity to safeguard our hard-earned freedom and democracy. I hope that both countries will work together to continue to deepen various exchanges and cooperation, taking a friendship that has lasted over 90 years to new heights. I hope that on this visit, in addition to gaining a deeper understanding of Taiwan’s political, economic, and social development, President Arévalo can also reacquaint himself with the democratic vitality and cultural diversity of Taiwan by sampling various gourmet delicacies and once again experiencing the beauty of our scenery and warmth of our people. Guatemala is a very beautiful country. In the future, I hope to have a chance to personally experience that beauty, explore Mayan civilization, and savor local Guatemalan coffee. In closing, I wish the visiting delegation a smooth and successful trip, and beautiful, unforgettable memories. May President Arévalo enjoy the best of health, and may the diplomatic friendship between our two countries endure. President Arévalo then delivered remarks, stating that at different times and by different means, the people of Taiwan and Guatemala have relentlessly sought to defend freedom and democracy. We share the same expectations, he said, and are walking the right path amid today’s complex international circumstances.  President Arévalo stated that Taiwan and Guatemala are true democratic nations, where the government’s goal is to serve all the people. He noted that this is far from easy under current circumstances, as many authoritarian regimes use their long-term hold on power to safeguard the interests of select groups and neglect the wellbeing of the population as a whole. President Arévalo said that last week Guatemala commemorated the 40th anniversary of its constitution, which was enacted in 1985 and is Guatemala’s ultimate guide, setting the foundation for democracy and clearly outlining the path ahead. He said that over the past 40 years, Guatemala has continued to follow the democratic blueprint established by the constitution and end the civil war so that the nation could make the transition to real democracy. Although more than a few ambitious people have attempted to destroy that process from within, he noted, the people of Guatemala have never given up the pursuit of democracy as an ideal. President Arévalo stated that our two sides’ coming together here is due to such shared values as freedom and democracy as well as the idea of serving all the people. He underlined that the governments of both countries will continue to work hard and provide mutual support to smooth out each other’s path of democracy, freedom, and justice. President Arévalo emphasized that the government of Guatemala will always be Taiwan’s ally, and that he firmly believes Taiwan is Guatemala’s most reliable partner on the path of democracy and economic prosperity and development. The president said he hopes this visit will be the first step towards setting a new course for the governments and peoples of both countries. Also in attendance at the banquet were Guatemala Minister of Foreign Affairs Carlos Ramiro Martínez, Minister of the Economy Gabriela García, and Guatemala Ambassador Luis Raúl Estévez López.  

    Details
    2025-06-05
    President Lai welcomes President Bernardo Arévalo of Republic of Guatemala with military honors  
    On the morning of June 5, President Lai Ching-te welcomed with full military honors President Bernardo Arévalo of the Republic of Guatemala and his wife, who are leading a delegation of cabinet members visiting Taiwan for the first time, demonstrating the deep and enduring alliance between our nations. In remarks, President Lai noted that over the past few years, bilateral cooperation between Taiwan and Guatemala has grown closer and more diverse, and said that moving forward, based on a foundation of mutual assistance for mutual benefit, we will continue to promote programs in line with international trends, spurring prosperity and development in both our nations. The military honors ceremony began at 10:30 a.m. in the Entrance Hall of the Presidential Office. After a 21-gun salute and the playing of the two countries’ national anthems, President Lai and President Arévalo each delivered remarks. A translation of President Lai’s remarks follows: Today, President Arévalo and First Lady Lucrecia Peinado are leading a delegation of cabinet members visiting Taiwan for the first time, demonstrating the deep and enduring alliance between our nations. On behalf of the people and government of the Republic of China (Taiwan), I want to extend my sincerest welcome. Last year, our two countries celebrated the 90th anniversary of diplomatic ties, providing mutual support all along the way. Especially over the past few years, bilateral cooperation has grown closer and more diverse. We have a long record of remarkable results, whether in terms of medicine and public health, education and culture, technological cooperation, or economic and trade exchanges. Moving forward, based on a foundation of mutual assistance for mutual benefit, Taiwan and Guatemala will continue to promote programs in line with international trends. We will continue to strengthen exchange and cooperation for young people, as well as scholarship programs, and actively cultivate high-tech and information and communications technology industry talent, spurring prosperity and development in both our nations. Although separated by a great distance, the peoples of both countries are closely connected by their ideals and values. I am confident that with President Arévalo’s support, bilateral exchanges and cooperation will become closer and more diverse, beginning a very promising new chapter. I wish the visiting delegation a smooth and successful trip. President Arévalo then delivered remarks, saying that on behalf of the government and people of Guatemala, he is honored to visit the Republic of China (Taiwan), this beautiful nation, and to receive full military honors, which reflects the mutual respect between our two nations as well as our solid friendship. Especially as this state visit comes as we celebrate 90 years of formal diplomatic ties, he said, he has brought the foreign minister, economics minister, private secretary to the president, and social communication secretary as members of his delegation, in the hope of our ties embarking on a new chapter. President Arévalo said that Guatemala-Taiwan ties have in recent years been growing steadily on a foundation of mutual understanding and cooperation, making significant progress, and that our peoples have also cultivated sincere friendships and cooperative relationships across many fields. Our nations are especially promoting public health, education, agricultural technology, and infrastructure, he said, key fields which are conducive to economic and social development. He expressed his hope that on such good foundations of the past, we can further strengthen our bilateral ties for the future. President Arévalo stated that through this state visit they not only want to reaffirm the good bilateral ties between our nations, but that they also hope to define a trajectory for the future of our cooperation in the direction of expanding economic cooperation, building economic and trade alliances, and facilitating investment to foster a Taiwan-Guatemala relationship that benefits both peoples. He then expressed gratitude to the people of Taiwan for helping Guatemala over the past 90 years and reaffirmed the unwavering support of Guatemala for the Republic of China (Taiwan). On the occasion of this visit, he said, he hopes to extend a friendly hand to the people of Taiwan, adding that he looks forward to our nations continuing to take major steps forward on the road of mutual assistance and prosperity. Also in attendance at the welcome ceremony were Dean of the Diplomatic Corps and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Ambassador Andrea Clare Bowman, and members of the foreign diplomatic corps in Taiwan.  

    Details
    2025-06-03
    President Lai confers decoration on President Hilda C. Heine of Republic of the Marshall Islands, hosts state banquet  
    At noon on June 3, President Lai Ching-te, accompanied by Vice President Bi-khim Hsiao, conferred a decoration upon President Hilda C. Heine of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and hosted a state banquet for President Heine and her husband at the Presidential Office. In remarks, President Lai thanked President Heine for her commitment to deepening the diplomatic partnership between our nations and speaking up for Taiwan in the international arena. He also expressed hope for Taiwan and the Marshall Islands to work together to address various challenges through an even greater diversity of exchanges, and that together, we can contribute even more to peace, stability, and development throughout the Pacific region. At the decoration ceremony, President Lai personally conferred the Order of Brilliant Jade with Grand Cordon on President Heine before delivering remarks, a translation of which follows:  The Marshall Islands was the first Pacific ally that I visited after taking office as president. When I arrived there, I was immediately drawn to its beautiful scenery. And I received a very warm welcome from the local people. This gesture showed the profound friendship between our two nations. I was truly touched. I also remember trying your nation’s special Bob Whisky for the first time. The flavor was as unique and impressive as the landscape of the Marshall Islands.  In addition to welcoming our distinguished guests today, we also presented President Heine with the Order of Brilliant Jade with Grand Cordon. On behalf of the people of Taiwan, I want to thank President Heine for her commitment to deepening the diplomatic partnership between our nations, and for staunchly speaking up for Taiwan in the international arena. Both I and the people of Taiwan are profoundly grateful to President Heine for her friendship and support. Over the past few years, cooperation between Taiwan and the Marshall Islands has grown ever closer. And this visit by our distinguished guests will allow our two countries to further expand areas of bilateral exchange. I have always believed that only through mutual assistance and trust can two countries build a longstanding and steadfast partnership. I once again convey my sincere aspiration that Taiwan and the Marshall Islands work together to address various challenges through an even greater diversity of exchanges. Together, we can contribute even more to peace, stability, and development throughout the Pacific region. In closing, I want to thank President Heine and First Gentleman Thomas Kijiner, Jr. for leading this delegation to Taiwan, which deepens the foundations of our bilateral relationship. May our two nations enjoy a long and enduring friendship. President Heine then delivered remarks, stating that she felt especially privileged to receive the Order of Brilliant Jade with Grand Cordon of the Republic of China (Taiwan), and humbly accepted the honor with the utmost gratitude, humility, and deep responsibility. This is a deep responsibility, she said, because she understands that since its inception in 1933, this order has been bestowed upon a select few. She then thanked President Lai for this great honor. President Heine stated that the banquet was not just a celebration of our bilateral friendship, but a true reflection of the generosity of the Taiwan spirit and a testament to the enduring ties between our nations, founded on shared values and aspirations, including a respect for the rule of law, the preservation of human dignity, and a deep commitment to democracy. President Heine stated that the Taiwan-Marshall Islands partnership continues to evolve through practical cooperation and mutual support. In recent years, she said, our countries have worked hand in hand across a range of vital sectors, including the recent opening of the Majuro Hospital AI and Telehealth Center and the ongoing and successful Taiwan Health Center, various technical training and scholarship programs, and various climate change adaptation projects in renewable energy, coastal resilience, and sustainable agriculture.   President Heine emphasized that the Marshall Islands continues to be a proud and vocal supporter of Taiwan’s meaningful participation in the United Nations system and other international organizations. Taiwan’s exclusion from these platforms, she said, is not only unjust, but is bad for the world, and the global community needs Taiwan’s voice and expertise.  President Heine also expressed sincere appreciation to all of the Taiwanese friends who have contributed their efforts to deepening bilateral relations, including government officials, healthcare workers, teachers, engineers, and volunteers. The people of the Marshall Islands, she said, deeply appreciate and value everyone’s efforts and service. President Heine said that as we celebrate our partnership, let us look to the future with hope and determination, continue to work together, learn from one another, and support one another to champion a world where all nations can chart their own course based on peace and international law. Also attending the state banquet were Marshall Islands Council of Iroij Chairman Lanny Kabua, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Kalani R. Kaneko, Minister of Finance David Paul, Nitijela Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade Chairperson Joe Bejang, and Charge d’Affaires a.i. Anjanette Davis-Anjel of the Embassy of the Republic of the Marshall Islands.  

    Details
    2025-06-03
    President Lai and President Hilda C. Heine of Marshall Islands hold bilateral talks and witness signing of agreements
    On the morning of June 3, President Lai Ching-te, accompanied by Vice President Bi-khim Hsiao, held bilateral talks with President Hilda C. Heine of the Republic of the Marshall Islands at the Presidential Office following a welcome ceremony with military honors for her and her husband. The leaders also jointly witnessed the signing of a letter of intent for sports exchanges and a memorandum of understanding regarding the Presidents’ Scholarship Fund. President Lai then presided over a launch ceremony for a loan program to purchase aircraft. In remarks, President Lai thanked the government and the Nitijela (parliament) of the Marshall Islands for their longstanding support for Taiwan’s international participation and for voicing staunch support for Taiwan at numerous international venues. President Lai said that Taiwan looks forward to continuing to deepen its diplomatic partnership with the Marshall Islands and build an even closer cooperative relationship across a range of fields, engaging in mutual assistance for mutual benefits and helping each other achieve joint and prosperous development to yield even greater well-being for our peoples. A translation of President Lai’s remarks follows: I once again warmly welcome President Heine, First Gentleman Thomas Kijiner, Jr., and our guests to Taiwan. During my visit to the Marshall Islands last year, I said that Taiwan and the Marshall Islands are truly a family. When Vice President Hsiao and I took office last year, President Heine led a delegation to Taiwan. It is now one year since our inauguration, and I am delighted to see President Heine once again, just as if I were seeing family arrive from afar. Through my visit to the Marshall Islands, I gained a profound sense of the friendship between the peoples of our two nations, well-demonstrated by bilateral exchanges in such areas as healthcare, agriculture, and education. And it is thanks to President Heine’s longstanding support for Taiwan that our countries have been able to further advance collaboration on even more issues, including women’s empowerment and climate change. In recent years, the geopolitical and economic landscape has changed rapidly. We look forward to Taiwan and the Marshall Islands continuing to deepen our partnership and build an even closer cooperative relationship. In just a few moments, President Heine and I will witness the signing of several documents, including a memorandum of understanding and a letter of intent, to expand bilateral cooperation in such fields as sports, education, and transportation. Taiwan will take concrete action to work with the Marshall Islands and advance mutual prosperity and development, writing a new chapter in our diplomatic partnership. I would also like to take this opportunity to express gratitude to the government and Nitijela of the Marshall Islands. In recent years, the Nitijela has passed annual resolutions backing Taiwan’s international participation, and President Heine and Marshallese cabinet members have been some of the strongest advocates for Taiwan’s international participation, voicing staunch support for Taiwan at numerous international venues. Building on the pillars of democracy, peace, and prosperity, Taiwan will continue to work with the Marshall Islands and other like-minded countries to deepen our partnerships, engage in mutual assistance for mutual benefits, and help one another achieve joint and prosperous development. I have every confidence that the combined efforts of our two nations will yield even greater well-being for our peoples and see us make even more contributions to the world. President Heine then delivered remarks, and began by conveying warm greetings of iokwe from the people and government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands to the people and government of the Republic of China (Taiwan). She said she was deeply honored to be in Taiwan for an official visit, and extended appreciation to President Lai and his government for their gracious invitation and warm welcome. President Heine stated that this year marks 27 years of diplomatic ties between our two nations, and that they are proud of this enduring friendship. This special and enduring relationship, she said, is grounded in our shared Austronesian heritage, and strengthened by mutual respect for each other’s democratic systems and our steadfast commitment to the core values of freedom, justice, and the rule of law. President Heine stated that Taiwan’s continued support has been invaluable to the people and national development of the Marshall Islands, particularly in the areas of health, education, agriculture, and climate change. She also expressed deep appreciation to Taiwan for providing Marshallese students with opportunities to study in Taiwan, and for the care extended to Marshallese who travel here for medical treatment. President Heine also announced that she would be presenting a copy of a resolution by the people and government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands reiterating their appreciation for the support provided by the people and government of the Republic of China (Taiwan), and calling on the United Nations to take immediate action to resolve the inappropriate exclusion of Taiwan’s 23 million people from the UN system. She added that she looked forward to the bilateral discussions later that day, and to continuing the important work that both countries carry out together. After the bilateral talks, President Lai and President Heine witnessed the signing of a letter of intent regarding sports exchanges and a memorandum of understanding regarding the Presidents’ Scholarship Fund by Minister of Foreign Affairs Lin Chia-lung (林佳龍) and Marshallese Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Kalani R. Kaneko. President Lai then presided over a launch ceremony for a loan program to purchase aircraft, marking the formal beginning of Taiwan-Marshall Islands air transport cooperation. The visiting delegation also included Council of Iroij Chairman Lanny Kabua, Minister of Finance David Paul, and Nitijela Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade Chair Joe Bejang. They were accompanied to the Presidential Office by Charge d’Affaires a.i. Anjanette Davis-Anjel of the Embassy of the Republic of the Marshall Islands.

    Details
    2025-05-20
    President Lai interviewed by Nippon Television and Yomiuri TV
    In a recent interview on Nippon Television’s news zero program, President Lai Ching-te responded to questions from host Mr. Sakurai Sho and Yomiuri TV Shanghai Bureau Chief Watanabe Masayo on topics including reflections on his first year in office, cross-strait relations, China’s military threats, Taiwan-United States relations, and Taiwan-Japan relations. The interview was broadcast on the evening of May 19. During the interview, President Lai stated that China intends to change the world’s rules-based international order, and that if Taiwan were invaded, global supply chains would be disrupted. Therefore, he said, Taiwan will strengthen its national defense, prevent war by preparing for war, and achieve the goal of peace. The president also noted that Taiwan’s purpose for developing drones is based on national security and industrial needs, and that Taiwan hopes to collaborate with Japan. He then reiterated that China’s threats are an international problem, and expressed hope to work together with the US, Japan, and others in the global democratic community to prevent China from starting a war. Following is the text of the questions and the president’s responses: Q: How do you feel as you are about to round out your first year in office? President Lai: When I was young, I was determined to practice medicine and save lives. When I left medicine to go into politics, I was determined to transform Taiwan. And when I was sworn in as president on May 20 last year, I was determined to strengthen the nation. Time flies, and it has already been a year. Although the process has been very challenging, I am deeply honored to be a part of it. I am also profoundly grateful to our citizens for allowing me the opportunity to give back to our country. The future will certainly be full of more challenges, but I will do everything I can to unite the people and continue strengthening the nation. That is how I am feeling now. Q: We are now coming up on the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II, and over this period, we have often heard that conflict between Taiwan and the mainland is imminent. Do you personally believe that a cross-strait conflict could happen? President Lai: The international community is very much aware that China intends to replace the US and change the world’s rules-based international order, and annexing Taiwan is just the first step. So, as China’s military power grows stronger, some members of the international community are naturally on edge about whether a cross-strait conflict will break out. The international community must certainly do everything in its power to avoid a conflict in the Taiwan Strait; there is too great a cost. Besides causing direct disasters to both Taiwan and China, the impact on the global economy would be even greater, with estimated losses of US$10 trillion from war alone – that is roughly 10 percent of the global GDP. Additionally, 20 percent of global shipping passes through the Taiwan Strait and surrounding waters, so if a conflict breaks out in the strait, other countries including Japan and Korea would suffer a grave impact. For Japan and Korea, a quarter of external transit passes through the Taiwan Strait and surrounding waters, and a third of the various energy resources and minerals shipped back from other countries pass through said areas. If Taiwan were invaded, global supply chains would be disrupted, and therefore conflict in the Taiwan Strait must be avoided. Such a conflict is indeed avoidable. I am very thankful to Prime Minister of Japan Ishiba Shigeru and former Prime Ministers Abe Shinzo, Suga Yoshihide, and Kishida Fumio, as well as US President Donald Trump and former President Joe Biden, and the other G7 leaders, for continuing to emphasize at international venues that peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait are essential components for global security and prosperity. When everyone in the global democratic community works together, stacking up enough strength to make China’s objectives unattainable or to make the cost of invading Taiwan too high for it to bear, a conflict in the strait can naturally be avoided. Q: As you said, President Lai, maintaining peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait is also very important for other countries. How can war be avoided? What sort of countermeasures is Taiwan prepared to take to prevent war? President Lai: As Mr. Sakurai mentioned earlier, we are coming up on the 80th anniversary of the end of WWII. There are many lessons we can take from that war. First is that peace is priceless, and war has no winners. From the tragedies of WWII, there are lessons that humanity should learn. We must pursue peace, and not start wars blindly, as that would be a major disaster for humanity. In other words, we must be determined to safeguard peace. The second lesson is that we cannot be complacent toward authoritarian powers. If you give them an inch, they will take a mile. They will keep growing, and eventually, not only will peace be unattainable, but war will be inevitable. The third lesson is why WWII ended: It ended because different groups joined together in solidarity. Taiwan, Japan, and the Indo-Pacific region are all directly subjected to China’s threats, so we hope to be able to join together in cooperation. This is why we proposed the Four Pillars of Peace action plan. First, we will strengthen our national defense. Second, we will strengthen economic resilience. Third is standing shoulder to shoulder with the democratic community to demonstrate the strength of deterrence. Fourth is that as long as China treats Taiwan with parity and dignity, Taiwan is willing to conduct exchanges and cooperate with China, and seek peace and mutual prosperity. These four pillars can help us avoid war and achieve peace. That is to say, Taiwan hopes to achieve peace through strength, prevent war by preparing for war, keeping war from happening and pursuing the goal of peace. Q: Regarding drones, everyone knows that recently, Taiwan has been actively researching, developing, and introducing drones. Why do you need to actively research, develop, and introduce new drones at this time? President Lai: This is for two purposes. The first is to meet national security needs. The second is to meet industrial development needs. Because Taiwan, Japan, and the Philippines are all part of the first island chain, and we are all democratic nations, we cannot be like an authoritarian country like China, which has an unlimited national defense budget. In this kind of situation, island nations such as Taiwan, Japan, and the Philippines should leverage their own technologies to develop national defense methods that are asymmetric and utilize unmanned vehicles. In particular, from the Russo-Ukrainian War, we see that Ukraine has successfully utilized unmanned vehicles to protect itself and prevent Russia from unlimited invasion. In other words, the Russo-Ukrainian War has already proven the importance of drones. Therefore, the first purpose of developing drones is based on national security needs. Second, the world has already entered the era of smart technology. Whether generative, agentic, or physical, AI will continue to develop. In the future, cars and ships will also evolve into unmanned vehicles and unmanned boats, and there will be unmanned factories. Drones will even be able to assist with postal deliveries, or services like Uber, Uber Eats, and foodpanda, or agricultural irrigation and pesticide spraying. Therefore, in the future era of comprehensive smart technology, developing unmanned vehicles is a necessity. Taiwan, based on industrial needs, is actively planning the development of drones and unmanned vehicles. I would like to take this opportunity to express Taiwan’s hope to collaborate with Japan in the unmanned vehicle industry. Just as we do in the semiconductor industry, where Japan has raw materials, equipment, and technology, and Taiwan has wafer manufacturing, our two countries can cooperate. Japan is a technological power, and Taiwan also has significant technological strengths. If Taiwan and Japan work together, we will not only be able to safeguard peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait and security in the Indo-Pacific region, but it will also be very helpful for the industrial development of both countries. Q: The drones you just described probably include examples from the Russo-Ukrainian War. Taiwan and China are separated by the Taiwan Strait. Do our drones need to have cross-sea flight capabilities? President Lai: Taiwan does not intend to counterattack the mainland, and does not intend to invade any country. Taiwan’s drones are meant to protect our own nation and territory. Q: Former President Biden previously stated that US forces would assist Taiwan’s defense in the event of an attack. President Trump, however, has yet to clearly state that the US would help defend Taiwan. Do you think that in such an event, the US would help defend Taiwan? Or is Taiwan now trying to persuade the US? President Lai: Former President Biden and President Trump have answered questions from reporters. Although their responses were different, strong cooperation with Taiwan under the Biden administration has continued under the Trump administration; there has been no change. During President Trump’s first term, cooperation with Taiwan was broader and deeper compared to former President Barack Obama’s terms. After former President Biden took office, cooperation with Taiwan increased compared to President Trump’s first term. Now, during President Trump’s second term, cooperation with Taiwan is even greater than under former President Biden. Taiwan-US cooperation continues to grow stronger, and has not changed just because President Trump and former President Biden gave different responses to reporters. Furthermore, the Trump administration publicly stated that in the future, the US will shift its strategic focus from Europe to the Indo-Pacific. The US secretary of defense even publicly stated that the primary mission of the US is to prevent China from invading Taiwan, maintain stability in the Indo-Pacific, and thus maintain world peace. There is a saying in Taiwan that goes, “Help comes most to those who help themselves.” Before asking friends and allies for assistance in facing threats from China, Taiwan must first be determined and prepared to defend itself. This is Taiwan’s principle, and we are working in this direction, making all the necessary preparations to safeguard the nation. Q: I would like to ask you a question about Taiwan-Japan relations. After the Great East Japan Earthquake in 2011, you made an appeal to give Japan a great deal of assistance and care. In particular, you visited Sendai to offer condolences. Later, you also expressed condolences and concern after the earthquakes in Aomori and Kumamoto. What are your expectations for future Taiwan-Japan exchanges and development? President Lai: I come from Tainan, and my constituency is in Tainan. Tainan has very deep ties with Japan, and of course, Taiwan also has deep ties with Japan. However, among Taiwan’s 22 counties and cities, Tainan has the deepest relationship with Japan. I sincerely hope that both of you and your teams will have an opportunity to visit Tainan. I will introduce Tainan’s scenery, including architecture from the era of Japanese rule, Tainan’s cuisine, and unique aspects of Tainan society, and you can also see lifestyles and culture from the Showa era.  The Wushantou Reservoir in Tainan was completed by engineer Mr. Hatta Yoichi from Kanazawa, Japan and the team he led to Tainan after he graduated from then-Tokyo Imperial University. It has nearly a century of history and is still in use today. This reservoir, along with the 16,000-km-long Chianan Canal, transformed the 150,000-hectare Chianan Plain into Taiwan’s premier rice-growing area. It was that foundation in agriculture that enabled Taiwan to develop industry and the technology sector of today. The reservoir continues to supply water to Tainan Science Park. It is used by residents of Tainan, the agricultural sector, and industry, and even the technology sector in Xinshi Industrial Park, as well as Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company. Because of this, the people of Tainan are deeply grateful for Mr. Hatta and very friendly toward the people of Japan. A major earthquake, the largest in 50 years, struck Tainan on February 6, 2016, resulting in significant casualties. As mayor of Tainan at the time, I was extremely grateful to then-Prime Minister Abe, who sent five Japanese officials to the disaster site in Tainan the day after the earthquake. They were very thoughtful and asked what kind of assistance we needed from the Japanese government. They offered to provide help based on what we needed. I was deeply moved, as former Prime Minister Abe showed such care, going beyond the formality of just sending supplies that we may or may not have actually needed. Instead, the officials asked what we needed and then provided assistance based on those needs, which really moved me. Similarly, when the Great East Japan Earthquake of 2011 or the later Kumamoto earthquakes struck, the people of Tainan, under my leadership, naturally and dutifully expressed their support. Even earlier, when central Taiwan was hit by a major earthquake in 1999, Japan was the first country to deploy a rescue team to the disaster area. On February 6, 2018, after a major earthquake in Hualien, former Prime Minister Abe appeared in a video holding up a message of encouragement he had written in calligraphy saying “Remain strong, Taiwan.” All of Taiwan was deeply moved. Over the years, Taiwan and Japan have supported each other when earthquakes struck, and have forged bonds that are family-like, not just neighborly. This is truly valuable. In the future, I hope Taiwan and Japan can be like brothers, and that the peoples of Taiwan and Japan can treat one another like family. If Taiwan has a problem, then Japan has a problem; if Japan has a problem, then Taiwan has a problem. By caring for and helping each other, we can face various challenges and difficulties, and pursue a brighter future. Q: President Lai, you just used the phrase “If Taiwan has a problem, then Japan has a problem.” In the event that China attempts to invade Taiwan by force, what kind of response measures would you hope the US military and Japan’s Self-Defense Forces take? President Lai: As I just mentioned, annexing Taiwan is only China’s first step. Its ultimate objective is to change the rules-based international order. That being the case, China’s threats are an international problem. So, I would very much hope to work together with the US, Japan, and others in the global democratic community to prevent China from starting a war – prevention, after all, is more important than cure.

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News –

  • MIL-OSI Africa: Global: Urgent action needed as climate crisis leads to devastating new harms to human rights


    Download logo

    States must urgently deliver ambitious climate action by mapping out a just transition away from fossil fuels in all sectors to prevent even worse human rights harms around the world, Amnesty International said in a new briefing to mark the start of the Bonn Climate Conference which takes place between 16-26 June.

    Despite the challenges posed by the US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, increases in authoritarian practices globally and the growing environmental devastation of the escalating armed conflicts in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Sudan and Ukraine, among others, it is not too late for states to find common ground and ramp up climate ambition for the planet and the rights of current and future generations.

    In 2024, for the first time, the world breached the threshold of 1.5°C of global heating above pre-industrial levels. During the hottest year on record, wildfires ripped through Latin America, the Caribbean was hit by the earliest Category 5 Atlantic hurricane on record, and parts of Central Europe were deluged with three months’ worth of rain in five days as the climate emergency worsened, driven by human activity and the continued burning of fossil fuels.

    “The devastating new human rights harms resulting from climate change will escalate dramatically unless global heating is kept in check. More people will be driven deeper into poverty, lose their homes or suffer the effects of drought and food insecurity. Despite the deepening climate crisis, governments’ action to limit fossil fuel production and use has been wholly inadequate,” said Ann Harrison, Amnesty International’s Climate Justice Advisor.  

    “Governments are in thrall to fossil fuel companies which have sought to downplay climate harms and discredit climate science. States continue to provide subsidies to these companies, effectively incentivizing the continuation of the fossil fuel industry. Everyone has the right to live in a clean, healthy and sustainable environment – but as the climate crisis intensifies, this right, and others, are under growing threat.”

    Across the globe, unnatural disasters exacerbated by climate change, such as worsening droughts and severe floods, are damaging harvests and leading to food scarcity and water shortages, contributing to displacement, migration and conflict.

    Protecting and listening to grassroots voices

    Marginalized frontline and fence line communities that use fossil fuels the least continue to suffer some of the worst impacts of climate change. They include subsistence farmers, Indigenous Peoples and those living in low lying island states, threatened by rising sea levels and more powerful storms, or those living beside fossil fuel production and transport facilities.

    For example, Pakistan contributes less than 1% of greenhouse gas emissions annually but is one of the countries most vulnerable to climate disasters. In a report published last month, Amnesty International documented how increasingly frequent floods and heatwaves are leading to preventable deaths, particularly among young children and older adults.

    Despite the urgency of the climate crisis, those demanding action from the authorities are being harassed, stigmatized, attacked and criminalized. Around the world, environmental human rights defenders (EHRDs) are risking their lives and liberty for defending their lands and communities’ right to a healthy environment, such as the Warriors for the Amazon in Ecuador.

    The conference is an opportunity to spotlight the situation in COP29 host Azerbaijan, where environmental human rights defender Anar Mammadli and journalist Nargiz Absalamova who reported on environmental issues remain behind bars. Other journalists who reported on the human rights situation including during COP29 were arrested afterwards in apparent reprisals. Brazil, the host of COP30, is one of the most dangerous countries for EHRDs, who face killings, violence, threats and stigmatization for their work.

    “The voices, views, knowledge and wisdom of Indigenous Peoples, frontline and fence line communities and human rights defenders must be incorporated into climate policies, plans and action,” said Ann Harrison.

    “Once again, we have heard reports of limited badges and visa problems for those from the majority world wishing to attend the conference in Bonn. Nor are the COP Host Country Agreements – a key tool that must be strengthened to ensure freedom of expression and peaceful assembly for participants – available publicly as a matter of routine.”

    Climate finance must be addressed

    Amnesty International is also calling for states to tackle climate finance. Currently, lower-income countries are paying more in debt repayments than they are receiving as climate finance from high-income countries.

    High income historically high emitting countries are most responsible for climate change, yet continue to shirk their obligations to provide climate finance to lower income countries to cut emissions and to help communities to adapt to climate change, as well as providing reparations for loss and damage, which could ease the burden in countries suffering climate harms.

    “Taxing fossil fuel companies, corporate windfall profits and high net worth individuals, as well as ending subsidies and investments in fossil fuels and ending global tax abuses, could raise over USD 3 trillion per year which could go a huge way towards the cost of tackling climate change,” said Ann Harrison.

    Huge changes need to be made

    The Bonn Climate Conference is a key preparatory moment for the annual UN Climate Conference, which takes place as COP30 later this year in Brazil – a country that wants to publicly lead a message of global environmental protection. Yet, internally some of its institutions are taking actions contrary to this agenda, including requiring less stringent licensing for environmentally destructive projects and expanding fossil fuel production.

    “If climate change is to be taken seriously and to keep global warming below 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, we need to see concrete progress with clear timelines towards massively scaled-up needs-based climate finance, particularly for adaptation and loss and damage, in the form of grants, not loans, with those most responsible for emissions contributing the most,” said Ann Harrison.

    Amnesty International is calling for states commit to a full, fast, fair and funded fossil fuel phase out through just transitions across all sectors, without relying on risky and unproven technologies or offsets that do not lead to genuine emissions reductions. It is also calling for inclusive discussions around climate change, involving the people most affected by it, and ensuring they can meaningfully access these high-level negotiations without discrimination.

    Distributed by APO Group on behalf of Amnesty International.

    MIL OSI Africa –

  • An overview of Iran’s main gas field and oil infrastructure

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Israel struck an installation at Iran’s South Pars gas field on Saturday, the first attack on Iran’s oil and gas sector as part of what the Israeli government had warned would be a prolonged operation to prevent Tehran from building an atomic weapon.

    Iran has partially suspended gas production from the South Pars field, Iran’s portion of the world’s largest natural gas reserve, which lies beneath the Gulf and is shared with major gas exporter Qatar.

    Israel also struck a Tehran fuel depot and an oil refinery near the capital on Saturday, Iran said, but authorities said the situation was under control.

    Following are some facts on the country’s energy industry, exports, and the impact of previous Western sanctions.

    WORLD’S LARGEST GAS RESERVE

    Iran produces natural gas from the offshore South Pars gas field, which makes up around a third of the world’s largest reservoir of natural gas.

    Iran shares the reservoir with major gas exporter Qatar, which calls its field the North Dome.

    Sanctions and technical constraints have meant most gas Tehran produces from the South Pars field is for domestic use in Iran.

    Iran’s total natural gas production totalled 266.25 billion cubic meters in 2023, with domestic consumption accounting for 255.5 bcm, according to data by the Gas Exporting Countries Forum, a grouping of gas exporter nations.

    About 15.8 bcm of natural gas were exported, the Forum said.

    Saturday’s attack struck four units of Phase 14 of South Pars, around 200 kilometres from Qatar’s gas installations, many of which are joint ventures with major international energy firms, including U.S. giants ExxonMobil and ConocoPhilips.

    Doha has made hundreds of billions of dollars exporting liquefied natural gas to global markets for nearly three decades.

    The entire reservoir contains an estimated 1,800 trillion cubic feet of usable gas – enough to supply the entire world’s needs for 13 years, or to generate enough electricity to supply the U.S. for more than 35 years.

    SANCTIONS AND OPEC

    Iran’s oil production was at its peak in the 1970s, with record output of 6 million bpd in 1974, according to OPEC data. That amounted to more than 10% of world output at the time.

    In 1979, the U.S. imposed the first wave of sanctions on Tehran. Since then the country has been the target of several waves of U.S. and European Union sanctions.

    The U.S. tightened sanctions in 2018 after Trump exited a nuclear accord during his first presidential term. Iran’s oil exports fell to nearly zero during some months.

    Exports rose steadily under Trump’s successor President Joe Biden’s administration, with analysts saying sanctions were less rigorously enforced and Iran had succeeded in evading them.

    Iran is exempt from OPEC+ output restrictions.

    WHO IS THE MAIN BUYER OF IRANIAN OIL?

    Iran’s crude exports have risen to a multi-year high of 1.8 million bpd in recent months, the highest since 2018, driven by strong Chinese demand.

    China says it does not recognise sanctions against its trade partners. The main buyers of Iranian oil are Chinese private refiners, some of whom have recently been placed on the U.S. Treasury sanctions list. There is little evidence, however, that this has impacted flows from Iran to China significantly.

    Iran has for years evaded sanctions through ship-to-ship transfers and hiding ships’ satellite positions.

    PRODUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

    Iran, the third largest producer in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, extracts about 3.3 million barrels per day of crude oil, and another 1.3 million bpd of condensate and other liquids, totalling about 4.5% of global supplies.

    It exported about 1.8 million bpd of crude and condensate in May, close to a 2018 peak, according to Kpler, processing the remainder of its production in its domestic refineries with a total capacity of 2.6 million bpd, according to consultancy FGE.

    It exported nearly 750,000 bpd of oil products, including LPG, in May, according to Kpler.

    The country also produces 34 billion cubic feet of gas per day, according to FGE, accounting for 7% of global production. All gas is consumed domestically.

    Iran’s hydrocarbon production facilities are primarily concentrated in the southwest, in the Khuzestan province for oil and in the Bushehr province for gas and condensate from the giant South Pars field.

    It exports 90% of its crude via Kharg Island.

    Analysts say Saudi Arabia and other OPEC members could compensate for the drop of Iranian supply by using their spare capacity to pump more. However, with a number of producers in the group currently in the process of raising output targets, their spare capacity is becoming more strained.

    (Reuters)

  • Nvidia’s pitch for sovereign AI resonates with EU leaders

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Nvidia NVDA.O CEO Jensen Huang has been pitching the idea of “sovereign AI” since 2023. Europe is now starting to listen and act.

    The concept is based on the idea that the language, knowledge, history and culture of each region are different, and every nation needs to develop and own its AI.

    Last week, the CEO of the artificial-intelligence chipmaker toured Europe’s major capitals – London, Paris and Berlin – announcing a slew of projects and partnerships, while highlighting the lack of AI infrastructure in the region.

    In a place where leaders are increasingly wary of the continent’s dependency on a handful of U.S. tech companies and after drawing ire from the U.S. President Donald Trump, his vision has started to gain traction.

    “We are going to invest billions in here … but Europe needs to move into AI quickly,” Huang said on Wednesday in Paris.

    On Monday of last week, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced 1 billion pounds ($1.35 billion) in funding to scale up computing power in a global race “to be an AI maker and not an AI taker.”

    French President Emmanuel Macron called building AI infrastructure “our fight for sovereignty” at VivaTech, one of the largest global tech conferences.

    After Nvidia laid out plans to build an AI cloud platform in Germany with Deutsche Telekom DTEGn.DE, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz called it an “important step” for the digital sovereignty and economic future of Europe’s top economy.

    Europe lags behind both the U.S. and China as its cloud infrastructure is mostly run by Microsoft MSFT.O, Amazon AMZN.O and Alphabet’s GOOGL.O Google, and it has only a few smaller AI companies such as Mistral to rival the U.S. ones.

    “There’s no reason why Europe shouldn’t have tech champions,” said 31-year-old Mistral CEO Arthur Mensch, sitting beside Huang, who has led Nvidia for more than three decades, at a panel at VivaTech.

    “This is a gigantic dream.”

    GIGAFACTORY PLANS UNLEASHED

    In France, Mistral has partnered with Nvidia to build a data centre to power the AI needs of European companies with a homegrown alternative.

    It will use 18,000 of the latest Nvidia AI chips in the first phase, with plans to expand across multiple sites in 2026.

    In February, the European Union announced plans to build four “AI gigafactories” at a cost of $20 billion to lower dependence on U.S. firms.

    The European Commission has been in touch with Huang and he had told the EU executive that he was going to allocate some chip production to Europe for these factories, an EU official told Reuters.

    Nvidia’s chips known as Graphics Processing Units or GPUs are crucial for building AI data centres from the U.S. to Japan and India to the Middle East.

    In Europe, a push for sovereign AI could reshape the tech landscape with domestic cloud providers, AI startups, and chipmakers standing to gain from new government funding and a shift toward in-region data infrastructure.

    Nvidia also wants to cement demand for its AI chips, ensuring that even as countries seek independence, they still rely on its technology to get there.

    POWER COSTS

    The push is not without challenges.

    High electricity costs and rising demand could strain sourcing of electricity for data centres. Data centres account for 3% of EU electricity demand, but their consumption is expected to increase rapidly this decade due to AI.

    Mistral, which has raised just over $1 billion, is trying to become a European homegrown champion with a fraction of the money U.S. hyperscalers or large data-centre operators spend in a month.

    “Hyperscalers are spending $10 billion to $15 billion per quarter in their infrastructure. Who in Europe can afford that exactly?” said Pascal Brier, chief innovation officer at Capgemini CAPP.PA, a partner of both Nvidia and Mistral.

    “It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do anything, but we have to be cognizant about the fact that there will always be a gap.”

    Mistral has launched several AI models which are used by businesses but companies tend to mix them with models from other companies such as OpenAI, Anthropic and Meta Platforms META.O.

    “Most of the time it’s not Mistral or the rest, it’s Mistral and the rest,” Brier said.

    (Reuters)

  • MIL-Evening Report: Iran war: from the Middle East to America, history shows you cannot assassinate your way to peace

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matt Fitzpatrick, Professor in International History, Flinders University

    In the late 1960s, the prevailing opinion among Israeli Shin Bet intelligence officers was that the key to defeating the Palestinian Liberation Organisation was to assassinate its then-leader Yasser Arafat.

    The elimination of Arafat, the Shin Bet commander Yehuda Arbel wrote in his diary, was “a precondition to finding a solution to the Palestinian problem.”

    For other, even more radical Israelis – such as the ultra-nationalist assassin Yigal Amir – the answer lay elsewhere. They sought the assassination of Israeli leaders such as Yitzak Rabin who wanted peace with the Palestinians.

    Despite Rabin’s long personal history as a famed and often ruthless military commander in the 1948 and 1967 Arab-Israeli Wars, Amir stalked and shot Rabin dead in 1995. He believed Rabin had betrayed Israel by signing the Oslo Accords peace deal with Arafat.

    It’s been 20 years since Arafat died as possibly the victim of polonium poisoning, and 30 years after the shooting of Rabin. Peace between Israelis and the Palestinians has never been further away.

    What Amnesty International and a United Nations Special Committee have called genocidal attacks on Palestinians in Gaza have spilled over into Israeli attacks on the prominent leaders of its enemies in Lebanon and, most recently, Iran.

    Since its attacks on Iran began on Friday, Israel has killed numerous military and intelligence leaders, including Iran’s intelligence chief, Mohammad Kazemi; the chief of the armed forces, Mohammad Bagheri; and the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Hossein Salami. At least nine Iranian nuclear scientists have also been killed.

    Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly said:

    We got their chief intelligence officer and his deputy in Tehran.

    Iran, predictably, has responded with deadly missile attacks on Israel.

    Far from having solved the issue of Middle East peace, assassinations continue to pour oil on the flames.

    A long history of extra-judicial killings

    Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman’s book Rise and Kill First argues assassinations have long sat at the heart of Israeli politics.

    In the past 75 years, there have been more than 2,700 assassination operations undertaken by Israel. These have, in Bergman’s words, attempted to “stop history” and bypass “statesmanship and political discourse”.

    This normalisation of assassinations has been codified in the Israeli expression of “mowing the grass”. This is, as historian Nadim Rouhana has shown, a metaphor for a politics of constant assassination. Enemy “leadership and military facilities must regularly be hit in order to keep them weak.”

    The point is not to solve the underlying political questions at issue. Instead, this approach aims to sow fear, dissent and confusion among enemies.

    Thousands of assassination operations have not, however, proved sufficient to resolve the long-running conflict between Israel, its neighbours and the Palestinians. The tactic itself is surely overdue for retirement.

    Targeted assassinations elsewhere

    Israel has been far from alone in this strategy of assassination and killing.

    Former US President Barack Obama oversaw the extra-judicial killing of Osama Bin Laden, for instance.

    After what Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch denounced as a flawed trial, former US President George W. Bush welcomed the hanging of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein as “an important milestone on Iraq’s course to becoming a democracy”.

    Current US President Donald Trump oversaw the assassination of Iran’s leader of clandestine military operations, Qassem Soleimani, in 2020.

    More recently, however, Trump appears to have baulked at granting Netanyahu permission to kill Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

    And it’s worth noting the US Department of Justice last year brought charges against an Iranian man who said he’d been tasked with killing Trump.

    Elsewhere, in Vladimir Putin’s Russia, it’s common for senior political and media opponents to be shot in the streets. Frequently they also “fall” out of high windows, are killed in plane crashes or succumb to mystery “illnesses”.

    A poor record

    Extra-judicial killings, however, have a poor record as a mechanism for solving political problems.

    Cutting off the hydra’s head has generally led to its often immediate replacement by another equally or more ideologically committed person, as has already happened in Iran. Perhaps they too await the next round of “mowing the grass”.

    But as the latest Israeli strikes in Iran and elsewhere show, solving the underlying issue is rarely the point.

    In situations where finding a lasting negotiated settlement would mean painful concessions or strategic risks, assassinations prove simply too tempting. They circumvent the difficulties and complexities of diplomacy while avoiding the need to concede power or territory.

    As many have concluded, however, assassinations have never killed resistance. They have never killed the ideas and experiences that give birth to resistance in the first place.

    Nor have they offered lasting security to those who have ordered the lethal strike.

    Enduring security requires that, at some point, someone grasp the nettle and look to the underlying issues.

    The alternative is the continuation of the brutal pattern of strike and counter-strike for generations to come.

    The Conversation

    Matt Fitzpatrick receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

    – ref. Iran war: from the Middle East to America, history shows you cannot assassinate your way to peace – https://theconversation.com/iran-war-from-the-middle-east-to-america-history-shows-you-cannot-assassinate-your-way-to-peace-259038

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • US police arrest suspect Vance Boelter for Minnesota lawmakers’ shooting

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    A massive two-day manhunt ended on Sunday with the arrest of Vance Boelter, 57, for allegedly killing a Minnesota Democratic state lawmaker and her husband while posing as a police officer, Governor Tim Walz said.

    Boelter allegedly shot dead Melissa Hortman, the top Democrat in the Minnesota House, and her husband, Mark, in their home on Saturday – a crime Governor Tim Walz characterized as a “politically motivated assassination.”

    Authorities said Boelter also allegedly shot and wounded another Democratic lawmaker, state Senator John Hoffman, and his wife Yvette at their home a few miles away.

    “After a two-day manhunt, two sleepless nights, law enforcement have apprehended Vance Boelter,” Walz told a news conference. “One man’s unthinkable actions have altered the state of Minnesota.

    “A moment in this country where we watch violence erupt, this cannot be the norm. It cannot be the way that we deal with our political differences. Now is the time for us to recommit to the core values of this country, and each and every one of us can do it.”

    Walz said Hoffman, who had been hit with nine bullets, came out of his final surgery and was moving towards recovery.

    Boelter has links to evangelical ministries and claimed to be a security expert with experience in the Gaza Strip and Africa, according to online postings and public records reviewed by Reuters.

    Boelter was charged with two counts of second-degree murder and two counts of second-degree attempted murder, the criminal complaint showed.

    Three of those charges are punishable with jail terms of up to 40 years, according to the complaint unsealed on Sunday.

    Boelter had been impersonating a police officer while carrying out the shootings, wearing an officer’s uniform and driving a Ford SUV with police-style lights, according to a Hennepin County criminal complaint unsealed on Sunday.

    Boelter fled on foot early on Saturday when officers confronted him at Hortman’s Brooklyn Park home, said authorities who had warned residents to stay indoors for their own safety and unleashed the state’s biggest manhunt.

    When police searched Boelter’s SUV after the shootings they discovered three AK-47 assault rifles, a 9-mm handgun, and a list of other public officials including their addresses, the criminal complaint showed.

    Working on a tip that Boelter was near his home in the city of Green Isle, more than 20 SWAT teams combed the area, aided by surveillance aircraft, officials said. Boelter was armed but surrendered with no shots fired.

    “The suspect crawled to law enforcement teams and was placed under arrest,” Lieutenant Colonel Jeremy Geiger of the Minnesota State Patrol told the briefing. “The suspect was taken into custody without any use of force.”

    The operation to capture Boelter, drawing on the work of hundreds of detectives and a wide range of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies, was the largest manhunt in state history, Brooklyn Park police Chief Mark Bruley said.

    “Now begins the hard work of looking at what the motive is,” Bruley said.

    The killing was the latest episode of high-profile U.S. political violence.

    Such incidents range from a 2022 attack on former Democratic U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband at their home, to an assassination bid on Donald Trump last year, and an arson attack at Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s house in April.

    (Reuters)

  • MIL-OSI Global: As war breaks out with Israel, Iran has run out of good options

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Ali Mamouri, Research Fellow, Middle East Studies, Deakin University

    The scale of Israel’s strikes on multiple, sensitive Iranian military and nuclear sites on Friday was unprecedented. It was the biggest attack on Iran since the Iran–Iraq War in the 1980s.

    As expected, Iran responded swiftly, even as Israeli attacks on its territory continued. The unfolding conflict is reshaping regional dynamics, and Iran now finds itself with no easy path forward.

    Strikes come at a delicate time

    The timing of the Israeli strikes was highly significant. They came at a critical point in the high-stakes negotiations between Iran and the United States over Tehran’s nuclear program that began earlier this year.

    Last week, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued a report accusing Tehran of stockpiling highly enriched uranium at levels dangerously close to weaponisation.

    According to the report, Iran has accumulated around 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60% purity. If this uranium is further enriched to 90% purity, it would be enough to build nine to ten bombs.

    The day before Israel’s attack, the IAEA board of governors also declared Iran to be in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for the first time in two decades.

    The nuclear talks recently hit a stumbling block over a major issue – the US refusal to allow Iran to enrich any uranium at all for a civilian nuclear program.

    Iran has previously agreed to cap its enrichment at 3.67% under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, a nuclear deal between Iran, the US and other global powers agreed to in 2015 (and abandoned by the first Trump administration in 2018). But it has refused to relinquish its right to enrichment altogether.

    US President Donald Trump reportedly urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to attack Iran last week, believing he was close to a deal.

    But after the attack, Trump ramped up his threats on Iran again, urging it to agree to a deal “before there is nothing left”. He called the Israeli strikes “excellent” and suggested there was “more to come”.

    Given this context, it is understandable why Iran does not view the US as an impartial mediator. In response, Iran suspended its negotiations with the US, announcing it would skip the sixth round of talks scheduled for Sunday.

    Rather than compelling Iran to agree to a deal, the excessive pressure could risk pushing Iran towards a more extreme stance instead.

    While Iranian officials have denied any intention to develop a military nuclear program, they have warned that continued Israeli attacks and US pressure might force Tehran to reconsider as a deterrence mechanism.



    Read more:
    As its conflict with Israel escalates, could Iran now acquire a nuclear bomb?

    Why surrender could spell the regime’s end

    On several occasions, Trump has insisted he is not seeking “regime change” in Iran. He has repeatedly claimed he wants to see Iran be “successful” – the only requirement is for it to accept a US deal.

    However, in Iran’s view, the US proposal is not viewed as a peace offer, but as a blueprint for surrender. And the fear is this would ultimately pave the way for regime change under the guise of diplomacy.

    Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei responded to the latest US proposal by insisting that uranium enrichment remains a “red line” for Iran. Abandoning this right from the Iranian perspective would only embolden its adversaries to escalate their pressure on the regime and make further demands – such as dismantling Iran’s missile program.

    The fear in Tehran is this could push the country into a defenceless state without a way to deter future Israeli strikes.

    Furthermore, capitulating to the US terms could ignite domestic backlash on two fronts: from an already growing opposition movement, and from the regime’s base of loyal supporters, who would see any retreat as a betrayal.

    In this context, many in Iran’s leadership believe that giving in to Trump’s terms would not avert regime change – it would hasten it.

    What options remain for Iran now?

    Caught between escalating pressure and existential threats, Iran finds itself with few viable options other than to project strength. It has already begun to pursue this strategy by launching retaliatory missile strikes at Israeli cities.

    This response has been much stronger than the relatively contained tit-for-tat strikes Israel and Iran engaged in last year. Iran’s strikes have caused considerable damage to government and residential areas in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

    Iran sees no alternative but to push forward, having already been drawn into open confrontation. Any sign of weakness would severely undermine the regime’s legitimacy at home and embolden its adversaries abroad.

    Moreover, Tehran is betting on Trump’s aversion to foreign wars. Iranian leaders believe the US is neither prepared nor willing to enter another costly conflict in the region – one that could disrupt global trade and jeopardise Trump’s recent economic partnerships with Persian Gulf states.

    Therefore, Iran’s leadership likely believes that by standing firm now, the conflict will be limited, so long as the US stays on the sidelines. And then, Iran’s leaders would try to return to the negotiating table, in their view, from a position of strength.

    Ali Mamouri does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. As war breaks out with Israel, Iran has run out of good options – https://theconversation.com/as-war-breaks-out-with-israel-iran-has-run-out-of-good-options-258916

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: ‘No kings!’: like the LA protesters, the early Romans hated kings, too

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Peter Edwell, Associate Professor in Ancient History, Macquarie University

    Protesters across the United States have brandished placards declaring “no kings!” in recent days, keen to send a message one-man rule is not acceptable.

    The defeat of the forces of King George III in the United States’ revolutionary war of 1775–83 saw the end of royal rule in the US. Touting itself as the world’s leading democracy, kings have not been welcome in America for 250 years. But for many, Donald Trump is increasingly behaving as one and now is the time to stop him.

    Having studied ancient Roman politics for years, America’s rejection of kingship reminds me vividly of the strong aversion to it in the Roman republic.

    Early Romans too, sought a society with “no kings!” – up until, that is, the period following the assassination of Julius Caesar, when everything changed.

    The seven kings of Rome

    Seven kings ruled Rome, one after the other, after the city was founded in 753 BCE. The first was Romulus who, according to some legends, gave the city its name.

    When the last of the kings of Rome was driven from the city in 509 BCE, his key opponent, Lucius Junius Brutus, vowed:

    I will pursue Lucius Tarquinius Superbus and his wicked wife and all his children, with sword, with fire, with whatever violence I may; and I will suffer neither him nor anyone else to be king in Rome!

    Tarquinius Superbus (meaning “the proud”) had ruled Rome for 25 years. He began his reign by executing uncooperative Senators.

    When Tarquinius’ son raped a noblewoman named Lucretia, the Roman population rebelled against the king’s long-running tyranny. The hubris of the king and his family was finally too much. They were driven from Rome and never allowed to return.

    A new system of government was ushered in: the republic.

    The rise of the Roman republic

    In the new system, power was shared among elected officials – including two consuls, who were elected annually.

    The consuls were the most powerful officials in the republic and were given power to wage war.

    The Senate, which represented the wealthiest sections of society (initially the patrician class), held power in some key areas, including foreign policy.

    Less affluent citizens elected tribunes of the plebs who had various powers, including the right to veto laws.

    In the republican system, the term king (rex in Latin) quickly became anathema.

    “No kings” would effectively remain the watchword through the Roman republic’s entire history. “Rex” was a word the Romans hated. It was short-hand for “tyranny”.

    The rise and fall of Julius Caesar

    Over time, powerful figures emerged who threatened the republic’s tight power-sharing rules.

    Figures such as the general Pompey (106–48 BCE) broke all the rules and behaved in suspiciously kingly ways. With military success and vast wealth, he was a populist who broke the mould. Pompey even staged a three-day military parade, known as a triumph, to coincide with his birthday in 61 BCE.

    But the ultimate populist was Julius Caesar.

    Born to a noble family claiming lineage from the goddess Venus, Caesar became fabulously wealthy.

    He also scored major military victories, including subduing the Gauls (across modern France and Belgium) from 58–50 BCE.

    In the 40s BCE, Caesar began taking offices over extended time frames – much longer periods than the rules technically allowed.

    Early in 44 BCE he gave himself the formal title “dictator for life” (Dictator Perpetuo), having been appointed dictator two years earlier. The dictatorship was only meant to be held in times of emergency for a period of six months.

    When Caesar was preparing a war against Parthia (in modern day Iran), some tried to hail him as king.

    Soon after, an angry group of 23 senators stabbed him to death in a vain attempt to save the republic. They were led by Marcus Junius Brutus, a descendant of the Brutus who killed the last Roman king, Tarquinius Superbus.

    The Roman republic was beyond saving despite Caesar’s death.
    duncan1890/Getty Images

    However, the Roman republic was beyond saving despite Caesar’s death. His great nephew Octavian eventually emerged as leader and became known as Augustus (27 BCE – 14 CE). With Augustus, an age of emperors was born.

    Emperors were kings in all but name. The strong aversion to kingship in Rome ensured their complete avoidance of the term rex.

    ‘No kings!’

    American protesters waving placards shouting “no kings!” are expressing clear concerns that their beloved democracy is under threat.

    Donald Trump has already declared eight national emergencies and issued 161 executive orders in his second term.

    When asked if he needs to uphold the Constitution, Trump declares “I don’t know.” He has joked about running for a third term as president, in breach of the longstanding limit of two terms.

    Like Caesar, is Donald Trump becoming a king in all but name? Is he setting a precedent for his successors to behave increasingly like emperors?

    The American aversion to “king” likely ensures the term will never return. But when protesters and others shout “no kings!”, they know the very meaning of the term “president” is changing before their eyes.

    Peter Edwell receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

    – ref. ‘No kings!’: like the LA protesters, the early Romans hated kings, too – https://theconversation.com/no-kings-like-the-la-protesters-the-early-romans-hated-kings-too-259011

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Seabed mining is becoming an environmental flashpoint – NZ will have to pick a side soon

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Myra Williamson, Senior Lecturer in Law, Auckland University of Technology

    Getty Images

    Seabed mining could become one of the defining environmental battles of 2025. Around the world, governments are weighing up whether to allow mining of the ocean floor for metal ores and minerals. New Zealand is among them.

    The stakes are high. Deep-sea mining is highly controversial, with evidence showing mining activity can cause lasting damage to fragile marine ecosystems. One area off the east coast of the United States, mined as an experiment 50 years ago, still bears scars and shows little sign of recovery.

    With the world facing competing pressures – climate action and conservation versus demand for resources – New Zealand must now decide whether to fast-track mining, regulate it tightly, or pause it entirely.

    Who controls international seabed mining?

    A major flashpoint is governance in international waters. Under international law, seabed mining beyond national jurisdiction is managed by the International Seabed Authority (ISA), created by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

    But the US has never ratified UNCLOS. In April this year, President Donald Trump issued an executive order to bypass the ISA and allow companies to begin mining in international waters.

    The ISA has pushed back, warning unilateral action breaches international law. However, the declaration from the recently concluded UN Ocean Conference in France does not urge countries to adopt a precautionary approach, nor does it ban deep seabed mining.

    The declaration does “reiterate the need to increase scientific knowledge on deep sea ecosystems” and recognises the role of the ISA in setting “robust rules, regulations and procedures for exploitation of resources” in international waters.

    So, while the international community supports multilateralism and international law, deep-sea mining in the near future remains a real possibility.

    Fast-track approvals

    In the Pacific, some countries have already made up their minds about which way they will go. Nauru recently updated its agreement with Canadian-based The Metals Company to begin mining in the nearby Clarion Clipperton Zone. The deal favours the US’s go-it-alone approach over the ISA model.

    By contrast, in 2022, New Zealand’s Labour government backed the ISA’s moratorium and committed to a holistic ocean management strategy. Whether that position still holds is unclear, given the current government’s policies.

    The list of applications under the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024 – described by Regional Development Minister Shane Jones as “arguably the most permissive regime” in Australasia – includes two controversial seabed mining proposals in Bream Bay and off the Taranaki coast:

    • Trans-Tasman Resources’ proposal to extract up to 50 million tonnes of Taranaki seabed material annually to recover heavy mineral sands that contain iron ore as well as rare metal elements titanium and vanadium.

    • McCallum Brothers Ltd’s Bream Bay proposal to dredge up to 150,000 cubic metres of sand yearly for three years, and up to 250,000 cubic metres after that.

    Legal landscape changing

    Māori and environmental groups have opposed the fast-track policy, and the Treaty of Waitangi has so far been a powerful safeguard in seabed mining cases.

    Provisions referencing Treaty principles appear in key laws, including the Crown Minerals Act and the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act.

    In 2021, the Supreme Court cited these obligations when it rejected a 2016 marine discharge application by Trans-Tasman Resources to mine the seabed in the Taranaki Bight. The court ruled Treaty clauses must be interpreted in a “broad and generous” way, recognising tikanga Māori and customary marine rights.

    But that legal landscape could soon change. The Regulatory Standards Bill, now before parliament, would give priority to property rights over environmental or Indigenous protections in the formulation of new laws and regulations.

    The bill also allows for the review of existing legislation. In theory, if the Regulatory Standards Bill becomes law, it could result in the removal of Treaty principles clauses from legislation.

    This in turn could deny courts the tools they’ve previously used to uphold environmental and Treaty-based protections to block seabed mining applications. That would make it easier to approve fast-tracked projects such as the Bream Bay and Taranaki projects.

    Setting a precedent

    Meanwhile, Hawai’i has gone in a different direction. In 2024, the US state passed a law banning seabed mining in state waters – joining California (2022), Washington (2021) and Oregon (1991).

    Under the Hawai’i Seabed Mining Prevention Act, mining is banned except in rare cases such as beach restoration. The law cites the public’s right to a clean and healthy environment.

    As global conflict brews over seabed governance, New Zealand’s eventual position could set a precedent.

    Choosing to prohibit seabed mining in New Zealand waters, as Hawai’i has done, would send a strong message that environmental stewardship and Indigenous rights matter more than short-term resource extraction interests.

    If New Zealand does decide to go ahead with seabed mining, however, it could trigger a cascade of mining efforts across New Zealand and the Pacific. A crucial decision is fast approaching.

    Myra Williamson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Seabed mining is becoming an environmental flashpoint – NZ will have to pick a side soon – https://theconversation.com/seabed-mining-is-becoming-an-environmental-flashpoint-nz-will-have-to-pick-a-side-soon-258908

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • Iran and Israel Exchange Fresh Strikes as Global Leaders Push for Ceasefire

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    The war between Iran and Israel is in its fourth day of direct hostilities as international diplomatic activity is in full swing to prevent the conflict from engulfing broader West Asia. While ongoing military operations have killed dozens of people and caused widespread destruction, a complex matrix of behind-the-scenes negotiations is underway among world powers and regional actors desperately trying to contain the crisis.

    Iran launched missile strikes on Israeli cities , with rockets striking Haifa and injuring at least 15 in Israel’s National Emergency Service. The attacks were launched as residents in Tehran reported shaking explosions throughout the capital city, with Iranian officials confirming missile strikes in the Niavaran and Tajrish neighborhoods in the northern part of the city, as well as in and around central Valiasr and Hafte Tir squares.

    Israeli forces have expanded their campaign beyond Tehran to cities including Shiraz and Isfahan, where a Defense Ministry military base was hit. The Israeli military announced it had conducted its longest-range strike since the fighting began, striking an aerial refueling aircraft at Mashhad Airport in eastern Iran. Well over 250 Iranian targets have been hit in the expanding military campaign, including what Israel identifies as nuclear command and control centers and key energy targets. The situation is still complex and fraught with difficulties. Now, Iranian officials refer to negotiations with USA as unjustifiable amid current Israeli aggression, and Iran has stopped attending nuclear negotiations that were supposed to be carried out in Oman.

    Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Aragchi has indicated readiness for nuclear agreements that ensure Iran does not pursue weapons development, but insists the country will not accept any deal that deprives it of nuclear rights.

    Behind closed doors, Iran has approached Qatar and Oman requesting them to act as intermediaries with the United States to facilitate ceasefire negotiations, while Saudi Arabia is reportedly involved in diplomatic efforts to de-escalate the situation. US President Donald Trump has expressed optimism about peace prospects, stating he anticipates a deal soon through ongoing calls and meetings to broker an agreement. International diplomatic efforts have accelerated as global leaders warn of the urgent need to prevent the conflict from spilling over to the rest of the Middle East, with multiple regional powers working frantically to halt what they describe as a spiral of violence causing irreparable economic and civil damage to both sides.

    The United Nations Security Council convened an emergency session where both nations presented diametrically opposing positions. Iran labeled Israel’s strike a declaration of war, while Israel justified its attack as legitimate self-defense after failed diplomacy. The session failed to produce a binding resolution, which was indicative of the failure of the international community to agree on anything.

    European leaders have called for diplomatic solutions but appear to have limited influence in the conflict, with analysts saying Europe is on the sidelines. Cyprus has played a minor role, with its president reportedly having carried messages between Israel and Iran through indirect intermediaries.

    Israel remains extremely skeptical of Iranian intentions and has continued its military push despite diplomatic progress. Israeli leaders have warned Iran to vacate nuclear facilities while calling for the United States to assist efforts at abandoning Iran’s nuclear program entirely. The Israeli government has shown little desire to stop activities without concrete Iranian concessions.

    Stakes have also increased as Iran threatened that Western assistance to Israel in downing missiles can result in targeting US, UK, and French military assets throughout the region. The threat has complicated diplomacy as Washington has already provided defensive assistance to Israel while publicly urging restraint.

    In spite of active diplomatic contacts with various regional mediators and ongoing US engagement, prospects for an immediate ceasefire are uncertain.