Author: justnews

TEHRAN — Iran’s leadership is facing fresh questions over the whereabouts and accessibility of Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei after a report claimed President Masoud Pezeshkian was taken to a secret location for a brief meeting where he could not even clearly see the man he was told was the country’s top leader.

According to a report by Iran International, cited by NDTV, Pezeshkian was taken to an undisclosed location in Tehran and transferred from his own security vehicle to a heavily tinted commercial car. The interior was reportedly kept so dark that the president could not see the person he was meeting.

The extraordinary account has not been independently verified, and Iranian authorities have not publicly confirmed the details.

A Meeting Shrouded in Secrecy

The reported encounter allegedly lasted only a few minutes.

According to sources cited in the report, Pezeshkian was not permitted to shake hands with the person identified as Mojtaba Khamenei. After leaving, he reportedly questioned whether the voice he had heard actually belonged to the supreme leader.

The account is striking because meetings between Iran’s president and supreme leader would normally carry considerable political significance and would be expected to follow established protocols.

Instead, the reported arrangement involved a secret location, a different vehicle and extreme restrictions on physical contact.

Why Pezeshkian Wanted the Meeting

The report claims that Pezeshkian had repeatedly requested an audience with Khamenei and had even threatened to resign amid disagreements over national policy.

Eventually, according to the sources cited by Iran International, Khamenei’s office agreed to a meeting as a concession—but refused to hold it at the supreme leader’s residence.

Pezeshkian was reportedly taken to the undisclosed location by his security team before being moved into the tinted vehicle.

After the encounter, he allegedly requested another meeting at Khamenei’s residence. That request was reportedly rejected.

A Very Different Version of Events

The latest report also conflicts with an earlier public account attributed to Pezeshkian.

In May, the Iranian president reportedly told representatives of trade associations that he had spent around two and a half hours with Mojtaba Khamenei in what he described as a cordial meeting.

That version suggests a normal and extended political discussion—almost the opposite of the brief, highly secretive encounter described in the latest report.

The contradiction is one reason the new claims have attracted attention.

However, without independent confirmation, it remains impossible to establish exactly what happened during the reported meeting.

Mojtaba Khamenei’s Long Public Absence

The controversy is also linked to Khamenei’s extraordinary absence from public view.

Mojtaba Khamenei succeeded his father, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, after the latter was killed in a joint U.S.-Israeli airstrike in February 2026.

Since taking the position, Mojtaba has reportedly appeared only through written statements carried by Iranian state media. No regular public appearances or direct televised addresses have been reported.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said in July that only a limited number of people had met the supreme leader during that period.

That prolonged absence has inevitably generated speculation about his health, security and ability to personally exercise power.

Even Iran’s President Says Contact Is Difficult

Pezeshkian himself has acknowledged that communicating with Khamenei has become difficult.

According to AFP, the president said it was currently “very difficult” to communicate with the supreme leader, while simultaneously describing Khamenei’s presence as an important source of strength for the country.

Pezeshkian also rejected portrayals of Khamenei as incapable of governing, saying that he had experienced productive discussions with him and had encountered “kindness and very sound logic.”

Those comments make the latest allegations even more significant, because they highlight the gap between the government’s public messaging and reports about the supreme leader’s limited accessibility.

Is the President Being Sidelined?

The controversy comes amid broader reports of tensions between Pezeshkian’s administration and Iran’s powerful security establishment.

NDTV reported that Pezeshkian had allegedly threatened resignation during policy disputes and had complained that his administration was being sidelined from important national-security and foreign-policy decisions.

Reports have also suggested that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has gained significant influence over strategic decision-making during the current conflict.

If those reports are accurate, the issue goes beyond the mystery surrounding Khamenei’s public absence.

It raises a much larger question: who is actually making Iran’s most important decisions while the supreme leader remains largely unseen?

A Leadership Structure Under Pressure

Iran’s political system places enormous authority in the office of the supreme leader. That makes accessibility and visible leadership especially important during a major war and a period of intense international pressure.

If the supreme leader is unable to meet senior officials normally, it could increase the influence of military commanders, advisers and intermediaries around him.

At the same time, the secrecy surrounding Khamenei makes it difficult for outsiders to determine how decisions are being made and who has direct access to him.

The Mystery Remains

For now, the most dramatic claims surrounding the alleged meeting remain unverified.

There is no independent confirmation that Pezeshkian could not identify Khamenei, nor that the person he spoke with was someone else. Iranian authorities have not publicly addressed the specific allegations described in the report.

What is confirmed, however, is that Khamenei has remained remarkably absent from public view and that even Iran’s president has acknowledged difficulties in communicating with him.

That combination is what makes the latest report so politically significant.

The real question is no longer simply why Iran’s supreme leader is staying out of public view. It is whether that secrecy is beginning to affect how power is exercised inside Tehran.

TEHRAN/DUBAI — Explosions reported on Iran’s Qeshm Island have added fresh uncertainty to an already volatile confrontation around the Strait of Hormuz, even as diplomatic efforts appear to be gaining momentum and U.S. President Donald Trump says the war cannot continue indefinitely.

The blasts were reported late Thursday on Qeshm, a strategically important Iranian island near the entrance to the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian state-linked reporting said the explosions were connected to an encounter with what it described as hostile targets near the waterway.

The timing is significant: negotiations involving Iran and Oman are simultaneously focused on finding a way to restore commercial shipping through Hormuz.

Explosions Reported Near a Critical Waterway

Qeshm sits close to one of the world’s most important maritime chokepoints.

Two explosions were reported on the island late Thursday night. Iran’s semi-official Tasnim news agency said its armed forces had confronted “hostile enemy targets” near the entrance to the Strait of Hormuz.

Details about the incident remain limited, and the available reports do not independently establish the identity or origin of the targets involved.

The episode nevertheless highlights the continuing military risks surrounding a waterway through which a huge volume of global energy trade normally passes.

Trump Says the Conflict Cannot Continue Much Longer

While military tensions remain high, Trump has signalled that Washington wants the conflict to reach an end.

The U.S. president said Iran “can’t go much longer,” adding to indications that Washington is looking for a way to bring the confrontation toward a political conclusion.

His comments come as U.S. and Iranian positions remain sharply divided over the future of the Strait of Hormuz, sanctions, security arrangements and the broader terms of any settlement.

The apparent contradiction between continuing military activity and renewed diplomatic pressure has become one of the defining features of the latest phase of the conflict.

Hormuz Becomes the Centre of the Negotiations

The Strait of Hormuz is now at the heart of efforts to reduce tensions.

Iran has been negotiating with Oman over a proposed shipping arrangement that could allow commercial vessels to move through a designated route. Iranian officials say substantial progress has been made, although Washington and Tehran have not publicly presented identical versions of what a final agreement would look like.

That makes the latest developments around Qeshm particularly sensitive.

Any renewed fighting near the waterway could undermine confidence among shipping companies and complicate negotiations aimed at restoring normal maritime traffic.

Gulf States Are Watching Closely

The consequences of the conflict extend far beyond Iran and the United States.

Gulf countries have already warned of the dangers of further escalation, particularly because Iran has threatened retaliation against regional infrastructure if American strikes continue. Tehran has warned that oil facilities, power systems, water infrastructure and transport networks could become targets in a wider confrontation.

For Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait and other Gulf states, keeping the conflict away from their territory is therefore a major priority.

A prolonged confrontation around Hormuz could also affect shipping insurance, energy prices and international trade.

Oil Markets Remain on Edge

Every new military incident around Hormuz carries an immediate economic risk.

The waterway is one of the world’s most important routes for oil and gas shipments. Even uncertainty over whether ships can safely pass can push up transportation costs and place additional pressure on global energy markets.

Recent market reports showed oil prices rising after renewed military activity was reported around the strait.

For consumers and energy-importing countries, the question is therefore much bigger than what happens on Qeshm Island. A sustained disruption around Hormuz could have consequences far beyond the Middle East.

Erdogan Offers Another Diplomatic Channel

Turkey has also entered the diplomatic picture, with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan seeking to mediate amid the escalating confrontation.

The effort comes at a particularly sensitive moment, as Gulf casualties and naval clashes increase while Iran and Oman continue working on a possible arrangement for the Strait of Hormuz.

Whether Turkey can help bridge the gap between Washington and Tehran remains uncertain, but the growing number of diplomatic initiatives suggests that regional governments are increasingly concerned about the cost of allowing the war to continue.

The Real Test May Be What Happens at Hormuz

The latest explosions on Qeshm are unlikely to determine the future of the conflict on their own.

The bigger question is whether military confrontation and diplomacy can continue simultaneously without one destroying the other.

Iran wants security guarantees and a role in determining how traffic moves through waters around its territory. The United States has pushed for the Strait to remain open to international shipping while maintaining pressure on Tehran.

Those positions remain difficult to reconcile.

A Narrow Window for Diplomacy

The latest developments leave the region facing two competing possibilities.

One path leads toward a negotiated arrangement that gradually restores commercial traffic through Hormuz and reduces military confrontation.

The other risks another cycle of strikes, retaliation and disruption around one of the world’s most strategically important waterways.

For now, the explosions on Qeshm serve as a reminder that the military threat has not disappeared—even as Trump says the war must end soon.

The next phase of the crisis may therefore be decided not only on the battlefield, but at the negotiating table over who controls, protects and ultimately reopens the Strait of Hormuz.

RIYADH — Saudi Arabia is facing a renewed security challenge after a Houthi attack injured civilians in the kingdom’s southern Najran region, while Saudi officials warned that the incident could be part of a broader campaign involving Iran-aligned armed groups.

The latest escalation has raised fears that the conflict surrounding Iran, the Houthis and regional militias could spread further into Saudi territory, threatening both civilians and critical infrastructure.

Saudi authorities said 11 civilians, including a four-year-old child, were injured in the Houthi attack on August 6.

Riyadh Warns of Possible Coordinated Attacks

A senior Saudi official told Reuters that intelligence indicated preparations for potentially coordinated attacks involving the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen and Iraqi militias.

According to the official, Saudi Arabia had detected movements of drones and missiles, suggesting that attacks could potentially come from more than one direction.

The warning has heightened concerns in Riyadh because the kingdom has already faced attacks from both Houthi-controlled territory in Yemen and Iran-aligned groups operating from Iraq.

Latest Houthi Attack Injures Civilians

The immediate trigger for the latest alarm was an attack on Saudi Arabia’s southern region.

Saudi military officials said the Houthi attack wounded 11 civilians. Those injured included Saudi, Yemeni, Egyptian and Pakistani nationals, according to reporting on the incident.

The Houthis have claimed responsibility for attacks involving missiles and drones, describing them as retaliation connected to the wider military confrontation in Yemen.

The incident demonstrates how quickly renewed fighting in Yemen can cross the country’s borders and affect neighbouring states.

Why Iraq Has Become Part of the Saudi Security Concern

Saudi Arabia’s concerns extend beyond Yemen.

The Houthis have reportedly increased their presence in Iraq, where they are accused of providing technical assistance to Iran-aligned Iraqi armed groups. Analysts have linked this cooperation to the growing ability of those groups to operate advanced missiles and drones.

That development has created a new security problem for Riyadh.

Instead of facing threats from a single direction, Saudi Arabia could potentially have to defend against attacks launched by different Iran-aligned groups operating across the region.

The Shadow of Iran’s Regional Network

Saudi officials describe the potential attacks as part of a wider network of Iran-aligned armed groups.

Iran has long been accused by Saudi Arabia and its allies of supporting the Houthis and other regional militias. Tehran has rejected accusations that it directly controls such groups.

The current escalation, however, has revived concerns over the so-called “unity of fronts” strategy, in which allied armed groups across different countries coordinate pressure against common adversaries.

Saudi Arabia Faces a Difficult Military Calculation

The challenge for Riyadh is not simply intercepting individual missiles or drones.

Saudi Arabia must also protect oil facilities, airports, military installations, cities and other critical infrastructure while avoiding steps that could trigger an even wider regional confrontation.

The kingdom has already experienced years of missile and drone attacks during its intervention in Yemen. A 2022 truce significantly reduced the scale of cross-border fighting, but the latest developments suggest that the relative calm may be coming under serious pressure again.

Yemen Conflict Threatens to Spill Over Again

The latest attacks also come amid a major escalation inside Yemen.

Houthi forces have launched attacks against government positions in Yemen’s Marib and Hadramout provinces, with dozens of government troops reportedly killed or wounded. The fighting represents some of the most serious violence since the 2022 truce.

Saudi Arabia, which supports Yemen’s internationally recognised government, now faces the possibility that the renewed fighting could develop into another sustained cross-border conflict.

A Wider Regional Crisis Could Follow

The timing makes the situation particularly sensitive.

The Saudi warning comes as tensions involving Iran, the United States, Iraq and Yemen are already escalating. Any major attack on Saudi territory could therefore trigger retaliation and potentially draw additional countries and armed groups into the confrontation.

For energy markets, the risks are even broader. Saudi Arabia is one of the world’s largest oil producers, meaning attacks on its energy infrastructure could quickly affect global oil prices and shipping.

Riyadh Watches for the Next Move

For now, Saudi authorities are preparing for the possibility of further attacks while closely monitoring activity by the Houthis and Iran-aligned Iraqi groups.

The immediate question is whether the latest Houthi strike remains an isolated escalation or becomes the opening phase of a broader coordinated campaign.

The warning from Riyadh is clear: after years of relative calm along its southern border, Saudi Arabia is once again preparing for the possibility that Yemen’s war—and the wider confrontation involving Iran and its regional allies—could reach deep inside the kingdom.

RABAT, MOROCCO — Gianni Infantino’s position at the top of world football has survived an immediate leadership challenge, but the controversy surrounding FIFA’s abandoned World Cup commercial-rights plan has opened one of the most serious political disputes of his presidency.

Following an emergency meeting in Rabat, FIFA’s management board reaffirmed its “full support” for Infantino, even after the controversial proposal triggered open resistance from major football confederations.

The crisis is now about more than a failed business proposal. It has developed into a broader argument over who controls FIFA’s commercial future, how major decisions are made and how much authority its president should have.

FIFA Withdraws $4.2 Billion Investment Proposal

At the centre of the dispute was the proposed FIFA Forward Enterprise, a new commercial entity that would have allowed private investors to purchase a 20% stake.

FIFA had hoped to raise around $4.2 billion through the arrangement. The proposal also attracted controversy because of links between the prospective investment structure and a company with family ties to U.S. President Donald Trump.

The plan was eventually abandoned after strong opposition from football authorities around the world.

FIFA has acknowledged that “mistakes were made” during the process and has apologised to its member associations. It has also promised a review of what happened and a report on the decision-making process.

UEFA Says Trust Has Been Lost

The biggest challenge to Infantino has come from Europe.

UEFA has said it no longer has confidence in his leadership and has taken steps to preserve documents relating to the controversy. Other major football bodies have also expressed serious concerns about how the proposal was developed and presented.

According to reports, UEFA, the Asian Football Confederation and Concacaf were even considering drastic measures, including actions that could disrupt FIFA’s operations or lead to rival competitions if Infantino refused to step aside.

That possibility demonstrates how far the disagreement has escalated.

Infantino Still Has Powerful Support

Despite the revolt, Infantino has not been isolated across world football.

Several African and Asian football associations continue to support him, while FIFA’s management board has publicly backed his leadership.

The latest major show of support came from the Confederation of African Football (CAF), whose 54 member associations unanimously backed Infantino. CAF president Patrice Motsepe nevertheless stressed the importance of good governance.

This support is politically important because FIFA’s president is elected by all 211 member associations.

In other words, Infantino’s future will not be decided solely by UEFA or Europe’s biggest football nations.

The World Cup Rights Fight Has Become a Governance Battle

What began as a disagreement over commercial rights has now evolved into a debate about FIFA’s internal balance of power.

Critics argue that the proposed investment structure was developed without sufficient consultation with FIFA’s confederations and member associations. FIFA’s apology appears to acknowledge that the process created serious concerns.

The organisation has now promised to review its procedures, but that may not be enough to rebuild trust with opponents who believe the episode exposed deeper problems in FIFA’s leadership structure.

Infantino’s Re-Election Faces a New Political Reality

Infantino had been widely expected to seek another term as FIFA president.

The recent crisis has complicated that path. While he still has substantial support among FIFA’s membership, several football associations have begun reconsidering their positions.

England’s Football Association has withdrawn its support, while other European federations have also expressed opposition. UEFA’s continued resistance means the dispute is unlikely to disappear simply because the commercial proposal has been cancelled.

At the same time, Infantino currently retains significant backing across Africa and parts of Asia, leaving the contest far from settled.

A Crisis That May Outlast the Failed Deal

The most important consequence of the collapse of the investment plan may therefore be political rather than financial.

FIFA can withdraw the proposal, apologise and review its procedures. But repairing the relationship with UEFA and other dissatisfied confederations could be considerably harder.

The dispute has raised questions about transparency, consultation and the concentration of decision-making power at the top of football’s global governing body.

For Infantino, the immediate danger has passed. FIFA’s leadership has chosen to stand behind him, and supporters have demonstrated that he still commands considerable backing.

But the controversy has changed the political landscape around his presidency.

The World Cup rights proposal may be dead, but the fight over FIFA’s leadership and governance is far from over.

KYIV — A deadly Russian missile and drone barrage over Kyiv has exposed a growing weakness in Ukraine’s air-defense network, with Ukrainian forces reporting that they were unable to intercept any of the missiles fired during the overnight assault.

The attack killed at least 17 people in Kyiv and surrounding areas and injured more than 40, according to Ukrainian authorities. Russia launched 28 missiles and 115 drones, turning the overnight assault into one of the most serious recent attacks on the Ukrainian capital.

Most Drones Intercepted, But Missiles Got Through

Ukraine’s air force said its defenses successfully destroyed or intercepted 98 of the 115 drones used in the attack.

The picture was dramatically different for the missiles. Ukrainian authorities reported that none of the 28 missiles were intercepted.

The distinction is important because ballistic missiles are considerably more difficult to defend against than many drones and cruise missiles. Ukraine’s limited systems capable of countering such threats include U.S.-supplied Patriot batteries and other advanced air-defense systems.

Zelensky Says More Interceptors Could Have Saved Lives

President Volodymyr Zelensky has responded by again pressing Ukraine’s allies to provide additional anti-ballistic missile interceptors.

Zelensky argued that shortages are no longer simply a military supply problem but a direct threat to civilians living under Russian bombardment. He has repeatedly urged partners to accelerate deliveries of Patriot interceptors and strengthen Ukraine’s ability to defend major cities.

His latest appeal comes as Russia has intensified the use of ballistic weapons in concentrated attacks, putting additional pressure on Ukraine’s already stretched air-defense resources.

Patriot Supply Has Become a Strategic Issue

The shortage of interceptors has become one of Kyiv’s most urgent military concerns.

Ukraine is seeking not only additional Patriot missiles from the United States but also permission to produce Patriot interceptors domestically under license. Zelensky has argued that expanding production would benefit Ukraine while also helping other countries facing missile threats.

The challenge is that demand for these weapons extends far beyond Ukraine. The United States must maintain its own stockpiles while meeting commitments to other countries that operate Patriot systems.

That has turned the availability of interceptors into a wider international security issue rather than a problem limited to the Russia-Ukraine war.

Russia Is Increasing Pressure From the Air

The latest attack reflects a broader change in Russia’s long-range campaign.

Instead of relying only on large numbers of drones, Russian forces have increasingly combined drones with ballistic and other missiles. The mixture can complicate Ukraine’s response by forcing its air-defense network to deal with different types of threats arriving in the same attack.

The result is a difficult calculation for Ukrainian commanders: sophisticated interceptors are expensive and limited, while Russia continues to produce and launch missiles at a significant pace.

A Race Between Missile Production and Defense

The situation is becoming a race between two industrial capabilities.

Russia is increasing its production of ballistic missiles, while Ukraine and its Western partners are trying to expand production of the interceptors needed to stop them.

That imbalance is particularly concerning because a single ballistic missile can cause devastating damage if it reaches a populated area.

Recent reporting has highlighted efforts to expand U.S. production of PAC-3 interceptors, but increasing manufacturing capacity does not immediately solve Ukraine’s short-term shortage.

Civilian Protection at the Center of the Crisis

For residents of Kyiv, the debate over missile production and interceptor deliveries has a very immediate meaning.

Every missile that reaches the city can threaten homes, businesses and critical infrastructure. The latest barrage again demonstrated the human cost of gaps in the air-defense network, with dozens of civilians killed or injured.

Ukraine’s ability to protect its major population centers will therefore remain closely tied to the availability of advanced interceptors.

What Comes Next?

The latest attack has strengthened Kyiv’s argument that Western air-defense support must keep pace with Russia’s expanding missile campaign.

Ukraine is seeking more Patriot interceptors in the short term and greater domestic production capacity in the longer term. At the same time, its allies face competing demands for the same high-end defensive weapons.

The central challenge is becoming increasingly clear: Ukraine has demonstrated that it can destroy large numbers of incoming drones, but the latest barrage exposed a dangerous gap against ballistic missiles.

For Zelensky, closing that gap has become an urgent priority—not only to strengthen Ukraine’s military defenses, but to reduce the civilian toll of Russia’s increasingly intense long-range attacks.

CEUTA, SPAIN — Spain’s North African enclave of Ceuta is facing a growing humanitarian and political crisis after a huge migrant surge left around 1,100 unaccompanied minors without enough space in local reception facilities.

The children are among tens of thousands of migrants who reached Ceuta from Morocco during a dramatic border rush. Although most migrants have since returned to Morocco, the minors cannot simply be deported and are now at the centre of a difficult debate over who should care for them and where they should be housed.

Reception Centres Have Run Out of Space

Ceuta’s existing facilities have been pushed beyond capacity. Some children have reportedly been housed in makeshift warehouses, while others have been left sleeping outdoors.

Local residents and charities have stepped in to provide food, blankets and temporary shelter. In some cases, residents have taken children into their cars or created makeshift shelters after authorities struggled to accommodate everyone.

The situation has prompted Ceuta’s regional government to call for the minors to be transferred to other parts of mainland Spain.

“We are crying out for help and assistance,” Ceuta leader Juan Jesus Vivas said, highlighting the scale of the pressure on the enclave.

Why the Children Cannot Simply Be Sent Back

Unlike many adult migrants, unaccompanied minors are subject to additional legal protections.

Spain’s immigration reforms require unaccompanied children in overwhelmed territories to be redistributed after their individual cases have been processed. The procedure includes identifying the children, assessing their circumstances and determining whether they can safely be reunited with family members in their countries of origin.

That means the proposed transfer to mainland Spain is not simply an administrative relocation. Each case requires documentation and individual assessment, potentially making the process lengthy.

Political Opposition Could Slow the Transfer

The proposal has also opened a new political battle inside Spain.

Regional governments controlled by the conservative People’s Party (PP) and its far-right ally Vox have indicated that they would challenge orders requiring them to receive additional migrant minors.

Vox has taken an especially hard-line position, saying it does not want Spanish public money used to support the children. Other politicians have argued that minors should instead be returned to their countries of origin.

The dispute places Spain’s national government under pressure to enforce its redistribution system while persuading regional authorities to accept responsibility for children arriving in a territory already struggling with overcrowding.

A Border Rush With a Heavy Human Cost

The latest crisis follows an extraordinary surge at the Ceuta border, with Reuters reporting that around 72,000 migrants arrived over the course of a week.

The episode also carried a devastating human cost. About 75 people died during the border rush, according to the Reuters report, reviving memories across Europe of the migration crisis of 2015–16.

Most of those who crossed have since returned to Morocco, but the continued presence of children in Ceuta has turned the aftermath into a longer-term humanitarian challenge.

Spain Has Already Moved Hundreds of Minors

The current dispute is not without precedent.

Since Spain introduced its redistribution system, 719 unaccompanied minors have been transferred from the Canary Islands to mainland Spain, while more than 400 children arriving in Ceuta have also been relocated, according to Spanish government figures cited by Reuters.

The national government has also approved €25 million in additional funding for Ceuta to help care for unaccompanied minors.

Officials argue that sharing responsibility between Spain’s regions is necessary because Ceuta cannot reasonably manage the numbers alone.

Morocco’s Role Adds Another Dimension

The crisis is also testing Spain’s relationship with Morocco.

Following the mass crossings, Morocco said it was prepared to cooperate with Spain on identifying and repatriating unaccompanied minors, following instructions from King Mohammed VI to relevant ministries. That could provide another route for resolving some cases, although individual legal and family assessments remain important.

At the European level, the episode has also raised concerns about how dependent EU border management can become on cooperation from neighbouring countries.

The Bigger Question: Who Is Responsible?

The immediate problem in Ceuta is a shortage of beds, shelters and resources. But behind that emergency lies a much larger question for Spain and the European Union: how should responsibility for unaccompanied migrant children be shared when one border region suddenly receives far more arrivals than it can handle?

Ceuta is geographically small but strategically important because it is one of the EU’s two land borders with Africa. Its latest crisis demonstrates how quickly a sudden movement of people can overwhelm local infrastructure and turn migration policy into a national political confrontation.

For now, Ceuta is asking mainland Spain to share the burden, while regional governments, charities and national authorities debate what should happen next.

The immediate priority is finding safe accommodation for the children. The harder challenge will be reaching a political and legal agreement over who ultimately takes responsibility for them.

HIROSHIMA, JAPAN — Eighty-one years after an atomic bomb destroyed much of Hiroshima, the Japanese city once again fell silent in remembrance on Thursday as survivors, families and officials gathered to honour those who died and renew calls for a world without nuclear weapons.

The anniversary comes at a time when nuclear tensions remain a major concern internationally. For Hiroshima, the annual ceremony is not simply a look back at the devastation of 1945—it is also a warning about what could happen if nuclear weapons are used again.

A Moment of Silence for the Victims

The ceremony took place at Hiroshima’s Peace Memorial Park, close to the area devastated by the atomic bombing on August 6, 1945.

At 8:15 a.m., the time the bomb exploded over the city, participants observed a moment of silence for the victims.

The bombing killed tens of thousands of people immediately, while many more died later from injuries and radiation exposure. The destruction became one of the defining moments of the final stages of World War II and marked the beginning of the nuclear age.

Survivors Continue to Carry the Memory

The voices of the hibakusha—the survivors of the atomic bombings—remain central to Hiroshima’s annual message.

But as the number of survivors declines with age, concerns have grown about how their experiences will be passed on to future generations.

Their testimony has become more than a record of history. For Hiroshima, it is part of a continuing campaign to demonstrate the human consequences of nuclear warfare.

The message from survivors remains particularly relevant as governments around the world continue to debate nuclear deterrence, military security and arms control.

Mayor Warns Against Returning to a Nuclear Arms Race

Hiroshima Mayor Kazumi Matsui used this year’s Peace Declaration to warn that the world cannot ignore the lessons of the atomic bomb.

He pointed to continuing military conflicts, growing distrust between major powers and the failure of the latest Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference to reach a final agreement.

For Hiroshima officials, those developments are reminders that the threat surrounding nuclear weapons has not disappeared.

The city continues to argue that nuclear weapons should ultimately be eliminated rather than treated as permanent tools of national security.

Japan’s Government Faces a Difficult Balance

Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi attended the Hiroshima memorial ceremony for the first time as prime minister.

Takaichi said Japan would pursue what she described as a realistic approach to nuclear policy. Her position reflects the difficult balance facing Japan: the country is the only nation to have experienced wartime atomic attacks, yet it remains closely aligned with the United States, a nuclear-armed ally.

That tension has made Japan’s nuclear debate increasingly complicated.

Hiroshima’s message centres on eliminating nuclear weapons, while Japan’s security policy also depends heavily on the U.S. alliance and extended nuclear deterrence.

Why Hiroshima’s Message Still Matters

The significance of Hiroshima’s anniversary extends far beyond Japan.

When the first atomic bomb was used against a city in 1945, humanity entered a new era in which a single weapon could destroy an urban centre on an unprecedented scale.

Today, nuclear weapons are held by several countries, while geopolitical tensions, military modernisation and disagreements over arms-control agreements continue to shape international security.

The memory of Hiroshima therefore carries a contemporary question: Can countries maintain security without allowing nuclear weapons to become an accepted or permanent part of warfare?

A Warning Passed to the Next Generation

Children representing Hiroshima also delivered a commitment to peace during the anniversary events, reflecting the city’s effort to ensure that memories of the bombing do not disappear as survivors become fewer.

Their participation underscores a central challenge for Hiroshima: preserving the memory of an event that happened more than eight decades ago while making its lesson meaningful to people who were born long after World War II.

For the city, remembering August 6 is therefore not only about mourning the past. It is about influencing the future.

81 Years Later, the Message Remains

Hiroshima has changed dramatically since 1945, transforming from a city devastated by an atomic bomb into an international symbol of peace.

Yet every August 6, the city returns to that morning at 8:15.

The names of victims are remembered, survivors’ stories are repeated and the call for nuclear disarmament is renewed.

Eighty-one years after Hiroshima became the first city to experience an atomic bombing in wartime, its central message remains unchanged: the destruction witnessed there should never become the future of another city.

DUBAI — Tensions across the Gulf are rising again after Iran warned regional states that any new U.S. military strike on Iranian territory could bring retaliation against critical infrastructure across the region.

The warning, delivered through Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi to officials in several regional capitals, adds another layer of uncertainty to an already fragile Middle East crisis. Tehran is urging Gulf governments to use their influence in Washington to discourage further U.S. military action and push the conflict back toward negotiations.

Tehran Sends a Direct Message to Gulf Capitals

Iran has reportedly communicated its warning to countries including Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, while Pakistan was also informed of Tehran’s position.

The message was not simply aimed at Washington. By warning countries that host U.S. military facilities, Iran appears to be trying to make any future American strike more complicated for its regional partners.

According to diplomatic sources cited by Reuters, Tehran warned that a new attack on Iran could result in strikes against oil facilities and other important infrastructure in Gulf countries.

Energy Infrastructure Becomes a Major Pressure Point

The threat is particularly significant because the Gulf is home to some of the world’s most important oil and gas infrastructure.

Iran’s warning raises concerns about possible disruption to production, exports and shipping if the confrontation escalates. Energy markets are already closely watching developments around the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial route for international oil and gas shipments.

Any new attacks on energy facilities could therefore have consequences well beyond the region, potentially affecting global oil prices and shipping costs.

Why Gulf States Are Caught in the Middle

The Gulf governments have a difficult balancing act.

Countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates maintain important security relationships with Washington, while simultaneously seeking to prevent the wider Iran-U.S. confrontation from spreading onto their territory.

Several Gulf governments have been pushing for diplomacy rather than another round of military escalation. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has reportedly urged U.S. President Donald Trump to delay further military action and pursue negotiations.

For these countries, the priority is increasingly clear: prevent their territory and critical economic infrastructure from becoming another battlefield.

Iran’s Warning Raises the Stakes for Washington

The latest message also reflects Tehran’s broader strategy of raising the potential cost of another American attack.

Trump had previously threatened to target Iran’s energy network. Iran’s response suggests that Tehran could attempt to widen the consequences of such a move by targeting infrastructure connected to U.S. allies in the Gulf.

That creates a dangerous chain of escalation: a U.S. strike on Iran could trigger an Iranian response, which could then put Gulf states under pressure to respond themselves.

Strait of Hormuz Adds Another Layer of Risk

The warnings come as Iran and Oman have also been working toward an arrangement intended to facilitate commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

That diplomatic effort could become more difficult if military tensions rise again.

For global energy markets, the combination of potential attacks on infrastructure and uncertainty surrounding shipping through Hormuz is particularly concerning. Even without a major physical disruption, fears of escalation can push up the risk premium on crude oil and raise insurance and transportation costs.

A Diplomatic Exit Is Still Possible

Despite the increasingly severe rhetoric, Iran’s message also contains a diplomatic element.

By urging Gulf governments to persuade Washington to step back from military action, Tehran is signaling that it wants regional countries to play a role in preventing another escalation.

The Gulf states, meanwhile, appear to have their own incentive to keep diplomatic channels open. A wider conflict would threaten not only security but also oil exports, trade, investment and economic stability across the region.

The Next U.S. Move Could Be Crucial

The immediate question is whether Washington will carry out another strike against Iran.

If the United States chooses diplomacy, the current warnings could remain part of a pressure campaign rather than lead to another major escalation. But if new attacks occur, Iran’s threat to target regional infrastructure could turn the conflict into a much broader Gulf crisis.

For now, the warning has placed Gulf governments in an increasingly uncomfortable position: they are trying to maintain their partnerships with the United States while simultaneously preventing Iran’s confrontation with Washington from becoming a direct threat to their own territory and economies.

PYONGYANG — As an intense heatwave grips North Korea, state media has revived an unusual piece of traditional summer advice: eat dog-meat soup to help cope with the extreme heat.

The recommendation appeared in Rodong Sinmun, the official newspaper of North Korea’s ruling Workers’ Party, as temperatures in parts of the country are forecast to approach 40°C. The newspaper presented dog-meat soup, locally known as dangogi guk, alongside foods such as watermelon, cucumbers, mung beans, fish porridge and red-bean porridge as options for getting through the hot summer weather.

A Traditional Dish Gets New Attention

Dog-meat soup has a long association with summer in North Korea. The dish has traditionally been regarded by some people as a way to restore energy and combat the effects of intense heat.

According to the report, the tradition is connected to the belief that eating the soup during particularly hot days can help people maintain their strength.

However, there is no widely accepted scientific evidence showing that dog-meat soup provides special protection against heat-related illnesses. Its recommendation is therefore better understood as part of North Korea’s traditional food culture rather than an established medical treatment.

Heatwave Raises Health Concerns

The food recommendation comes as North Korea faces severe summer temperatures.

A doctor from Pyongyang General Hospital warned that extreme heat can be particularly dangerous for people with existing conditions such as heart disease, diabetes and hyperthyroidism.

The state newspaper also promoted foods and ingredients that are more commonly associated with hydration and light summer meals, including watermelon and cucumber.

The combination of traditional dietary advice and medical warnings reflects the country’s attempt to address the health risks associated with prolonged high temperatures.

Why Dog Meat Remains Part of the Debate

The story has attracted international attention not only because of the heatwave, but because dog meat remains a deeply controversial food in many parts of the world.

North Korea has continued to promote the dish as part of its traditional cuisine. The government has supported restaurants specialising in dog meat, recognised some regional preparations as cultural heritage and even held dog-meat cooking competitions in Pyongyang, according to the report.

At the same time, attitudes toward the practice have changed dramatically elsewhere on the Korean Peninsula.

North and South Korea Take Different Paths

South Korea has moved in the opposite direction.

In 2024, the South Korean government passed legislation banning the breeding, slaughter, distribution and sale of dogs for human consumption. The law includes a transition period, with full enforcement scheduled to begin in February 2027.

That creates a striking contrast: while South Korea is preparing to end the commercial dog-meat trade, North Korean state media continues to describe dog-meat soup as a traditional summer dish.

More Than a Food Story

The latest recommendation offers a glimpse into how traditional food practices can remain embedded in public life even as attitudes toward them change internationally.

For North Korea, dog-meat soup is being presented as part of a familiar summer food tradition during a period of extreme weather. For outside observers, however, the story also highlights the widening cultural divide between North and South Korea over the practice.

With temperatures nearing 40°C in some areas, the immediate concern remains the health impact of the heatwave. But the unusual dietary advice has ensured that North Korea’s traditional summer soup is receiving attention far beyond the Korean Peninsula.

NEW DELHI — A powerful typhoon moving across the western Pacific is drawing attention from meteorologists far beyond Japan, with weather scientists examining whether its presence could temporarily influence rainfall patterns across India.

Super Typhoon Dolphin, packing sustained winds of around 175 kmph and gusts of up to 210 kmph, is moving toward Japan’s Daito and Ryukyu island chains. While the storm poses no direct threat to India, its enormous atmospheric influence could briefly alter the behaviour of the Indian monsoon.

How Can a Pacific Typhoon Affect India?

The connection lies thousands of kilometres away from the storm itself.

During the monsoon season, the Bay of Bengal plays a crucial role in generating low-pressure areas and depressions that help deliver widespread rainfall to central, eastern and northern India.

A powerful typhoon in the western Pacific can intensify convection and draw atmospheric energy toward that region. This can, for a time, reduce thunderstorm activity over the Bay of Bengal and make it harder for new monsoon systems to develop.

In simple terms, the Pacific storm could temporarily compete with the Indian monsoon for atmospheric heat, moisture and energy.

Rainfall Could Dip Temporarily

Meteorologists are watching whether Dolphin’s strength and movement will affect the development of fresh weather systems over the Bay of Bengal.

If fewer low-pressure systems form, rainfall could temporarily weaken across parts of India. The effect could also influence the position of the monsoon trough and upper-level wind patterns.

However, this does not mean India is heading into a prolonged dry spell.

Experts caution that Dolphin alone is unlikely to produce a sustained “break monsoon” across the country. Its influence will depend heavily on how long the storm remains intense and where it travels next.

Dolphin’s Track Remains Important

The typhoon was located roughly 540 kilometres east of Minamidaito Island and was moving westward at about 17 kmph when the India Today report was published.

Forecasts indicated that Dolphin could approach the Daito Islands before moving toward Okinawa. The storm was also expected to bring destructive winds, very heavy rainfall and waves reaching around 10–11 metres in parts of the Ryukyu and Amami island chains.

Its longer-term track is particularly important for Indian weather watchers. Forecast models were not fully aligned on where the system would eventually move, with projections differing over its possible path toward China’s eastern coast.

India’s Monsoon Has More Than One Driver

Dolphin is only one factor in a much larger weather system.

India’s monsoon is being influenced by several large-scale climate patterns, while the frequency and strength of low-pressure systems forming over the Bay of Bengal remain particularly important for rainfall distribution.

That means any effect from Dolphin is likely to be temporary and regional rather than a complete reversal of India’s monsoon pattern.

The India Meteorological Department’s current outlook continues to indicate significant rainfall activity in several parts of the country, reinforcing the point that the Pacific storm should not be interpreted as an immediate nationwide threat to India’s monsoon.

What Happens After Dolphin Weakens?

Weather conditions over India could stabilise as the typhoon weakens or moves away from the tropical region.

Once Dolphin’s influence diminishes, the Bay of Bengal could again become more favourable for the development of low-pressure systems, potentially restoring the normal rhythm of monsoon rainfall.

For now, the most interesting part of the story is not that a typhoon is coming toward India — it isn’t. Instead, scientists are watching how a storm thousands of kilometres away could briefly reshape the atmospheric conditions that help India’s monsoon produce rain.

That distant connection between the Pacific and the Indian monsoon is why Typhoon Dolphin has become a weather story for India as well as Japan.