The Israeli army says it will target Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s successors amid the ongoing war in the Middle East

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has threatened to assassinate anyone who replaces the slain Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as Iran’s supreme leader.

Khamenei and several other senior Iranian officials were killed in the first wave of US‑Israeli airstrikes launched on February 28. After a week of deliberations, the Assembly of Experts, a body of clerics tasked with vetting and selecting the new supreme leader, announced on Monday that Khamenei’s son, Mojtaba, has been chosen to succeed him.

In a statement posted to the IDF’s Farsi account hours before the Assembly announced its decision, the Israeli army issued a warning to its members.

“The hand of the State of Israel will continue to pursue every successor and every person involved in his appointment,” the IDF said, adding that it “would not hesitate to target” the clerics attending the assembly’s meetings.

Last week, Israel struck the Assembly’s headquarters in Qom, but the attack failed to derail the selection of a new leader. Ali Larijani, Iran’s top security official, said Mojtaba Khamenei’s appointment demonstrates that the US and Israel failed to use Ali Khamenei’s death to sow chaos in the country.

US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu both cited regime change as one of their war goals.

Trump has demanded unconditional surrender and said the next supreme leader will not “last long” unless Iran bows to his demands. Iranian officials and the military have vowed to continue their resistance.

The US president has attempted to quell fears that the military operation he launched will exacerbate the global energy crisis

The surge in oil prices will not stop the US from waging its war on Iran, President Donald Trump has said, after Brent shot past $100 per barrel on Sunday, marking the biggest daily gain since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020.

In response to the US and Israeli airstrikes, Iran has closed the Strait of Hormuz and struck tankers attempting to cross the waterway, which serves as a route for around one-fifth of the world’s oil supply. Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait, all major oil producers, have cut output after running out of storage space.

In a Truth Social post on Sunday, Trump downplayed the effects of the war on global trade.

“Short term oil prices, which will drop rapidly when the destruction of the Iran nuclear threat is over, is a very small price to pay for U.S.A., and World, Safety and Peace. ONLY FOOLS WOULD THINK DIFFERENTLY!” Trump wrote.

During his reelection campaign, Trump promised cheaper gas and no costly wars. However, according to data from the American Automobile Association, the national average price of regular gasoline has risen by 15% over the past week to $3.45 per gallon, with some areas reporting increases of nearly 30%.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Friday that Washington is exploring additional measures to lower oil prices. Energy Secretary Chris Wright pledged to bring gasoline back below $3 per gallon “before too long.”

Last week, the Treasury formally allowed India to temporarily buy oil from Russia, with Bessent saying the US could potentially “unsanction” more of Russia’s energy exports.

JPMorgan chief economist Bruce Kasman told Reuters that the “near-term scenario” could see crude prices spike toward $120 per barrel before settling “at an elevated $80 bbl through mid-year” if the conflict persists. Russian presidential investment envoy Kirill Dmitriev said on Monday that oil prices could exceed $200 a barrel in the event of a “prolonged conflict.”

Lindsey Graham has described the conflict in the Middle East as “a good investment”

The US will control almost a third of the world’s oil and make record profits if it succeeds in toppling the Iranian government, hawkish Republican Senator Lindsey Graham told Fox News on Sunday.

Graham made the comments as global oil prices surged past $100 per barrel, which US President Donald Trump dismissed as “a very small price to pay” for the US-Israeli war against Iran, which was launched on February 28.

Graham described the cost of the attacks as the “best money ever spent,” arguing that the purpose is to prevent the country from developing nuclear weapons – which Iran has denied that it intends to do, insisting that its nuclear program is peaceful.

“When this regime goes down, we’re going to have a new Middle East, we are going to make a ton of money. Nobody will threaten the Strait of Hormuz again,” Graham said, adding that the US will install a “friendly” government in Tehran.

“Venezuela and Iran have 31% of the world’s oil reserves. We’re going to have a partnership with 31% of the known reserves. This is China’s nightmare. This is a good investment.” 

Washington has also been seeking to control Venezuela’s oil sector after US commandos captured President Nicolas Maduro in early January. On Saturday, Trump formally recognized acting Venezuelan President Delcy Rodriguez, who has signaled the intention to cooperate with the US.

Iran has closed the Strait of Hormuz in response to the US‑Israeli attacks and has struck several tankers attempting to transit the crucial shipping route, leading to further disruptions in global energy flows. The Iranian military has also launched retaliatory strikes against American bases in the Gulf states.

Tehran has denounced the war as unprovoked aggression and vowed not to bow to Trump’s demand for “unconditional surrender.”

Norwegian police say an explosive device was thrown at the compound on Sunday morning

Norwegian police are investigating an explosion outside the US Embassy in Oslo as a possible act of terrorism. The incident occurred amid heightened security for American diplomatic missions and the US-Israel war with Iran.

The blast happened at around 1:00 AM on Sunday and caused minor damage to the entrance of the diplomatic compound. An explosive device appears to have been thrown at the building, Grete Metlid, the head of operational services at Oslo police, said at a press conference. Photographs from the scene show broken glass and fallen lamps near the entrance.

Shortly after the explosion, a video appeared on the embassy’s Google Maps page showing Iran’s slain supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, accompanied by a message in Arabic: “God is great. We are the victors.” Police said they are aware of the clip and are examining it as part of the investigation.

“One of the hypotheses is that it is an act of terrorism,” Frode Larsen, the head of the Oslo police investigation and intelligence unit, told NRK.

Norway’s domestic security service (PST) has joined the probe and is investigating the incident as a high priority, with security tightened around the site. No arrests have been made so far.

American diplomatic missions worldwide have been placed on high alert following joint US-Israeli airstrikes on Iran that began on February 28. Iran responded by launching missiles and drones at American bases across the Middle East and at Israel.

US diplomatic missions in Dubai and Riyadh have reportedly been targeted by Iranian drones, prompting the State Department to close embassies in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and Kuwait; it has also urged US citizens to leave the Middle East.

At least ten people were killed in Karachi, Pakistan, when US Marines opened fire on protesters attempting to storm the American consulate on March 1.

More than 32,000 Americans have returned from the Middle East since the start of the conflict, according to the State Department.

US President Donald Trump has demanded unconditional surrender from Iran as the US military reportedly braces for a weeks-long campaign.

He will succeed his father, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was killed in US-Israeli strikes

Mojtaba Khamenei, the son of the late Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has been selected as Iran’s next supreme leader.

Ali Khamenei led Iran from 1989 until his death during the opening wave of US-Israeli strikes on Tehran on February 28.

Iran’s Assembly of Experts, which is tasked with vetting and selecting the supreme leader, announced on Monday that Mojtaba Khamenei was chosen after “precise and extensive deliberations.”

The assembly called on “the noble nation of Iran, especially the elites and intellectuals of the seminaries and universities, to pledge allegiance” to the new leader, who is tasked with advancing the Islamic system of government that replaced the shah after the 1979 revolution.

Born in 1969, Mojtaba is the second of Ali Khamenei’s six children. As a young man, he fought as a volunteer during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s and later studied religion in Qom, one of Iran’s holiest cities and a major center of Shia theology. 

Mojtaba’s sister and several other relatives were killed in the same airstrike that killed his father. Israeli media reported that Mojtaba was wounded in the attack.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), through its media arm Sepah, has pledged allegiance to the new supreme leader.

The Iranian Supreme National Security Council secretary, Ali Larijani, thanked the Assembly of Experts for convening despite the ongoing airstrikes, including last week’s strike on the assembly’s headquarters in Qom. He said the selection of the new supreme leader proceeded in a timely and orderly manner despite “the tricks of enemies who had hoped for a deadlock” following the death of Ali Khamenei.

The appointment of Mojtaba Khamenei comes after US President Donald Trump said there would be no deal with Iran to end the war except through unconditional surrender.

They reportedly have had bad experiences acting as Washington’s proxy in past conflicts

Iraq’s Kurds are against joining the US attacks on Iran, and have voiced concerns about being left facing Iranian retaliation with no ground or air defense support, Axios reported on Saturday.

The CIA began working to arm Kurdish forces hostile to the Islamic Republic after the US and Israel launched strikes on Iran last Saturday, according to CNN. While US President Donald Trump initially voiced support for Kurds getting involved in the conflict, he backpedaled on the idea on Saturday.

“The Kurds must not be the tip of the spear in this conflict,” Axios wrote, citing a senior official from the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), a semi-autonomous region in northeastern Iraq.

The Iraqi Kurds are “staying neutral” as “there is no clarity” for them on whether Washington is aiming for a full regime change in Iran or just a “change in personnel,” the KRG official reportedly said. Trump has stated that the US will be involved in deciding who leads Iran in the future but has not elaborated on how this would work.

According to Axios, the Kurdish regional forces don’t think regime change as possible without Washington deploying a ground invasion, and they don’t see the US putting boots on the ground.

Israel has been far more aggressive both in the conflict and in “pushing Iranian Kurds” to join the fray, the KRG official reportedly said.

“In the past, two major uprisings were not supported” by the US, the outlet wrote, citing Amir Karimi, co-chair of the Kurdistan Free Life Party, the Iranian wing of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party. Widespread Western-backed protests wracked Iran in 2022-2023 and earlier this year, yet failed to unseat the leadership in Tehran.

In part, Kurds are staying back due to fears that the US will abandon them again, Axios cited another Kurdish official as saying. “We have trust issues from the past,” he reportedly said, voicing concern over a potential retaliation by Tehran.

The regional Kurdish forces in Syria served as the main US proxy against the Islamic State during the country’s brutal civil war, which ended with the ouster of Bashar Assad by Ahmed al-Sharaa – a former Al-Qaeda-linked militant leader.

Rapprochement between the US and the new government in Damascus has left the Kurds with no military support in multiple bloody clashes with the new government forces.

Doing so is a “legitimate tool” to make Kiev resume oil supplies through the Druzhba pipeline, the Slovak prime minister has said

Bratislava is ready to block a planned EU loan for Ukraine if Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban is voted out of office in the upcoming election, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has said. It would be a justified means of compelling Kiev to resume Russian oil supplies through the Druzhba pipeline, he said in a statement on Facebook on Sunday.

A €90 billion ($105 billion) EU emergency loan for Ukraine was vetoed by Orban last month after Kiev halted vital Russian oil supplies to both Hungary and Slovakia via the Soviet pipeline. Kiev claimed it was damaged by Russian strikes – something Moscow has denied. Hungary and Slovakia – both heavily dependent on Russian energy – accused Kiev of deliberately cutting it off in a bid to exert pressure on them.

“[Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky] is permanently harming us and he thinks that he will force us to change our stance on the war” Fico said.

The prime minister also slammed the EU loan by saying that it was essentially a “gift” since Kiev would not repay it. Its only purpose i to “motivate [the Ukrainians] to fight till the last soldier,” he argued.

“The most important message will be that Slovakia is ready to take up the mantle of Hungary if it is necessary,” Fico stated.

Hungary recently seized some $80 million worth of cash and another $20 million in gold bars that was being transported to Kiev by a Ukrainian team. The seizure was part of a money laundering probe. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrey Sybiga accused Budapest of kidnapping for detaining those escorting the cash.

Orban is also a longstanding opponent of Ukraine’s EU membership bid and military assistance to the country.

Earlier this week, Zelensky issued a thinly veiled threat against the Hungarian prime minister, saying he would let the Ukrainian military “speak to him in their own language.” Orban responded by stating that no threats to his life would change his position.

Hungary and Slovakia are the only EU nations standing up to the Kiev Godfather and truly representing Europeans’ interests

Politics can be very rough. Yet, usually, as long as they don’t collapse into war, at least in public a certain minimum pretense of decorum is maintained. Especially by governments vitally dependent on others’ support. Ukraine under the rule of never-reelected Vladimir Zelensky, however, has anything but a normal political system.

It is in this context that Vladimir Zelensky’s latest folly needs to be seen: Zelensky has threatened Hungary’s leader Viktor Orban, telling him he will hand the prime minister’s address over to “our guys” in the military so that they could “communicate with him in their own language.” Obviously, this is not even a hint of violence anymore, but the equivalent of a mafia godfather placing a dead horse’s head on your pillow or leaving a bullet on your doormat. The reason: Orban is exercising his right within the EU not to agree to yet another insane “loan” – the kind that will never be paid back, at least not by anyone in Ukraine – for Zelensky’s astronomically corrupt regime.

Orban is right about that “loan,” of course. Yet that isn’t even the core of this particular scandal. That is the fact that Zelensky feels he can issue a direct, mafia-style threat against the leader of an EU member state. Regarding Zelensky, though, there is no surprise here. He has been at the top of a regime that combines a bizarre sense of entitlement, shameless demands, outrageously greedy corruption, and a repulsive record of sabotage and assassination operations, very much even against its Western backers. Ask Germans who still have a spine about the Nord Stream attack, for instance. Or, if you can’t find a German with a spine, ask Viktor Orban, who has correctly called it “state terrorism.”

What needs more emphasis than Zelensky’s depraved sense of impunity is that he has reason to feel that way. It is true that, in this instance, the EU Commission has publicly protested against his barbaric behavior. But let’s be realistic, that is a formality, nothing but a gentle slap on the wrist for appearances’ sake. What really matters is that first the West as a whole and recently the EU “elites” on their own have spent years emboldening Zelensky and his regime by feeding Ukraine’s corruption, accepting and spreading Kiev’s lies, and suppressing any criticism of this policy as “Russian talking points.”

Indeed, in the EU, Hungary and Slovakia as well have been harassed and treated as pariahs for their resistance to this coddling of the Zelensky regime. It is all the more remarkable that both countries have principally stuck to their guns, even while having to concede ground repeatedly.

Thus, it may be a coincidence, but it is a remarkable fact that just one day after Zelensky’s open mafia boss fit, Hungary hit his ultra-sleazy regime where it hurts by striking at its money: In a certainly deliberately spectacular operation – balaklavas, body armor and assault rifles included, and all carefully caught on camera – Hungarian anti-terrorism forces stopped a Ukrainian currency and gold shipment that was crossing their country in two armored transporters. Arresting and temporarily detaining seven Ukrainians, the Hungarian officials found $40 million, €35 million, and about nine kilograms of gold. While the detained have been released and are back in Ukraine, the money and gold as well as the transporters have stayed in Hungary.

Kiev has called the Hungarian measures “state terrorism,” which is as absurd as Orban’s assessment of the Nord Stream attack is compelling. The Ukrainian government and Oshchad Bank, that had organized the transport, claim that everything about it was perfectly legal, but the Hungarian authorities see things very differently. Their customs agency says that the transport is suspected of being part of a money laundering operation. They also maintain that among those detained was a former high-ranking general of Ukraine’s combined intelligence service and secret police, the SBU. Ukrainian journalists, in turn, have even named the general as Genady Kuznetsov, the former head of Kiev’s Center for Anti-Terrorist Special Operations.

Budapest’s customs agency has also made public some intriguing figures: In the first two months of this year, the total of currency and gold shipped to Ukraine via Hungary has already amounted to over $900 million dollars, more than €420 million, and 146 kilograms of gold. Clearly, the amounts finally stopped and, it seems, seized were only a small part of a much larger, ongoing flow.

According to Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto, these funds may be linked to the “mafia,” here obviously meaning not just organized crime in Ukraine but Zelensky’s circles themselves, which may be one and the same thing, of course. Also, Szijjarto is a smart man; he may well have sent an implied message to Kiev as well: If you talk like the mafia, we will treat you as mafia. Rest of Europe: Watch and learn.

In any case, Szijjarto has demanded clarifications from Kiev. He is unlikely to be content with what Ukrainian media have offered by way of explanation until now. Namely, that these large-scale, high-value transports via land are merely due to the fact that shipments by air have been suspended since the large-scale escalation of hostilities with Russia in February 2022.

All of the above is taking place against the backdrop of a larger – and fierce – political conflict between Budapest (and Bratislava, too), on one side, and Kiev as well as, in effect, the EU Commission on the other. While hiding behind pretexts, Ukraine has blocked oil deliveries from Russia through the ‘Druzhba’ (‘Friendship’) pipeline. Hungary and Slovakia need this oil and are struggling to have the pipeline re-opened. As you would expect, although they are EU members and Ukraine is not, the EU is leaving them alone and even, in reality, taking Kiev’s side.

Here is something that the EU could actually learn from one of Hollywood’s most famous mafia characters: The Godfather, as played by the late and brilliant Marlon Brando. He was adamant about one simple thing: Never side with outsiders to go against “the family.” That is merely the sound logic of collective action and trust. Yet the EU can’t master even that much.

Brussels, to make things even worse, will not let go of its plan to make Ukraine a member. A special fast-track – that is, cheating – option has been stalled, fortunately. But the idea is not dead, as it should be. Recall that the chain of events that set this whole mess – war and all – in motion was triggered when the EU insisted on a special association agreement with Ukraine while excluding Russia. NATO’s reckless expansion eastward had paved the road to perdition, but it was the EU’s moves in 2013 and 2014 that really sent things over the edge. Now, the EU cannot let go of its preferred strategy: when you got Ukraine in a deep blood-soaked hole, dig deeper.

Hungary and Slovakia are sane regarding Ukraine, the rest of the EU are not. Zelensky’s mafia threats have shown once again that his regime should be isolated instead of courted, stuffed with money, and propped up. At least, if the leaders of the EU were acting in the interests of the 450 million Europeans that have never elected them but whom they claim to represent.

The Zelensky regime does not represent the interests of ordinary Ukrainians; that of the EU is equally uninterested in those of ordinary Europeans. Maybe that’s why they feel so close.

Israel has already announced its intention to kill whoever would become the next Supreme Leader

Supreme Leader Mullah Ali Khamenei, who ruled Iran for 37 years, was killed in a US-Israeli strike on Tehran on February 28, at the outset of a war which has now embroiled much of the Middle East. Israel has warned it would target any figure selected to replace him.

“The most suitable candidate, approved by the majority of the Assembly of Experts, has been determined,” member Mohsen Heydari said on Sunday, according to the Iranian Students' News Agency (ISNA).

Shortly afterwards, Iran’s Assembly of Experts, tasked with vetting and selecting the supreme leader, announced that Mojtaba Khamenei had been chosen after “precise and extensive deliberations.”

According to Iranian media reports, the group of scholars had a minor disagreement over whether their final decision must follow an in-person meeting or instead be issued without adhering to this formality.

The Iranian Supreme leader faces direct assassination threats from Israel, as the government of the Jewish State has clearly stated that he will become its primary target. Additionally, there is the issue of US President Donald Trump, who earlier this week said that Washington must be involved in choosing the next leader of Iran and that it would be “wonderful” if Iranian Kurdish forces based in Iraq were to cross into Iran to launch attacks on security forces there.

Depending on Trump's assessment, he may either continue his confrontational stance towards Iran or attempt to negotiate a deal.

The selection is thought to have included the following candidates.

Mojtaba Khamenei

The leading contender and late leader's second son, Mojtaba, now officially declared the country's new supreme leader. He studied theology in Qom and fought as a young volunteer during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s.

Mojtaba is believed to have strong ties with senior figures in the Revolutionary Guard. However, Russian experts have pointed out that the late ayatollah was against appointing his second son as successor, emphasizing that it contradicted the fundamental principles of the Islamic Republic.

Furthermore, Mojtaba does not possess a sufficiently high theological rank, which is obligatory to become the new leader.

Alireza Arafi

Outside of clerical circles in Iran, Ayatollah Alireza Arafi, is not a widely recognized name, yet, as a senior cleric deeply embedded within Iran’s religious institutions, he merits greater attention, experts note. 

Born in 1959, Arafi comes from a clerical family from the central Iranian province of Yazd. The Arafis are said to have been Zoroastrians who only converted to Islam in the 19th century.

Alireza Arafi was appointed as the jurist member of Iran's Leadership Council, the body tasked with fulfilling the supreme leader's role after Khamenei’s death, which it will do until the Assembly of Experts elects a new leader.

A cleric member of the Guardian Council, Arafi became part of the temporary Leadership Council alongside President Masoud Pezeshkian and Chief Justice Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejei.

Sadeq Larijani

Another potential candidate was the brother of Ali Larijani, Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council. Ayatollah Sadeq Larijani, a former judiciary chief, isn’t as prominent as other clerics, but he served as chief justice and sat on key bodies like the Guardian Council (which reviews legislation and approves candidates) and the Expediency Discernment Council (which resolves disputes between parliament and the Guardian Council and advises the supreme leader on policy).

Hassan Khomeini

A candidate notable for his lineage was Hassan Khomeini, the grandson of the Islamic Republic’s founder, Ruhollah Khomeini.

The 53 year old holds a symbolically important role as custodian of his grandfather's mausoleum in southern Tehran. He has never served in government.

He was perceived as a relative moderate for his association with reformists who were increasingly ostracized from power under Khamenei. Khomeini has close ties to reformists, including former presidents Mohammed Khatami and Hassan Rouhani, who both pursued policies of engagement with the West while in office.

Mehdi Mirbagheri

Hardline cleric Mohammad Mehdi Mirbagheri, a top figure in the 88-member Assembly of Experts, was also reportedly a possible contender, due to his ideological alignment with the most conservative factions within Iran's political system.

The announcement of 

The cartoon depicts devastating Iranian retaliation against the American and Israeli military after a deadly strike on the Minab girls’ school

Iranian media have shared a Lego-style video touting Tehran’s purported retaliation against the US and Israel, depicting the American and Israeli leadership in a panic.

The animation, dubbed ‘Narrative of Victory,’ was widely circulated online on Sunday. It opens with a cartoonish figure of US President Donald Trump – accompanied by the Devil – reading the Jeffrey Epstein files.

The US president is then shown going haywire and ordering strikes on Iran, apparently implying that the attack was meant to distract everyone from a domestic scandal involving the late sex offender’s ties with American elites.

The video then depicts an attack on an Iranian girls’ school in Minab, which left more than 170 people dead, with a vengeful Iranian soldier examining the ruins and getting ready for retaliation. Tehran has blamed the attack on Israel and the US, while Trump has claimed the destruction was caused by Iran itself.

The clip goes on to depict waves of Iranian missile and drone strikes, including attacks on a UK airbase in Cyprus, multiple targets in Israel, and sites across the Gulf region. As the devastation spreads, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is shown fleeing, oil traders panic, and Iranian drones destroy a US aircraft carrier. One of the final scenes shows a US military transport plane unloading a coffin draped in the American flag.

The release came days after the White House posted its own PR video on X. The clip opened with a Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas meme showing protagonist CJ saying “Ah sh*t, here we go again,” before cutting to footage of US strikes on Iran, each hit overlaid with the game’s “wasted” screen that appears when the character dies.

OPERATION EPIC FURY

• Destroy Iran’s missile arsenal.
• Destroy their navy.
• Ensure they NEVER get a nuclear weapon.

Locked in. pic.twitter.com/ika3MMJmZT

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) March 6, 2026

This is not the first time Iranian media have used Lego-style animations in their messaging. In June 2025, during the 12-day war with Israel and the US, a similar video depicted Tehran’s response to strikes on the Isfahan nuclear facility as a victory.

That clip showed Trump and Netanyahu standing beside a devil figure before Iranian missiles hit Israeli targets, ending with the line: “We are the ones who control the game.”

Instead of challenging male power, the high-ranking ladies attach themselves to it like tradwives

International Women’s Day used to come with a certain esthetic. A celebration of past victories and a look ahead to new hopes and challenges. But this year, the vibe is women on social media, claiming Iranian heritage, dancing in celebration of US and Israeli airstrikes on Iran, even as reports circulate that bombs had killed roughly 160 schoolgirls.

Meanwhile, Western female leaders – those who regularly speak about things like feminist foreign policy and are seen as the epitome of female governance – seemed suddenly to develop an acute sensitivity about tone. Statements were measured and delicately phrased so as not to antagonize the men launching the missiles.

The question practically writes itself: how did a movement once defined by dissent become so cautious in the presence of power?

The answer begins with a misunderstanding of feminism’s history. Contrary to the mythology, feminism has rarely been as radical as its reputation suggests. From the beginning, it contained competing factions. Like most political movements, feminism ended up rewarding the faction that was easiest for institutions to accommodate.

During the second wave feminism of the 1960s and 1970s, ideological debates within the movement were fierce, on everything from pornography and capitalism to lesbianism and marriage. Different factions claimed the feminist banner, but only one ultimately ended up with the microphones and funding.

The version that eventually dominated was the one that institutions could live with. One that foundations could fund with their shady backers, and universities could fall over themselves to host. Corporations and government learned to speak its language, and vice-versa, and feminism became a feature of the power structure itself.

That evolution did produce some real achievements, although there’s debate over the extent to which they were inevitable anyway, particularly given the relative freedom of women in the Soviet Union during the Cold War era, especially in the labor force with a reported 80% employed outside the home by 1983, and America’s desire to better compete economically with the USSR by increasing its own female workforce.

Women gained financial independence, legal rights, and social freedoms that previous generations couldn’t imagine. A woman could apply for a credit card without a male co-signer. She could sign a lease without being asked if she worked as a prostitute to pay for it. She could open a bank account, and chart a life that didn’t require a permanent male escort through adulthood. If she needed help fixing a car or assembling furniture, she could hire someone rather than entering into a lifetime contractual arrangement with the nearest man who owned a wrench.

But that success also had a side effect. The movement grew comfortable inside the institutions that it once challenged. Once feminism became part of the establishment, it absorbed the establishment’s unwritten rules, including the careful language, the strategic silence, and the understanding that certain forms of dissent were impolite.

The result is an inversion. Today’s feminist spaces are visually diverse and rhetorically inclusive, but ideologically narrower than many earlier feminist debates. Attend a modern conference or browse the programs of prominent organizations and you will find every conceivable identity represented in the most superficial sense. What you will struggle to find is genuine ideological diversity. Women who depart from the prevailing worldview rarely appear, unless they have been carefully vetted as safe exceptions.

In other words, the contemporary movement celebrates difference everywhere except in thought.

This narrowing has produced some odd priorities. Feminist institutions have spent enormous energy adjudicating language, identity categories, and cultural etiquette. The result comes across as theatrical and performative. Meanwhile, questions of war, foreign policy, and state power often receive more cautious treatment, depending on the guy in charge. For instance, does anyone recall a feminist movement against former President Barack Obama’s drone striking half the planet? Me neither.

The reaction to the Iran strikes underscores the same problem. When President Donald Trump announced that Washington had joined Israel in bombing Iranian targets, killing senior figures and igniting regional tensions, the moment presented an obvious test. If feminism truly champions human rights and the protection of civilians, surely the deaths of schoolgirls in a bombing campaign would provoke unmitigated public outrage.

Yet many prominent Western women in positions of authority responded with a remarkable delicacy. Statements focused on “regional stability,” “security concerns,” and the importance of “avoiding escalation.” Direct condemnation of the strikes was rare. Even leaders who frequently invoke feminist values in foreign policy appeared reluctant to criticize the military actions too bluntly.

Consider Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission’s unelected president and one of the most powerful women in European and global politics. Her remarks on the conflict emphasized diplomacy and stability but avoided direct denunciation of the attack itself. Similar rhetorical caution appeared across Western institutions led by women who regularly embody or champion the role of women in power. Yet where were they when this prime opportunity presented itself to exercise it? They’re always keen to correct someone’s vocabulary but seem less interested in criticizing a bombing campaign when it involves the country they’ve hitched themselves to like a tradwife. They may not appreciate Trump himself, but they’re dependent on the position that he represents as US commander-in-chief.

Meanwhile, the online celebrations by diaspora influencers dancing in response to the bombing campaign represent another strange mutation of modern feminist-adjacent activism. War is reframed as liberation. The logic suggests that bombs dropped under the right pretext somehow advance women’s rights, even when those bombs fall on girls who will never grow old enough to enjoy those freedoms. That is, if they ever do come into existence, given the poor track record so far.

Perhaps the deeper problem is that feminism today lacks ambition. Specifically, that of challenging power. Movements that begin as rebellions often become institutions, which ultimately favor stability.

Feminism was never supposed to be just another bunch of seats at The Man’s table. Its original promise was disruption and the insistence that women could question every system of authority that governed their lives.

If that spirit still exists, then this moment should be an invitation to rediscover it. Feminism doesn’t need more carefully worded statements from women in power, but rather courage to say something genuinely uncomfortable when the establishment goes way offside.

A movement that can address these challenges with the same confidence that it brings to social debates would be a feminism worthy of its history. Anything less risks becoming exactly what earlier generations fought against: a demure and compliant accessory to the status quo.

The Russian president’s comment comes as Kiev has halted oil supplies via the Druzhba pipeline, jeopardizing energy security in the bloc

Russian President Vladimir Putin has likened the relationship between Ukraine and the European Union to “the tail wagging the dog,” saying that despite the aggressive behavior of the government in Kiev, Brussels keeps supporting it.

The Ukrainian authorities are preventing vital Russian oil from reaching Hungary and Slovakia via the Druzhba pipeline, which runs through Ukraine, claiming it was damaged by Russian strikes – claims Moscow rejects. Budapest and Bratislava have repeatedly accused Kiev of blackmail. They also say Brussels has sided with Ukraine instead of backing two EU member states.

“The situation is very strange,” Putin said on Sunday in an interview with Vesti. “I get the impression that we are dealing with a case where ‘the tail is wagging the dog’, and not the other way around.”

The Russian president called the stance taken by Kiev dangerous and aggressive. He stressed that Brussels is continuing to provide Ukraine with endless support, both in weapons and financial aid.

Commenting on the energy market, Putin emphasized that halting transit could further undermine the energy security of EU member states, as happened after the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines.

“Yet the EU prefers to continue the supply, effectively indulging the Kiev regime,” Putin added.

Putin criticized Western countries for the ongoing crisis in Ukraine, describing it as a “systemic mistake.” The president said the conflict began with Western support for a coup in Kiev, followed by the reunification of Crimea with Russia and unrest in southeastern Ukraine, including Donbass and Novorossiya. 

“These are not our actions,” Putin asserted, adding that European countries were now “reaping what they have sown.”

Budapest impounded armored trucks carrying tens of millions of dollars as part of a money laundering investigation

Hungarian authorities swooped in on two Ukrainian armored trucks near Budapest on Thursday, seizing tens of millions of dollars in cash and nine kilograms of gold, sparking one of the most explosive diplomatic confrontations between the two countries in recent months.

The arrest also coincided with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky issuing a direct military threat to Prime Minister Viktor Orban.

While Hungary suggested the trucks could be linked to a money-laundering operation run by a Ukrainian “war mafia,” Kiev accused Budapest of “blackmail,” “theft,” and “state banditism.” Unconfirmed media reports have also suggested the shipment may have been tied to backroom dealings between Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky and EU power brokers.

The incident comes amid already strained relations between Budapest and Kiev, with the two sides locked in disputes over oil transit and Hungary’s reluctance to back Ukraine in its conflict with Russia.

A Budapest bust

On March 5, Hungary’s Counter-Terrorism Centre (TEK) intercepted two armored vehicles near Budapest. Officers dressed in black surrounded the trucks at a gas station and forced the crew members to the ground.

🚨 Watch the moment the “Ukrainian gold convoy” was stopped.

In the video: armored cash vehicles carrying $40M, €35M and 9 kg of gold through 🇭🇺 Hungary toward Ukraine. Among those detained was a former Ukrainian intelligence general.

This is not an ordinary transfer. Since… pic.twitter.com/LpMfQvlK71

— Balázs Orbán (@BalazsOrban_HU) March 6, 2026

The trucks and their crews belonged to Ukraine’s state-owned Oschadbank and were carrying $40 million and €35 million ($40.6 million) in cash, along with nine kilograms of gold from Austria’s Raiffeisen Bank International.

Hungarian authorities briefly detained seven Ukrainian nationals, who were later deported back to their homeland. The cash, gold, and the vehicles, however, remain impounded as evidence in the criminal investigation.

Who was trasnporting millions to Ukraine?

Neither Ukraine nor Hungary has officially disclosed the names of those involved in the transfer. However, Hungarian government spokesman Zoltan Kovacs said the operation was overseen by a former general from the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU), with a former Air Force major acting as his deputy. Several others also reportedly had military backgrounds.

‼️ We demand answers from Ukraine’s leadership!

Photos show the so-called “Ukrainian gold convoy” operation.

Hungarian authorities detained seven Ukrainian nationals — including a former intelligence general — who were transporting $40 million, €35 million and 9 kg of gold… pic.twitter.com/PWUm82lqoE

— Balázs Orbán (@BalazsOrban_HU) March 6, 2026

Ukrainian investigative journalist Vitaly Glagola, citing sources, identified the general as Gennady Kuznetsov, the former head of the SBU’s Center for Special Operations to Combat Terrorism, adding that he had links to the Alpha special forces unit.

Ukrainian ‘war mafia’

Hungary’s Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto demanded “immediate answers” from Kiev regarding large cash shipments passing through the country, adding that they “raise serious questions about a possible link to the Ukrainian war mafia.”

According to Szijjarto, in 2026 alone, more than $900 million, €420 million, and 146 kilograms of gold bars were transported across Hungarian territory into Ukraine.

“Until Kiev provides clear explanations about the origin and purpose of the funds, Hungarian authorities will conduct a thorough investigation,” he added.

Ukrainian journalist Anatoly Shariy drew attention to the fact that the cash and gold were not packed in standard secure containers, suggesting the transfer could be tied to corrupt dealings between high-ranking Ukrainian officials and their backers in Brussels.

Citing sources, he claimed “the money belonged not to Zelensky himself, but to his accomplices from Europe.”

“The money belongs to very specific people. And in Brussels, they know to whom it belongs,” he said, adding that Orban’s move “hit where it hurts.”

Zelensky threatening Orban

On the day the cash trucks were impounded, Zelensky escalated his long-running war of words with Orban, denouncing his decision to block a planned €90 billion emergency EU loan for Kiev. Budapest said it was a response to Ukraine preventing key Russian oil supplies from reaching Hungary via the Druzhba pipeline.

Zelensky said he hoped “one person” in the EU blocking the loan – widely understood to mean Orban – would reconsider his position. Otherwise, he warned, “we will give the address of this person to our armed forces… so they can communicate with him in their own language.”

Orban responded by saying “no threats to my life will deter me” from opposing what he described as Ukraine’s attempt to impose an “oil blockade” on Hungary.

Why was millions in cash in armored trucks?

Typically, shipments of cash and gold of such value and across distances of hundreds of kilometers would be transported by air. However, after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, Ukrainian airspace was closed, forcing them to go overland for security reasons, according to Strana.ua.

A source within Oschadbank told the outlet that similar deliveries had been carried out “for years, almost every week, with the same partner – Austria’s Raiffeisen Bank – and with a standard set of documents.” The source added that “this is why we view the detention as politically motivated.” Raiffeisen Bank told Bloomberg its employees were not involved, declining to comment further, citing security policies.

According to Strana, Ukraine’s banking sector imported $11.8 billion in foreign cash in 2025 and $15.9 billion in 2024, compared with $4.3 billion in 2021.

Sources at Oschadbank described the seized shipment as a routine delivery intended to replenish cash reserves at the bank’s branches and partner banks. However, the outlet did not explain the involvement of a former SBU general in the operation.

Can Ukrainian retaliate against Hungary?

Officials in Kiev said they were preparing to retaliate by urging the EU to impose sanctions on Hungary. Ukraine’s national police have opened criminal proceedings against Hungary on charges of hostage-taking and unlawful deprivation of liberty, filing requests with Europol.

According to a source cited by Strana, the National Bank of Ukraine was “furious” over the incident and is considering measures against OTP Bank Ukraine, a subsidiary of Hungary’s OTP Group and one of the country’s key banks.

However, the same source warned that any serious action against the bank could pose major risks to Ukraine’s economy at a time when it can least afford them.

Why is Ukraine targeting Hungary? 

Relations between Hungary and Ukraine have been on the rocks for years, as Budapest has been reluctant to support Kiev’s aspirations to join NATO and the EU and has refused to send arms to its neighbor.

In recent months, the stand-off escalated over the Soviet-era Druzhba pipeline carrying Russian oil through Ukraine to Hungary and Slovakia. In late January, Kiev shut down the artery, claiming it was damaged in Russian strikes, which Moscow has denied. Budapest and Bratislava have echoed Russia’s stance, accusing Ukraine of blackmail and deliberate disruption of the supply for political reasons.

In response, Orban vetoed a new round of EU sanctions against Russia and blocked the €90 billion loan package, while also deploying Hungarian troops to guard key energy infrastructure, warning that Ukraine could attempt further disruptions.

Terrorists have attacked a village in the state of Benue, murdering and wounding dozens of residents, according to the Patriarchate 

At least ten residents of the Christian village of Turan in Nigeria have been killed in a raid carried out by Islamic terrorists, including two parishioners of the Russian Orthodox Church, the Patriarchal Exarchate of Africa said on Saturday.

The Russian Orthodox Church’s Patriarchal Exarchate in Africa said that in the latest raid on March 6 other residents of the village were wounded, and those remaining were forced to flee for their lives. Local authorities have warned that further searches may uncover additional victims. 

The Exarchate added that among those killed were Ioann Akule and Daniil Ahemba, members of the local Russian Orthodox community, noting that “these are the first parishioners in Africa of the Russian Orthodox Church to be killed for their faith.”

According to the statement, Turan was home to 50 Orthodox Christians, including 20 children.

“People had to leave everything behind, and due to the influx of refugees into the nearby town, it is difficult to find even drinking water and food,” said Archimandrite Nifont, the head of the local community, who stressed that some require medical assistance.

The Exarchate said it had launched an urgent fundraising campaign to support the survivors as the community struggles to cope with the humanitarian consequences of the attack.

Nigeria’s northwest region has been plagued by an upsurge in raids and kidnappings carried out by armed gangs. The groups have attacked villages, schools, and places of worship.

In early February 2026, militants carried out coordinated assaults on villages in Kwara State, killing more than 160 people in one of the deadliest incidents in recent months.

Days later, motorcycle-riding gunmen attacked several villages in Niger State, leaving at least 46 people dead. Later that month, militants raided communities in Kebbi State, killing at least 34 residents. Last week, gunmen attacked two villages in northeastern Nigeria, leaving at least 25 people dead.

While the continent is legally committed to being a nuclear-free zone, its security is challenged by the lack of clarity in global nuclear politics

Did you know there was a time when Africa actually possessed nuclear weapons? Why, then, does the continent no longer have them? Looking back, we can see this was a historic turning point – a moment when the region’s security trajectory took a decisive shift.

In a world of great power dynamics where the possession of nuclear weapons shapes strategic deterrence from adversaries, Africa, endowed with vast natural resources and an estimated 1.6 billion people, once opted to become a nuclear-weapon-free zone. Amid geopolitical tensions and repeated threats of the use of force against sovereign states, Africa’s restraint now faces a critical test: is it a peace dividend – or simply a strategic vulnerability in a fractured world?

Africa’s only nuclear bomb

Africa’s restraint is justified on the grounds of moral and legal obligations enshrined in international treaties. Historically, South Africa under the apartheid regime is the only country in Africa to have ever possessed nuclear weapons.

Six air-deliverable nuclear weapons were developed between 1970 and 1980 by the apartheid regime to counter African revolutionary movements backed by Cuban troops and the Soviet Union that sought independence and freedom from colonial rule, particularly in Mozambique and Angola.

Amid heightened calls for freedom and reduced tensions among Cold War powers in the late 1980s, the apartheid regime faced collective sanctions and growing international isolation. Economically, nuclear weapons also proved extremely expensive to maintain.

The most crucial among these challenges was the fear that the African National Congress (ANC), a Pan-African political party, would take possession of the nuclear weapons when the regime finally fell.

It was against this backdrop that the president of the apartheid regime, Frederik Willem de Klerk, reluctantly considered the relaxation of apartheid laws and released Nelson Mandela, who was the deputy president of the ANC, from prison and called for the dismantling of nuclear arsenals between 1989 and 1990.

However, the ANC saw it as a victory against weapons of mass destruction. As Mandela stated in 1998, at the UN General Assembly about the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear weapons, “We must ask the question, which might sound naive to those who have elaborated sophisticated arguments to justify their refusal to eliminate these terrible and terrifying weapons of mass destruction – why do they need them anyway?”

“In reality, no rational answer can be advanced to explain in a satisfactory manner what, in the end, is the consequence of Cold War inertia and an attachment to the use of the threat of brute force to assert the primacy of some States over others,” he added.

‘We are not freeing ourselves only to be destroyed by nuclear weapons’

The ANC’s position echoed Pan-African scholarship that associated nuclear weapons with destruction and imperialism by external powers and called for their abolition.

“Africa should be declared a nuclear-free zone and freed from cold war exigencies,” Kwame Nkrumah, the first president of Ghana, declared during the first summit of the Organization of African Unity (African Union today) in May 1963.

This Pan-African conviction can be categorized at least into two strands: the Gandhian, non-violent abolitionist approach of the 1950s and 1960s led by Nkrumah and the second approach emerged in the 1970s championed by the famous Kenyan scholar, Ali Mazrui.

Mazrui argued that disarmament can be achieved only after proliferation of nuclear weapons in African countries. In effect, he was advocating nuclear proliferation as the only realistic path to nuclear disarmament. He believed that countries in the West would only consider seriously giving up nuclear weapons when such weaponry fell into the hands of African and other Third World governments. These ideas could have emanated from historical realities: many colonial powers only agreed to grant independence to African countries after a proportionate use of force was applied by the colonies to defend their homelands.

Nevertheless, President Nkrumah remained resolute in his quest to promote a non-violent approach to ensure disarmament through speeches and conferences, most notably the 1962 conference ‘World without bombs’ held in Accra. Ghana was one of the first countries to sign the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in Moscow.

However, he did not rule out the use of nuclear energy for civilian and peaceful purposes. Nkrumah stated, “We have always stood for the use of fissionable material exclusively for peaceful ends. We have consistently stood against the unnecessary proliferation of weapons of mass destructions, and with equal consistency for the abolition of such weapons.”

Nkrumah viewed nuclear weapons as a means of destruction with no contribution to the development of the continent. He emphasized this in 1960 in his response to the first French nuclear test. France practically carried out nuclear colonialism with over 200 nuclear tests held between 1960 and 1966 in the Sahara alone (and then in French Polynesia from 1966 to 1996).

More than 10,000 workers, in addition to Tuareg residents, were exposed to various forms of radiations that spread about 3,000 km from Algeria in North Africa through the Sahara to Sudan in north-east Africa and Senegal, Burkina Faso, and Cote d’Ivoire in west Africa.

The negative effect was so enormous that the French authorities prevented international investigations, and until 2014,  underreported the data of the actual impact. To Nkrumah, this was an attempt to balkanize African states.

“We in Africa wish to live and develop... we are not freeing ourselves from centuries of imperialism and colonialism only to be maimed and destroyed by nuclear weapons,” he stated.

The Pelindaba Treaty

The Pan-African thoughts advocated by Nkrumah formed the basis of the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty, also known as the Pelindaba Treaty. The treaty was named after South Africa’s main nuclear research center, ‘Pelindaba’, which means “end of story” in Zulu and at first referred to the classified nature of the apartheid-era facility.  Later the name became a symbol for the end of the country’s nuclear weapons program. The treaty was adopted on June 2, 1995, to signify South Africa’s decision to become a nuclear-weapon-free state.

Consequently, the treaty entrenches peaceful co-existence and moral leadership as core African values. Although the treaty was opened for signature in April 1996, it only entered into force on July 15, 2009. The delay reflected at the time the prevailing internal and external challenges which hindered acquisition of the 28 minimum instrument of ratifications needed for its adoption, as stipulated under Article 18 of the treaty.

These included limited sense of urgency after the Cold War and concentration on internal issues such as civil wars in DR Congo, Sierra Leone, and Liberia, as well as institutional transitions of the African Union between 1996 and 2002. The Pelindaba Treaty currently has 51 signatories.

The treaty, as specified in Article 3, comprehensively renunciates researching, developing, manufacturing, stockpiling, acquisition, testing, possessing, controlling or stationing nuclear weapons, as well as even seeking assistance to carry out such activities or the dumping of radioactive waste.

The treaty complements the United Nations Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) by sharing similar provisions. The preamble of the Pelindaba Treaty in particular affirms the peaceful use of nuclear energy under Article IV of the NPT. The NPT has 191 signatories, including 53 African states, as well as ratifications by five nuclear-armed countries: the US, Russia, China, France, and the UK.

Double standards in the nuclear order

Notwithstanding Africa’s legal clarity on nuclear weapons and disarmament, the continent’s security calculus is complicated by the ambiguities in the global nuclear system. One notable example is the case of the nuclear weapon-sharing agreement among NATO member countries such as Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Türkiye that have ratified the NPT and are considered non-nuclear-weapon states.

They therefore fall directly under Article II of the NPT which obliges non-nuclear weapon state parties not to receive “the transfer from any transfer of whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly,” while Article I of the NPT specifically obliges nuclear weapon state parties, including the US, not to transfer such weapons to any recipient.

The irony, however, is that Europe is protected under the US nuclear umbrella through NATO’s weapon-sharing arrangement, including the storing of over 100 US-owned nuclear weapons in five NATO member countries across six different bases.

According to a study by the Berlin Information Center for Transatlantic Security, neither the US nor NATO ever lived up to then-US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara’s promise “to make every effort to explain both our non-proliferation and our NATO nuclear sharing policies and to demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt, that there is no conflict between them.”

The authors of the research conclude that many state parties were “unaware of the NATO countries’ unilateral interpretation of the NPT and its meaning when they signed the Treaty” and that “the details of NATO nuclear sharing arrangements or the interpretation had been made available to all NPT parties prior to joining the Treaty.”

Another ambiguity arises from the non-ratification of the NPT by nuclear-armed states, including India and Pakistan, despite the tensions between the two countries. North Korea signed the treaty in 1985, but withdrew in 2003 and declared itself a nuclear-armed state.

Lastly is the controversy over Israel’s nuclear policies. Israel has neither signed nor ratified the NPT, and nor has it allowed full inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of some of its nuclear sites, including the IRR-2 research reactor at the Negev Nuclear Research Center, believed to have possibly assisted in producing its first nuclear weapon in 1966-67. The country maintains ambiguity in its response as to whether or not it possesses nuclear weapons.

When asked in 2018 by Mehdi Hasan, an Al Jazeera journalist, about an alleged 80-400 secret illicit nuclear weapons that Israel may possess, Danny Ayalon, the former Israeli deputy foreign affairs minister, responded: “So what?

‘The only language Europe and America understand’

It is irrefutable that all three ambiguities stem from the need for self-defense or deterrence. Professor Patrick Loch Otieno Lumumba, a Kenyan lawyer and activist, and former head of the Kenya Law School, once said, “Sometimes, I wish we (Africa), too, have nuclear weapons, because that is the only language Europe and America understand.”

This statement broadly reflects continuous interference in the internal affairs of African countries, including the 2011 NATO invasion of Libya, which, some argue, would not have happened if the country had been in possession of nuclear weapons for deterrence at the time, as it’s the most assured way of protecting the sovereignty of a state.

Africa is prioritizing peace and providing basic needs of life for its people despite the continent’s vast natural resources available for nuclear weapons production. African countries, particularly Niger, Namibia, and South Africa, supply uranium to Europe to produce nuclear energy and to some extent for nuclear defense purposes. Meanwhile, most African countries rely on foreign military assistance, which is highly volatile.

Africa’s clarity on nuclear weapons presents moral leadership for development in a peaceful world. However, amid heightened geopolitical tensions, the continent stands at a crossroads on whether its moral leadership could serve as a precedent for nuclear disarmament, or whether this simply exposes it to dangerous vulnerability.

Stockholm suspects the vessel of being part of what it claims is a “shadow fleet”

Sweden has intercepted a cargo ship believed to be part of Russia’s so-called “shadow fleet” in the Baltic Sea, the country’s public broadcaster SVT reported on Saturday, citing the Swedish Coast Guard.

Moscow maintains that the notion of a Russian-operated “shadow fleet” is unfounded. According to Kremlin officials, the term is used to describe vessels that transport cargo outside the coverage of London-based insurance brokers.

Russia insists that even if such ships carry sanctioned cargo, Western countries have no legal basis to enforce these sanctions on the high seas under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

The Caffa, the vessel in question, was reportedly seized on Friday in cooperation with Swedish police aviation and the National Task Force. Authorities are currently conducting searches and questioning the 11 crew members, 10 of whom hold Russian citizenship.

The ship is listed on Ukraine’s sanctions list and sails under the flag of Guinea, although the Swedish Coast Guard says its flag status remains unclear.

According to tracking data, the cargo ship departed Casablanca, Morocco, in late February, bound for Saint Petersburg, and was expected to arrive on March 10. Built in 1997, the vessel had previously sailed under the flags of Malta and Russia before switching to the flag of Guinea, the data tracked by VesselFinder shows.

Swedish Minister of Civil Defense Carl-Oskar Bohlin posted on X that the authorities have yet to determine if the vessel “meets the requirements for navigating in our waters.” Bohlin cited “the significant challenge posed by the so-called shadow fleet” as the reason for the seizure.

The Russian embassy in Stockholm said it was in contact with local authorities about the ship’s Russian crew members and offered the detainees consular assistance.

The Caffa is the first cargo ship carrying grain to be seized on suspicion of sanctions violations. Previous interceptions by Western allies have primarily targeted oil tankers or other energy-related shipments, rather than general cargo vessels.

Moscow has condemned the recent seizures of Russian cargo vessels, which Western countries have conducted under various pretexts.

In February, Russian presidential aide Nikolay Patrushev called on the BRICS countries to demonstrate strategic maritime cooperation in order to defend global shipping lanes from “Western piracy.”

The dispute over seized funds and gold bars exacerbated the multilayered tensions between Budapest and Kiev

A Ukrainian state-owned bank has demanded that Hungary return tens of millions of dollars in cash and gold bars seized from an armored truck convoy, which Budapest claims could be tied to what officials have described as a “Ukraine war mafia.”

The dispute adds to mounting tensions between the neighboring countries over Russian oil, sanctions, financial aid to Kiev, and the conscription of ethnic Hungarians into the Ukrainian army, which recently prompted Vladimir Zelensky to issue a personal threat to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban.

Earlier this week, Hungarian police stopped two armored vehicles carrying around $80 million in US dollars and euros as well as nine kilograms of gold on suspicion of money laundering. Seven Ukrainian nationals traveling with the convoy were detained and later deported.

🚨 Watch the moment the “Ukrainian gold convoy” was stopped.

In the video: armored cash vehicles carrying $40M, €35M and 9 kg of gold through 🇭🇺 Hungary toward Ukraine. Among those detained was a former Ukrainian intelligence general.

This is not an ordinary transfer. Since… pic.twitter.com/LpMfQvlK71

— Balázs Orbán (@BalazsOrban_HU) March 6, 2026

In a statement released on Sunday, Ukraine’s Oschadbank demanded the return of what it described as “illegally seized” assets that had been deposited in the bank by Ukrainian citizens and businesses. According to Oschadbank, the funds were being transported from its partner, Austria’s Raiffeisen Bank, as part of a routine transfer.

Orban questioned the legitimacy of the funds, saying that Ukraine had not explained why such a large sum was being transported through Hungary or where it came from.

“We just want to know what the Ukrainians are doing with all this money in Hungary,” he said at a campaign rally in Debrecen. “All we have right now are questions, but we will find the answers,” Orban added.

Budapest has accused Kiev of deliberately shutting down a Soviet-era pipeline that delivers Russian oil to Hungary through Ukrainian territory.

Ukraine, which has been pressuring Hungary to stop buying the oil, claimed that the pipeline was damaged by a Russian strike.

Last month, Hungary blocked a $105 billion EU loan to Ukraine, after which Zelensky threatened to reveal Orban’s address to Ukrainian troops so they could “call him and speak with him in their own language.” Hungary and the EU have denounced the threat as unacceptable.

The Republican senator has been selected to replace Kristi Noem as DHS head amid the continued standoff with Democrats over immigration

US President Donald Trump has named Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma as his nominee for secretary of homeland security.

Mullin replaces Kristi Noem, who was dismissed following bipartisan criticism over her handling of the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, both killed by immigration officers in Minneapolis.

On Truth Social, Trump described the Republican senator as a “warrior” with the necessary “wisdom and courage” to advance his America First agenda. He told NBC that he was a “big fan” of Mullin, adding that “it wasn’t a hard choice” to nominate him.

Wrestler-turned-senator

Mullin enjoyed a brief career in mixed martial arts and collegiate wrestling, compiling a 5‑0 record, before leaving the sport to take over his family’s plumbing business. He was first elected to Congress in 2012 and served three terms in the House before becoming a senator in 2023.

When he first ran for the House, Mullin presented himself as an outsider frustrated with government regulations on businesses. However, he later faced controversy for receiving substantial funds from a federal Covid-19 rescue program, totaling between $800,000 and $1.9 million for four separate businesses he owned, according to PBS.

In 2023, Mullin challenged Sean O’Brien, head of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, to a physical fight during a Senate hearing. He told CNN at the time that physical violence could be an effective way to deal with “keyboard warriors” who speak online without facing consequences.

An enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation, Mullin is the first tribal citizen to serve in the Senate in roughly two decades.

Homeland Security hardliner

In the Senate, Mullin has been a staunch supporter of Trump’s policies on immigration and law enforcement. He defended the shootings of Good and Pretti as justified, describing Pretti as a “deranged individual who came in to cause massive damage with a loaded pistol,” according to Forbes. He also supported Noem’s claims that federal agents were responding to acts of domestic terrorism.

Mullin backed Trump’s efforts to limit birthright citizenship, arguing that babies born in the US to undocumented parents should be deported alongside them. He claimed there is “a whole industry” of bringing pregnant women “in their last month” on vacation visas to secure US citizenship for their children.

In February, Mullin told CNBC that everyone should carry proof of citizenship and present it to law enforcement when asked.

“Yes, I’m a Republican, yes I’m conservative,” Mullin said following his nomination. “No matter if you support me, you don’t support me, I’m going to be laser-focused on getting that done.”

He also criticized Democrats in Congress for a partial government shutdown that led to a funding lapse at the Department of Homeland Security in February, saying, “They’re not stopping [immigration agents] from doing their job.”

Standoff with Democrats

If approved by the Senate, Mullin will take over as the new head of the DHS on March 31. In addition to facing widespread criticism for her response to the deaths of Good and Pretti, his predecessor, Noem, was accused of using departmental resources for self-promotion and flashy publicity stunts.

Mullin will have to oversee the implementation of Trump’s tough crackdown on illegal immigration in Democrat-led cities, where political leaders have refused to cooperate with federal agents and activists often attempt to block their work.

The US president’s assertion contradicts investigations by Western media pointing to likely American responsibility

US President Donald Trump has denied American responsibility for the strike on an Iranian school that killed 175 people, most of them children, suggesting instead that a faulty Iranian missile was to blame.

His remarks contradict investigations by AP, CNN, the New York Times, and the Washington Post, which concluded – based on satellite imagery and other visual evidence – that the US likely destroyed a girls’ elementary school in the southern Iranian city of Minab during a February 28 bombardment of nearby Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps sites.

Asked on Saturday whether the US was responsible for the strike on the school, Trump said, “In my opinion, based on what I’ve seen, that was done by Iran.”

A reporter then asked US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, “Is that true … it was Iran that did that?” Hegseth said, “We’re investigating it,” adding that “the only side that targets civilians is Iran.”

Trump interjected, saying, “We think it was done by Iran, because they’re very inaccurate, as you know, with their munitions. They have no accuracy whatsoever.”

On Thursday, Reuters cited two US officials as saying that American military investigators believe US forces were likely responsible for the strike on the school in Minab. The outlet noted that no final conclusions have been reached, as the investigation is ongoing.

The destruction of the school remains the deadliest single strike in the US‑Israeli war on Iran that was launched on February 28.

The United Nations has condemned the attack as “a grave assault on children, on education, and on the future of an entire community,” stressing that “civilians must never be treated as collateral.”