<p>Even before the controversy dies down over the BBC’s deceptively edited footage of Donald Trump’s speech—which led to the resignation of Director General Deborah Turness and News CEO Jessica Cecil—the Australian state-run broadcaster ABC is now being accused of doing the same. According to reports, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) edited parts of Trump’s remarks in its investigative programme <i>Four Corners</i>, which aired on 8 February 2021. Unlike the BBC, however, the ABC has refused to revisit the programme. Here is what we know about the latest media storm.</p><h2>The controversy of ABC programme on Trump</h2><p>The ABC is accused of editing footage of Trump’s 6 January 2021 speech, delivered before the Capitol riot, in its flagship programme. The public broadcaster allegedly cut key remarks in which Trump urged supporters to protest peacefully against the 2020 presidential election results, which he claimed were fraudulent. The segment allegedly made it appear that Trump was directly inciting violence at the US Capitol. The episode, titled <i>Downfall: The Last Days of President Trump</i>, showed Trump speaking at the White House Ellipse, telling supporters: “We’re going to walk down, and I’ll be there with you. You’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong.” However, moments later in the same speech, Trump had said: “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”&nbsp;</p><p>The ABC version reportedly did not include this part, instead cutting straight to footage of the Capitol riot. Commentators such as Sky News host Chris Kenny argued that this editing falsely suggested Trump had called for violence, or that the riot followed immediately after Trump's ‘instigation’.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-slams-dishonest-bbc-1762785769573">Trump slams ‘dishonest’ BBC; outgoing news chief Turness defends it as ‘not institutionally biased’</a></p><h2>ABC doubles down, denies wrongdoing in Trump video</h2><p>The ABC has strongly denied any wrongdoing. A spokesperson said the excerpt was taken from one continuous section of the speech and accurately reflected Trump’s tone and message at that point. “The quote was used accurately and in context,” the ABC said, adding that comparisons with the BBC’s conduct were “opportunistic and false.” No correction or apology has been issued. ABC Managing Director David Anderson has dismissed the claims, saying the network’s reporting meets high editorial standards.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/bbc-receives-letter-from-donald-trump-threatening-legal-action-1762828676270/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/bbc-receives-letter-from-donald-trump-threatening-legal-action-1762828676270/embed</a></p><h2>The BBC case and Team Trump's threat to sue</h2><p>The ABC controversy resurfaced after the BBC admitted to deceptive editing in its Panorama programme, broadcast in October 2025. The BBC documentary spliced together two separate parts of Trump’s January 6 speech—delivered 54 minutes apart—creating the impression that Trump was calling for violence. A leaked internal memo of the BBC confirmed the manipulation, leading to the resignations of its top brass. BBC Chair Samir Shah later apologised for an “error of judgement,” while denying systemic bias. Trump’s lawyers have threatened a US $1 billion lawsuit, calling the BBC programme “defamatory and politically motivated.”</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-says-he-has-obligation-to-sue-bbc-but-can-he-win-it-s-complicated-because-1762937821124/amp">Trump says he has ‘obligation to sue' BBC, but can he win? It's complicated because…</a></p><h2>Political row in Australia over ABC programme on Trump</h2><p>In Australia, conservative commentators and News Corp outlets have seized on the ABC case as evidence of anti-Trump bias in public media.&nbsp;</p><p>Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has defended the ABC as “a vital national institution,” while the Australian Communications and Media Authority has not announced any investigation. The episode has reignited debate over impartiality and accountability in publicly funded journalism.</p>

Australian public broadcaster ABC is now being accused of deceptively editing Trump’s Jan 6 speech, similar to a BBC programme that led to its top brass resigning. This is raising questions about public broadcaster integrity and bias in Australia.
 

Even before the controversy dies down over the BBC’s deceptively edited footage of Donald Trump’s speech—which led to the resignation of Director General Deborah Turness and News CEO Jessica Cecil—the Australian state-run broadcaster ABC is now being accused of doing the same. According to reports, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) edited parts of Trump’s remarks in its investigative programme Four Corners, which aired on 8 February 2021. Unlike the BBC, however, the ABC has refused to revisit the programme. Here is what we know about the latest media storm. The controversy of ABC programme on Trump The ABC is accused of editing footage of Trump’s 6 January 2021 speech, delivered before the Capitol riot, in its flagship programme. The public broadcaster allegedly cut key remarks in which Trump urged supporters to protest peacefully against the 2020 presidential election results, which he claimed were fraudulent. The segment allegedly made it appear that Trump was directly inciting violence at the US Capitol. The episode, titled Downfall: The Last Days of President Trump, showed Trump speaking at the White House Ellipse, telling supporters: “We’re going to walk down, and I’ll be there with you. You’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong.” However, moments later in the same speech, Trump had said: “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” The ABC version reportedly did not include this part, instead cutting straight to footage of the Capitol riot. Commentators such as Sky News host Chris Kenny argued that this editing falsely suggested Trump had called for violence, or that the riot followed immediately after Trump's ‘instigation’. Also read: Trump slams ‘dishonest’ BBC; outgoing news chief Turness defends it as ‘not institutionally biased’ ABC doubles down, denies wrongdoing in Trump video The ABC has strongly denied any wrongdoing. A spokesperson said the excerpt was taken from one continuous section of the speech and accurately reflected Trump’s tone and message at that point. “The quote was used accurately and in context,” the ABC said, adding that comparisons with the BBC’s conduct were “opportunistic and false.” No correction or apology has been issued. ABC Managing Director David Anderson has dismissed the claims, saying the network’s reporting meets high editorial standards. https://www.wionews.com/videos/bbc-receives-letter-from-donald-trump-threatening-legal-action-1762828676270/embed The BBC case and Team Trump's threat to sue The ABC controversy resurfaced after the BBC admitted to deceptive editing in its Panorama programme, broadcast in October 2025. The BBC documentary spliced together two separate parts of Trump’s January 6 speech—delivered 54 minutes apart—creating the impression that Trump was calling for violence. A leaked internal memo of the BBC confirmed the manipulation, leading to the resignations of its top brass. BBC Chair Samir Shah later apologised for an “error of judgement,” while denying systemic bias. Trump’s lawyers have threatened a US $1 billion lawsuit, calling the BBC programme “defamatory and politically motivated.” Also read: Trump says he has ‘obligation to sue' BBC, but can he win? It's complicated because… Political row in Australia over ABC programme on Trump In Australia, conservative commentators and News Corp outlets have seized on the ABC case as evidence of anti-Trump bias in public media. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has defended the ABC as “a vital national institution,” while the Australian Communications and Media Authority has not announced any investigation. The episode has reignited debate over impartiality and accountability in publicly funded journalism.

<p>Australian public broadcaster ABC is now being accused of deceptively editing Trump’s Jan 6 speech, similar to a BBC programme that led to its top brass resigning. This is raising questions about public broadcaster integrity and bias in Australia.<br>&nbsp;</p>

After BBC vs Trump fiasco, Australia’s ABC accused of deceptive editing of US president’s speech

<p>Donald Trump has never shied away from making his disdain of the BBC known, having publicly aired his grievances against the British broadcaster. He once described the BBC derisively as 'another beauty', and now the tussle has escalated in the wake of the Panorama documentary fiasco. Trump is threatening to sue the BBC for one billion dollars over the wrongly edited footage of his 6 January 2021 speech ahead of the Capitol riot. This would be around one-third of the BBC's funds. But can he really sue the BBC, which is a public broadcaster paid for by UK households? If he does, can he win? Well, it's complicated. &nbsp;</p><h2>What exactly did Trump say on BBC? &nbsp;</h2><p>The BBC Panorama documentary <i>Trump: A Second Chance</i>, which aired on 28 October 2024, just ahead of the last presidential elections, is the bone of contention. &nbsp;Trump confirmed his intent to sue the BBC, saying in an interview that he has “an obligation” to act against the BBC’s alleged misrepresentation of his 2021 speech.&nbsp;</p><p>Trump’s legal team, led by Alejandro Brito, sent a cease-and-desist letter alleging that the BBC selectively spliced the footage to make Trump's speech appear more provocative, while omitting sections where he had urged supporters to act “peacefully and patriotically.” &nbsp;</p><p>The letter demanded a retraction, an apology, and compensation for “overwhelming reputational and financial harm” to Trump, and warned of a lawsuit seeking at least $1 billion if the demands are not met. The BBC chairman apologised for an “error of judgment,” but the broadcaster has not fully complied with Trump legal team's demands. &nbsp;</p><p>Also read: <a href="">Trump slams ‘dishonest’ BBC; outgoing news chief Turness defends it as ‘not institutionally biased’</a></p><h2>Does suing the BBC amount to suing the British taxpayer? &nbsp;</h2><p>The BBC gets most of its funds from the UK television licence fee, paid by some 24 million households and amounting to around £3.7 billion in 2024. &nbsp;As a public service broadcaster, the BBC answers to the British Parliament and not private shareholders. This, in essence, means suing the BBC is akin to suing the British taxpayer. If Trump is awarded any damages, they would have to come from public funds, insurance reserves, higher licence fees, or government support. &nbsp;</p><p>If Trump wins the lawsuit, it could strain the BBC’s budget, and taxpayers would have to bear the financial burden. &nbsp;</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-leftist-propaganda-white-house-slams-bbc-over-fake-news-against-trump-uk-govt-said-this-1762704156945">‘Leftist propaganda’: White House slams BBC over fake news against Trump, UK govt said THIS</a></p><h2>Where can Trump sue the BBC? &nbsp;</h2><p>At the time of writing, Trump’s legal team is not pursuing the case in the UK, but in the US state of Florida, relying on American jurisdiction over the BBC’s US operations, such as its Washington bureau and international streaming. &nbsp;</p><p>Team Trump is using Florida Statute 770.011, which requires pre-suit notice for libel actions against foreign entities. &nbsp;</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/bbc-receives-letter-from-donald-trump-threatening-legal-action-1762828676270/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/bbc-receives-letter-from-donald-trump-threatening-legal-action-1762828676270/embed</a></p><h2>Why Trump can't sue the BBC in the UK &nbsp;</h2><p>In this case, the one-year statute of limitations has passed, as the documentary aired in October 2024. Even if a case were filed in Britain, it could be dismissed as 'time-barred'. Florida is seen as more plaintiff-friendly, but even a favourable ruling there would not be enough. Enforcing a US judgment in the UK, where the BBC is based, would require separate proceedings under the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933. &nbsp;</p><h2>Who will hear the BBC case if Trump sues it? &nbsp;</h2><p>If the case is filed in Florida, it would be heard in a Florida Circuit Court, with a potential jury deciding liability and damages. Appeals could progress to Florida’s District Courts of Appeal, and then to the Florida Supreme Court. If moved to federal court via diversity jurisdiction, a US District Judge would preside over the case. US federal agencies like the FCC are unlikely to get involved, as it would be a private civil case. &nbsp;</p><h2>How will the BBC fight back? &nbsp;</h2><p>If the case is brought by Trump, the BBC is expected to challenge the jurisdiction of Florida, arguing insufficient ties and that the alleged defamation occurred in the UK. &nbsp;</p><p>Winning a case against the BBC is easier said than done, as threats and lawsuits from politicians are nothing new for the British public broadcaster. It has defended itself effectively using internal resources and public backing in the past. &nbsp;</p><h2>So, can Trump win against the BBC? &nbsp;</h2><p>Trump’s chances are being described as “slim to none" by legal experts, particularly given the strong First Amendment protections for media in the US Constitution. &nbsp;</p><p>As per the precedent set by the <i>New York Times v. Sullivan </i>case, Trump must prove “actual malice,” meaning the BBC knowingly falsified or recklessly disregarded the truth. This would be difficult, though the BBC’s partial admission of an editing error may support falsity. It would still be hard to prove that it was intentional rather than negligence. Jurisdictional disputes could also derail the case before it even reaches trial. &nbsp;</p><p>Even if Trump wins, $1 billion in damages is considered unrealistic, and the BBC is expected to contest the suit vigorously, potentially turning it into a test case for freedom of speech.</p>

Trump plans to sue the BBC over allegedly edited January 6, 2021 footage of his speech. He is targeting $1 billion in damages. But can he win?


Donald Trump has never shied away from making his disdain of the BBC known, having publicly aired his grievances against the British broadcaster. He once described the BBC derisively as 'another beauty', and now the tussle has escalated in the wake of the Panorama documentary fiasco. Trump is threatening to sue the BBC for one billion dollars over the wrongly edited footage of his 6 January 2021 speech ahead of the Capitol riot. This would be around one-third of the BBC's funds. But can he really sue the BBC, which is a public broadcaster paid for by UK households? If he does, can he win? Well, it's complicated. What exactly did Trump say on BBC? The BBC Panorama documentary Trump: A Second Chance, which aired on 28 October 2024, just ahead of the last presidential elections, is the bone of contention. Trump confirmed his intent to sue the BBC, saying in an interview that he has “an obligation” to act against the BBC’s alleged misrepresentation of his 2021 speech. Trump’s legal team, led by Alejandro Brito, sent a cease-and-desist letter alleging that the BBC selectively spliced the footage to make Trump's speech appear more provocative, while omitting sections where he had urged supporters to act “peacefully and patriotically.” The letter demanded a retraction, an apology, and compensation for “overwhelming reputational and financial harm” to Trump, and warned of a lawsuit seeking at least $1 billion if the demands are not met. The BBC chairman apologised for an “error of judgment,” but the broadcaster has not fully complied with Trump legal team's demands. Also read: Trump slams ‘dishonest’ BBC; outgoing news chief Turness defends it as ‘not institutionally biased’ Does suing the BBC amount to suing the British taxpayer? The BBC gets most of its funds from the UK television licence fee, paid by some 24 million households and amounting to around £3.7 billion in 2024. As a public service broadcaster, the BBC answers to the British Parliament and not private shareholders. This, in essence, means suing the BBC is akin to suing the British taxpayer. If Trump is awarded any damages, they would have to come from public funds, insurance reserves, higher licence fees, or government support. If Trump wins the lawsuit, it could strain the BBC’s budget, and taxpayers would have to bear the financial burden. Also read: ‘Leftist propaganda’: White House slams BBC over fake news against Trump, UK govt said THIS Where can Trump sue the BBC? At the time of writing, Trump’s legal team is not pursuing the case in the UK, but in the US state of Florida, relying on American jurisdiction over the BBC’s US operations, such as its Washington bureau and international streaming. Team Trump is using Florida Statute 770.011, which requires pre-suit notice for libel actions against foreign entities. https://www.wionews.com/videos/bbc-receives-letter-from-donald-trump-threatening-legal-action-1762828676270/embed Why Trump can't sue the BBC in the UK In this case, the one-year statute of limitations has passed, as the documentary aired in October 2024. Even if a case were filed in Britain, it could be dismissed as 'time-barred'. Florida is seen as more plaintiff-friendly, but even a favourable ruling there would not be enough. Enforcing a US judgment in the UK, where the BBC is based, would require separate proceedings under the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933. Who will hear the BBC case if Trump sues it? If the case is filed in Florida, it would be heard in a Florida Circuit Court, with a potential jury deciding liability and damages. Appeals could progress to Florida’s District Courts of Appeal, and then to the Florida Supreme Court. If moved to federal court via diversity jurisdiction, a US District Judge would preside over the case. US federal agencies like the FCC are unlikely to get involved, as it would be a private civil case. How will the BBC fight back? If the case is brought by Trump, the BBC is expected to challenge the jurisdiction of Florida, arguing insufficient ties and that the alleged defamation occurred in the UK. Winning a case against the BBC is easier said than done, as threats and lawsuits from politicians are nothing new for the British public broadcaster. It has defended itself effectively using internal resources and public backing in the past. So, can Trump win against the BBC? Trump’s chances are being described as “slim to none" by legal experts, particularly given the strong First Amendment protections for media in the US Constitution. As per the precedent set by the New York Times v. Sullivan case, Trump must prove “actual malice,” meaning the BBC knowingly falsified or recklessly disregarded the truth. This would be difficult, though the BBC’s partial admission of an editing error may support falsity. It would still be hard to prove that it was intentional rather than negligence. Jurisdictional disputes could also derail the case before it even reaches trial. Even if Trump wins, $1 billion in damages is considered unrealistic, and the BBC is expected to contest the suit vigorously, potentially turning it into a test case for freedom of speech.

<p>Trump plans to sue the BBC over allegedly edited January 6, 2021 footage of his speech. He is targeting $1 billion in damages. But can he win?<br>&nbsp;</p>

Trump says he has ‘obligation to sue' BBC, but can he win? It's complicated because…

<p>China has officially accused the United States of orchestrating a scheme to steal $14 billion worth of Bitcoin, allegedly one of the largest cryptocurrency thefts in history. The claim marks the latest twist in the long-running saga of the LuBian crypto mining pool. What really happened, and how is the whole story related to the ‘pig butchering scam’ and the baby-faced crypto entrepreneur Chen Zhi? Here is what you should know.</p><h2>The hack of LuBian</h2><p>LuBian was a China-based Bitcoin mining pool that reportedly operated facilities in both China and Iran. In December 2020, it was hit by a major cyberattack in which an estimated 127,426 Bitcoins were stolen. According to blockchain analysts, the cryptocurrency—worth about $3.5 billion at the time—is now valued at roughly $14 billion. The attackers allegedly drained LuBian’s “hot wallets” by exploiting vulnerabilities in its private key management system and possibly using zero-day exploits. Following the breach, LuBian’s operations quickly declined, and by early 2021, the mining pool went largely offline.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/trending/chinese-crypto-queen-in-london-she-duped-thousands-of-china-s-elderly-fled-to-the-uk-with-billions-and-got-caught-1762850563158">Chinese Crypto Queen in London: She duped thousands of China’s elderly, fled to the UK with billions – and got caught</a></p><h2>China’s fresh accusation of US involvement in the LuBian hack</h2><p>On Tuesday (Nov 11), the Chinese National Computer Virus Emergency Response Centre (CVERC) publicly accused the US government of being behind the 2020 LuBian hack. In an official report, CVERC claimed that the operation was a “state-level theft” carried out by American intelligence agencies using advanced hacking tools similar to those used in operations such as Stuxnet—the joint US-Israeli cyberattack that targeted Iran’s nuclear programme in 2010. According to CVERC, US agencies infiltrated LuBian’s systems, stole the Bitcoin, and kept the funds dormant until 2024. That year, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) seized nearly the same amount—127,271 BTC—as part of a criminal forfeiture case linked to Cambodian businessman Chen Zhi. At the time, it was described as the largest cryptocurrency forfeiture in US history.</p><p>CVERC argued that the DOJ’s seizure was an attempt to legitimise the stolen funds, framing the move as “thieves recovering their own loot”.&nbsp;</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/trending/remains-of-russian-crypto-millionaire-and-wife-found-buried-in-uae-desert-after-attempted-loot-1762917676726">Russian thugs dismember and bury crypto millionaire and wife after finding their crypto wallets were empty</a></p><h2>Who is Chen Zhi, and what is his crime?</h2><p>Chen Zhi is the founder of the Prince Group conglomerate. The US maintains that the 2024 Bitcoin seizure was lawful, as it was the wallet owned by Chen Zhi's group inside the LuBian mining pool. US court documents accused Chen Zhi of running a $6 billion global investment fraud through a company called EZ Blockchain, selling fake crypto mining equipment and laundering the proceeds. Chen is reportedly a fugitive and remains wanted by US authorities.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-praises-bitcoin-s-role-in-supporting-dollar-stability-1762493927574/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-praises-bitcoin-s-role-in-supporting-dollar-stability-1762493927574/embed</a></p><h2>How the LuBian case is linked to the ‘pig butchering scams’</h2><p>Investigators alleged that Chen Zhi’s operations may have overlapped with the so-called “pig butchering” scams. These are online fraud schemes in which victims are encouraged to invest in fake cryptocurrency platforms before being “slaughtered”, when their funds vanish. US prosecutors alleged that parts of Chen’s network promoted fraudulent mining investments similar to those used in pig butchering scams. They allegedly funnelled proceeds through LuBian to obscure their origins. If true, this would mean the same infrastructure tied to the LuBian hack also helped launder funds from global crypto scams across Asia, Europe and North America.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/why-are-crypto-markets-falling-1760706709071">Why are crypto markets falling? Explained</a></p><h2>Crypto, cyberwarfare, crime and global politics: Why the LuBian case is important</h2><p>The LuBian dispute highlights how cryptocurrency, geopolitics, and cyberwarfare increasingly intersect. China sees the alleged hack as part of a broader US effort to undermine its economic and technological influence, while the US portrays its actions as legitimate law enforcement against international fraud. Blockchain analysts say the wallets seized by the DOJ match those from the 2020 hack, but there is no independent evidence linking the breach to US intelligence agencies. The incident underlines how cryptocurrencies have become a new front in global power struggles.</p>

China has accused the US of stealing $14 billion worth of Bitcoin from the LuBian mining pool. LuBian is linked to Chen Zhi, a fugitive entrepreneur accused of fraud and 'pig butchering scams'. Know more about the fascinating saga of cyberwarfare and geopolitical tensions over cryptocurrency.


China has officially accused the United States of orchestrating a scheme to steal $14 billion worth of Bitcoin, allegedly one of the largest cryptocurrency thefts in history. The claim marks the latest twist in the long-running saga of the LuBian crypto mining pool. What really happened, and how is the whole story related to the ‘pig butchering scam’ and the baby-faced crypto entrepreneur Chen Zhi? Here is what you should know. The hack of LuBian LuBian was a China-based Bitcoin mining pool that reportedly operated facilities in both China and Iran. In December 2020, it was hit by a major cyberattack in which an estimated 127,426 Bitcoins were stolen. According to blockchain analysts, the cryptocurrency—worth about $3.5 billion at the time—is now valued at roughly $14 billion. The attackers allegedly drained LuBian’s “hot wallets” by exploiting vulnerabilities in its private key management system and possibly using zero-day exploits. Following the breach, LuBian’s operations quickly declined, and by early 2021, the mining pool went largely offline. Also read: Chinese Crypto Queen in London: She duped thousands of China’s elderly, fled to the UK with billions – and got caught China’s fresh accusation of US involvement in the LuBian hack On Tuesday (Nov 11), the Chinese National Computer Virus Emergency Response Centre (CVERC) publicly accused the US government of being behind the 2020 LuBian hack. In an official report, CVERC claimed that the operation was a “state-level theft” carried out by American intelligence agencies using advanced hacking tools similar to those used in operations such as Stuxnet—the joint US-Israeli cyberattack that targeted Iran’s nuclear programme in 2010. According to CVERC, US agencies infiltrated LuBian’s systems, stole the Bitcoin, and kept the funds dormant until 2024. That year, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) seized nearly the same amount—127,271 BTC—as part of a criminal forfeiture case linked to Cambodian businessman Chen Zhi. At the time, it was described as the largest cryptocurrency forfeiture in US history. CVERC argued that the DOJ’s seizure was an attempt to legitimise the stolen funds, framing the move as “thieves recovering their own loot”. Also read: Russian thugs dismember and bury crypto millionaire and wife after finding their crypto wallets were empty Who is Chen Zhi, and what is his crime? Chen Zhi is the founder of the Prince Group conglomerate. The US maintains that the 2024 Bitcoin seizure was lawful, as it was the wallet owned by Chen Zhi's group inside the LuBian mining pool. US court documents accused Chen Zhi of running a $6 billion global investment fraud through a company called EZ Blockchain, selling fake crypto mining equipment and laundering the proceeds. Chen is reportedly a fugitive and remains wanted by US authorities. https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-praises-bitcoin-s-role-in-supporting-dollar-stability-1762493927574/embed How the LuBian case is linked to the ‘pig butchering scams’ Investigators alleged that Chen Zhi’s operations may have overlapped with the so-called “pig butchering” scams. These are online fraud schemes in which victims are encouraged to invest in fake cryptocurrency platforms before being “slaughtered”, when their funds vanish. US prosecutors alleged that parts of Chen’s network promoted fraudulent mining investments similar to those used in pig butchering scams. They allegedly funnelled proceeds through LuBian to obscure their origins. If true, this would mean the same infrastructure tied to the LuBian hack also helped launder funds from global crypto scams across Asia, Europe and North America. Also read: Why are crypto markets falling? Explained Crypto, cyberwarfare, crime and global politics: Why the LuBian case is important The LuBian dispute highlights how cryptocurrency, geopolitics, and cyberwarfare increasingly intersect. China sees the alleged hack as part of a broader US effort to undermine its economic and technological influence, while the US portrays its actions as legitimate law enforcement against international fraud. Blockchain analysts say the wallets seized by the DOJ match those from the 2020 hack, but there is no independent evidence linking the breach to US intelligence agencies. The incident underlines how cryptocurrencies have become a new front in global power struggles.

<p>China has accused the US of stealing $14 billion worth of Bitcoin from the LuBian mining pool. LuBian is linked to Chen Zhi, a fugitive entrepreneur accused of fraud and 'pig butchering scams'. Know more about the fascinating saga of cyberwarfare and geopolitical tensions over cryptocurrency</p>

China accuses US of $14 billion Bitcoin theft: How is LuBian hack linked to 'pig butchering scam' and Chen Zhi?

<p>Venezuela has activated its entire armed forces and militia after the US military deployed an aircraft carrier strike group led by the USS Gerald R. Ford to the Caribbean region. While the US has described this as a counter-narcotics operation, the scale of the deployment far exceeds what is typically required for such missions. Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has announced a nationwide mobilisation of military and civilian militia, viewing the US posture as a direct threat of regime change. Here is a roundup of the tense situation.</p><h2>How the US military escalated its presence close to Venezuela</h2><p>Since October 24, when the Pentagon announced the redeployment of the USS Ford carrier strike group from Europe to the US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) area of responsibility, the build-up has continued to grow. The Ford is escorted by multiple destroyers and support vessels, as well as advanced strike aircraft and special operations forces. This deployment marks the largest US naval build-up in the Caribbean in decades. US drones and maritime assets are conducting reconnaissance missions and maintaining a strike-ready posture.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-venezuela-venezuelan-troops-prepare-guerrilla-resistance-against-possible-us-attack-1762920517058/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-venezuela-venezuelan-troops-prepare-guerrilla-resistance-against-possible-us-attack-1762920517058/embed</a></p><h2>Venezuela’s sweeping mobilisation of forces</h2><p>Venezuela has launched an extensive mobilisation of its armed forces and civilian militia to “resist imperial aggression”. On October 29, President Maduro declared a “state of external commotion” and authorised nationwide militia call-ups. The country has deployed Russian- and Chinese-supplied air defence systems and drones along strategic borders. Under “Plan Independencia 200”, Venezuela has activated land, maritime, air and militia components, according to official reports.</p><p>More than 200,000 active-duty troops and reservists, supported by several million militia volunteers, are on high alert and ready for operations. Venezuela is establishing layered defences, including coastal missile batteries and militia-manned checkpoints in major cities. Across the country, fuel rationing and widespread power blackouts have been reported.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-we-re-just-gonna-kill-them-trump-says-won-t-seek-congress-before-strikes-venezuela-urges-no-crazy-war-please-1761271095909">'We're just gonna kill them': Trump says won't seek Congress nod before striking Venezuela; Maduro pleads 'No crazy war, please!'</a></p><h2>US anti-drug operations in the Caribbean</h2><p>Since early September 2025, US forces have conducted airstrikes against vessels allegedly operated by transnational criminal organisations and drug cartels, including some reportedly linked to Venezuela. Between 10 and 19 vessels have been targeted, with estimates suggesting up to 76 fatalities. These “war on drugs” operations are widely interpreted by analysts as part of a broader strategic effort aimed at undermining Maduro’s regime.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/venezuela-say-cia-backed-false-flag-strike-on-us-warship-foiled-claims-trump-was-planning-to-frame-maduro-1761636483136">Venezuela claims foiled CIA-backed ‘false flag’ plot to attack US warship and frame Maduro</a></p><h2>Will Latin America stand with Venezuela against the US?</h2><p>The Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) recently issued a joint declaration rejecting the use or threat of force in the region, implicitly criticising the US build-up. Meanwhile, the US has offered rewards of up to $50 million for information leading to President Maduro’s arrest on drug-trafficking charges. Russian Tu-95 strategic bombers have conducted patrols over the Atlantic in a show of support for Venezuela. Colombia, Guyana and Brazil have begun limited border evacuations and have offered to mediate between Caracas and Washington.</p><h2>High risk of escalation and miscalculation</h2><p>A naval close encounter, missile test, or miscalculation could trigger direct hostilities between the US and Venezuela. Despite overwhelming superiority in air and sea power, US forces are likely to face an asymmetric and guerrilla-style resistance from Venezuelan forces. Any conflict, if it begins, could become protracted, drawing in regional actors and intensifying global tensions.</p>

Venezuela has mobilised all its defence forces and militia groups the US deploys the USS Gerald R Ford carrier to the Caribbean. Tensions are rising amid fears of war and regional instability.


Venezuela has activated its entire armed forces and militia after the US military deployed an aircraft carrier strike group led by the USS Gerald R. Ford to the Caribbean region. While the US has described this as a counter-narcotics operation, the scale of the deployment far exceeds what is typically required for such missions. Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has announced a nationwide mobilisation of military and civilian militia, viewing the US posture as a direct threat of regime change. Here is a roundup of the tense situation. How the US military escalated its presence close to Venezuela Since October 24, when the Pentagon announced the redeployment of the USS Ford carrier strike group from Europe to the US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) area of responsibility, the build-up has continued to grow. The Ford is escorted by multiple destroyers and support vessels, as well as advanced strike aircraft and special operations forces. This deployment marks the largest US naval build-up in the Caribbean in decades. US drones and maritime assets are conducting reconnaissance missions and maintaining a strike-ready posture. https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-venezuela-venezuelan-troops-prepare-guerrilla-resistance-against-possible-us-attack-1762920517058/embed Venezuela’s sweeping mobilisation of forces Venezuela has launched an extensive mobilisation of its armed forces and civilian militia to “resist imperial aggression”. On October 29, President Maduro declared a “state of external commotion” and authorised nationwide militia call-ups. The country has deployed Russian- and Chinese-supplied air defence systems and drones along strategic borders. Under “Plan Independencia 200”, Venezuela has activated land, maritime, air and militia components, according to official reports. More than 200,000 active-duty troops and reservists, supported by several million militia volunteers, are on high alert and ready for operations. Venezuela is establishing layered defences, including coastal missile batteries and militia-manned checkpoints in major cities. Across the country, fuel rationing and widespread power blackouts have been reported. Also read: 'We're just gonna kill them': Trump says won't seek Congress nod before striking Venezuela; Maduro pleads 'No crazy war, please!' US anti-drug operations in the Caribbean Since early September 2025, US forces have conducted airstrikes against vessels allegedly operated by transnational criminal organisations and drug cartels, including some reportedly linked to Venezuela. Between 10 and 19 vessels have been targeted, with estimates suggesting up to 76 fatalities. These “war on drugs” operations are widely interpreted by analysts as part of a broader strategic effort aimed at undermining Maduro’s regime. Also read: Venezuela claims foiled CIA-backed ‘false flag’ plot to attack US warship and frame Maduro Will Latin America stand with Venezuela against the US? The Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) recently issued a joint declaration rejecting the use or threat of force in the region, implicitly criticising the US build-up. Meanwhile, the US has offered rewards of up to $50 million for information leading to President Maduro’s arrest on drug-trafficking charges. Russian Tu-95 strategic bombers have conducted patrols over the Atlantic in a show of support for Venezuela. Colombia, Guyana and Brazil have begun limited border evacuations and have offered to mediate between Caracas and Washington. High risk of escalation and miscalculation A naval close encounter, missile test, or miscalculation could trigger direct hostilities between the US and Venezuela. Despite overwhelming superiority in air and sea power, US forces are likely to face an asymmetric and guerrilla-style resistance from Venezuelan forces. Any conflict, if it begins, could become protracted, drawing in regional actors and intensifying global tensions.

<p>Venezuela has mobilised all its defence forces and militia groups the US deploys the USS Gerald R Ford carrier to the Caribbean. Tensions are rising amid fears of war and regional instability.<br>&nbsp;</p>

Venezuela preparing for war with US: Entire armed forces, militia on high alert as American aircraft carrier moves to region

<p>China has issued a set of rare earth export restrictions that could potentially target US military end-use, American media reports said. Its refined rare earth export policy will now differentiate between civilian and military end-users. From December 1, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) will implement this updated licensing system, which expedites approvals for non-military shipments while permanently denying licences to companies tied to the US defence sector. The new “validated end-user” system, as reported by Wall Street Journal, could potentially block rare earth magnets and materials used in advanced American weaponry and aerospace systems.</p><h2>Beijing is exploiting its dominance in rare earth elements</h2><p>China controls nearly 85 per cent of the world’s rare earth elements (REEs) through global mining and 95 per cent of REE processing. The restrictions, which began in April following new tariffs from US President Donald Trump, prohibit exports of seven heavy REEs critical for defence technologies such as American missile guidance systems and fighter jets.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/top-7-countries-with-the-largest-rare-earth-reserves-see-where-india-stands-1759307993918">Top 7 countries with the largest rare earth reserves: See where India stands</a></p><h2>Why the rare earth elements are crucial for US defence</h2><p>The elements—samarium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, lutetium, scandium, and yttrium—are subject to licensing. Military-related applications will be outrightly rejected. Sixteen major US contractors, including Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, have already been added to China’s export control list, disrupting supply chains and delaying US missile and aircraft production.</p><p>But the April restrictions were selectively eased amid the waxing and waning of the tariff war. A truce following Trump's talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping reopened civilian REE exports, but defence-related prohibitions remained.</p><p>In October, MOFCOM expanded controls to five additional elements—holmium, erbium, thulium, europium, and ytterbium—and to REE-based magnets, processing technologies, and lithium battery materials containing any Chinese rare earths.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/how-can-india-meet-its-rare-earth-demand-amid-china-s-dominance-1761755712782">How can India meet its rare earth demand amid China's dominance? HCL co-founder suggests innovative solution</a></p><h2>Beijing views rare earth export controls as a national security action</h2><p>China will screen buyers to prevent indirect re-exports of these elements through third parties or countries. Explaining the measures under national security concerns, China insists this is consistent with WTO rules, even as it leverages them as negotiation tools.</p><p>Also read: <a href=" https://www.wionews.com/world/will-rare-earths-cause-the-next-war-or-what-is-common-in-china-vs-us-afghanistan-ukraine-and-africa-1760345440542">Will rare earths cause the next war (or what is common in China vs US, Afghanistan, Ukraine and Africa)?</a></p><h2>How China is playing hide-and-seek with the US on rare earths</h2><p>Contradictory reports have emerged from the US and China regarding how many exemptions were granted on rare earth exports. American statements suggested a broad relaxation, but official Chinese readouts confirmed only non-military exemptions.</p><p>Violations of the dual-use control list now carry fines of up to $700,000 or permanent export bans.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-xi-deal-china-to-suspend-rare-earth-curbs-probes-on-us-chip-firms-1762069999007/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-xi-deal-china-to-suspend-rare-earth-curbs-probes-on-us-chip-firms-1762069999007/embed</a></p><h2>The US remains heavily dependent on Chinese rare earths</h2><p>Despite trade and tariff tensions, the US imports nearly three-quarters of its REEs from China.</p><p>The US has minimal domestic capacity for heavy-element separation. Pentagon data showed that most advanced US defence systems—including F-35 jets, Tomahawk missiles, naval sonar arrays, and radar platforms—rely on Chinese-processed REEs. Current REE stockpiles cover only a few months of consumption, while new US mining and processing projects are years away from completion. Domestic initiatives under the Defence Production Act have yielded minimal results, covering only about 10 per cent of heavy REE requirements by 2025.</p><h2>China's calculated pressure tactic on the US defence sector</h2><p>While not an outright embargo, the rare earth end-user restrictions for US defence are designed to constrain US military preparedness without severing broader trade ties with America.&nbsp;</p><p>US weapon production timelines could suffer, facing delays of up to a year. While recycling and allied sourcing could provide partial mitigation for US defence, it is nearly impossible for the US to fully substitute Chinese-origin REEs. The strategy underscores Beijing’s intent to wield mineral dominance as a deterrent to US military actions in Asia.</p>

China’s new rare earth export curbs could target US military end use, tightening licences for defence-linked firms, according to US media reports. The move, which will reportedly kick in from December, could delay American weapons production and disrupt supply chains.


China has issued a set of rare earth export restrictions that could potentially target US military end-use, American media reports said. Its refined rare earth export policy will now differentiate between civilian and military end-users. From December 1, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) will implement this updated licensing system, which expedites approvals for non-military shipments while permanently denying licences to companies tied to the US defence sector. The new “validated end-user” system, as reported by Wall Street Journal, could potentially block rare earth magnets and materials used in advanced American weaponry and aerospace systems. Beijing is exploiting its dominance in rare earth elements China controls nearly 85 per cent of the world’s rare earth elements (REEs) through global mining and 95 per cent of REE processing. The restrictions, which began in April following new tariffs from US President Donald Trump, prohibit exports of seven heavy REEs critical for defence technologies such as American missile guidance systems and fighter jets. Also read: Top 7 countries with the largest rare earth reserves: See where India stands Why the rare earth elements are crucial for US defence The elements—samarium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, lutetium, scandium, and yttrium—are subject to licensing. Military-related applications will be outrightly rejected. Sixteen major US contractors, including Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, have already been added to China’s export control list, disrupting supply chains and delaying US missile and aircraft production. But the April restrictions were selectively eased amid the waxing and waning of the tariff war. A truce following Trump's talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping reopened civilian REE exports, but defence-related prohibitions remained. In October, MOFCOM expanded controls to five additional elements—holmium, erbium, thulium, europium, and ytterbium—and to REE-based magnets, processing technologies, and lithium battery materials containing any Chinese rare earths. Also read: How can India meet its rare earth demand amid China's dominance? HCL co-founder suggests innovative solution Beijing views rare earth export controls as a national security action China will screen buyers to prevent indirect re-exports of these elements through third parties or countries. Explaining the measures under national security concerns, China insists this is consistent with WTO rules, even as it leverages them as negotiation tools. Also read: Will rare earths cause the next war (or what is common in China vs US, Afghanistan, Ukraine and Africa)? How China is playing hide-and-seek with the US on rare earths Contradictory reports have emerged from the US and China regarding how many exemptions were granted on rare earth exports. American statements suggested a broad relaxation, but official Chinese readouts confirmed only non-military exemptions. Violations of the dual-use control list now carry fines of up to $700,000 or permanent export bans. https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-xi-deal-china-to-suspend-rare-earth-curbs-probes-on-us-chip-firms-1762069999007/embed The US remains heavily dependent on Chinese rare earths Despite trade and tariff tensions, the US imports nearly three-quarters of its REEs from China. The US has minimal domestic capacity for heavy-element separation. Pentagon data showed that most advanced US defence systems—including F-35 jets, Tomahawk missiles, naval sonar arrays, and radar platforms—rely on Chinese-processed REEs. Current REE stockpiles cover only a few months of consumption, while new US mining and processing projects are years away from completion. Domestic initiatives under the Defence Production Act have yielded minimal results, covering only about 10 per cent of heavy REE requirements by 2025. China's calculated pressure tactic on the US defence sector While not an outright embargo, the rare earth end-user restrictions for US defence are designed to constrain US military preparedness without severing broader trade ties with America. US weapon production timelines could suffer, facing delays of up to a year. While recycling and allied sourcing could provide partial mitigation for US defence, it is nearly impossible for the US to fully substitute Chinese-origin REEs. The strategy underscores Beijing’s intent to wield mineral dominance as a deterrent to US military actions in Asia.

<p>China’s new rare earth export curbs target US military end use, tightening licences for defence-linked firms. The move, which will kick in from December, could delay American weapons production and disrupt supply chains.<br>&nbsp;</p>

Did China just put a chokehold on US defence? How its rare earth end use restrictions could hit American military hard

<p>Delhi was once again rocked on Monday (Nov 10) by a blast in the busy Red Fort area, leaving at least eight people dead, bringing back memories of terror attacks in the past. India's capital city has suffered several terrorist attacks since the mid-1990s. These strikes, which included blasts and bomb-and-gun attacks, were mostly carried out by Pakistan-based terror groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, and the local outfit Indian Mujahideen. In the last 15 years, improvements in security, counter-terror measures, and intelligence gathering had led to a decline in such attacks. However, the Red Fort blast is a stark reminder of the threat that remains for the capital. Below is a list of the major terror strikes that have targeted Delhi.</p><h2>May 21, 1996 – Lajpat Nagar market blast</h2><p>On 21 May 1996, a powerful bomb exploded in the busy Lajpat Nagar market in South Delhi, killing at least 13 people and injuring around 38 others. The attack was later linked to terrorists with connections to Pakistan-based organisations, and several suspects were later convicted in court.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><strong>Also Read: </strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/delhi-red-fort-explosion-home-minister-amit-shah-gives-details-on-deadly-blast-1762790036488"><strong>Delhi Red Fort explosion: Home Minister Amit Shah gives details on deadly blast</strong></a></p><h2>October–November 1997 – Serial bomb blasts</h2><p>In October and November 1997, Delhi witnessed a series of bomb blasts in crowded areas, including near the Red Fort and other markets. The explosions killed at least four people and injured more than 30. Some of the suspects were linked to Sikh separatist groups, though no single organisation officially claimed responsibility.</p><h2>December 13, 2001 – Terror attack on Indian Parliament</h2><p>On 13 December 2001, five armed terrorists launched a deadly gun and grenade attack on the Indian Parliament complex in New Delhi, killing nine people, including police officers, security personnel, and a gardener. All five attackers were shot dead by security forces. The investigation linked the attack to Pakistan-based groups Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). The assault brought India and Pakistan to the brink of war.</p><h3>October 29, 2005 – Diwali-eve serial blasts</h3><p>On 29 October 2005, just before the Diwali festival, three coordinated bombs exploded in busy markets at Sarojini Nagar, Paharganj, and on a bus in Govindpuri. The explosions killed 62 people and injured more than 200, making it one of the deadliest terror attacks in Delhi. The investigation traced links to Lashkar-e-Taiba and the banned group Islamic Inquilab Mahaz.</p><h3>September 13, 2008 – Serial bomb blasts</h3><p>On 13 September 2008, at least five bombs exploded almost simultaneously in crowded parts of Delhi, including Connaught Place, Karol Bagh, and Greater Kailash. The blasts killed around 30 people and injured more than 100. The Indian Mujahideen, a home-grown terror network, claimed responsibility for the coordinated attack, which was part of a wider wave of bombings across major Indian cities that year.</p><h2>September 7, 2011 – Delhi High Court bombing</h2><p>A briefcase bomb detonated outside Gate Number 5 of the Delhi High Court on 7 September 2011, killing at least 11 people and injuring more than 60. The main suspects were members of the Indian Mujahideen and Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami. This was one of the last major terrorist attacks in Delhi before a long lull in large-scale incidents.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><strong>Also Read: </strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/red-fort-blast-we-saw-body-parts-scattered-on-road-eyewitness-recounts-horrific-details-1762785520682"><strong>Explosion near Red Fort | 'We saw body parts scattered on road': Eyewitness recounts horrific details</strong></a></p><h2>November 10, 2025 – Red Fort explosion</h2><p>A car exploded near the Red Fort Metro Station in Chandni Chowk, killing at least eight people and injuring dozens. The evening blast in the busy shopping area caused fires in several nearby vehicles and widespread panic. The explosion came hours after Indian authorities announced that they had dismantled a suspected terror module in Faridabad, part of the National Capital Region. A probe has started to determine whether the Red Fort explosion is linked to that operation.</p>

Indian capital has been a target for terror groups since the mid-1990s. The Red Fort blast is a stark reminder of Delhi's enduring terror threat from Parliament to the city streets.

Delhi was once again rocked on Monday (Nov 10) by a blast in the busy Red Fort area, leaving at least eight people dead, bringing back memories of terror attacks in the past. India's capital city has suffered several terrorist attacks since the mid-1990s. These strikes, which included blasts and bomb-and-gun attacks, were mostly carried out by Pakistan-based terror groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, and the local outfit Indian Mujahideen. In the last 15 years, improvements in security, counter-terror measures, and intelligence gathering had led to a decline in such attacks. However, the Red Fort blast is a stark reminder of the threat that remains for the capital. Below is a list of the major terror strikes that have targeted Delhi. May 21, 1996 – Lajpat Nagar market blast On 21 May 1996, a powerful bomb exploded in the busy Lajpat Nagar market in South Delhi, killing at least 13 people and injuring around 38 others. The attack was later linked to terrorists with connections to Pakistan-based organisations, and several suspects were later convicted in court. Also Read: Delhi Red Fort explosion: Home Minister Amit Shah gives details on deadly blast October–November 1997 – Serial bomb blasts In October and November 1997, Delhi witnessed a series of bomb blasts in crowded areas, including near the Red Fort and other markets. The explosions killed at least four people and injured more than 30. Some of the suspects were linked to Sikh separatist groups, though no single organisation officially claimed responsibility. December 13, 2001 – Terror attack on Indian Parliament On 13 December 2001, five armed terrorists launched a deadly gun and grenade attack on the Indian Parliament complex in New Delhi, killing nine people, including police officers, security personnel, and a gardener. All five attackers were shot dead by security forces. The investigation linked the attack to Pakistan-based groups Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). The assault brought India and Pakistan to the brink of war. October 29, 2005 – Diwali-eve serial blasts On 29 October 2005, just before the Diwali festival, three coordinated bombs exploded in busy markets at Sarojini Nagar, Paharganj, and on a bus in Govindpuri. The explosions killed 62 people and injured more than 200, making it one of the deadliest terror attacks in Delhi. The investigation traced links to Lashkar-e-Taiba and the banned group Islamic Inquilab Mahaz. September 13, 2008 – Serial bomb blasts On 13 September 2008, at least five bombs exploded almost simultaneously in crowded parts of Delhi, including Connaught Place, Karol Bagh, and Greater Kailash. The blasts killed around 30 people and injured more than 100. The Indian Mujahideen, a home-grown terror network, claimed responsibility for the coordinated attack, which was part of a wider wave of bombings across major Indian cities that year. September 7, 2011 – Delhi High Court bombing A briefcase bomb detonated outside Gate Number 5 of the Delhi High Court on 7 September 2011, killing at least 11 people and injuring more than 60. The main suspects were members of the Indian Mujahideen and Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami. This was one of the last major terrorist attacks in Delhi before a long lull in large-scale incidents. Also Read: Explosion near Red Fort | 'We saw body parts scattered on road': Eyewitness recounts horrific details November 10, 2025 – Red Fort explosion A car exploded near the Red Fort Metro Station in Chandni Chowk, killing at least eight people and injuring dozens. The evening blast in the busy shopping area caused fires in several nearby vehicles and widespread panic. The explosion came hours after Indian authorities announced that they had dismantled a suspected terror module in Faridabad, part of the National Capital Region. A probe has started to determine whether the Red Fort explosion is linked to that operation.

<p>The Indian capital has been a target for terror groups since mid-1990s. The Red Fort blast is a stark reminder of Delhi's enduring terror threat, from Parliament to city streets.</p>

List of terror attacks in Delhi: Recalling major terrorist incidents in Indian capital in the wake of Red Fort blast

<p>A powerful explosion near Delhi’s Red Fort on Monday (Nov 10) killed at least eight people and injured dozens. The blast, involving a Hyundai i20 car, is under investigation for possible terror links. Dr Umar Mohammad, a Pulwama-based doctor, is a key suspect tied to the Faridabad terror module, which was busted just a day ago, with thousands of kilogramme of explosive precursors and related material seized. Investigations are ongoing. Below are your most important questions on the Red Fort blast, answered.</p><h2>Red Fort blast: When and where did it happen?</h2><p>The explosion occurred on Monday evening, between 6:50 and 6:55 PM IST near Gate No. 1 of the Red Fort Metro Station in the busy Chandni Chowk area of Old Delhi. The Delhi Fire Services received the first emergency call at approximately 6:55 PM.</p><p>Several nearby vehicles caught fire, though the Red Fort, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, was not seriously damaged. At least six cars, four motorcycles, and three e-rickshaws caught fire, which was brought under control by firefighters by around 7:30 PM.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/delhi-red-fort-blast-first-visual-of-suspect-surfaces-link-from-pulwama-to-faridabad-being-investigated-1762826609524">Delhi Red Fort blast: First visual of suspect surfaces; link from Pulwama to Faridabad being investigated</a></p><h2>What do authorities know about the vehicle involved?</h2><p>The vehicle was confirmed to be a Haryana-registered Hyundai i20. Police identified and questioned the person under whose name the car was officially registered. CCTV footage and the initial probe revealed that the car was either parked or moving slowly near a traffic signal outside the Red Fort Metro Station before it exploded.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/delhi-red-fort-blast-what-cctv-footage-revealed-about-i20-car-involved-in-explosion-1762827978443">Delhi Red Fort blast: What CCTV footage revealed about I-20 car involved in explosion</a></p><h2>What explosives were used?</h2><p>Investigators have not yet confirmed the type or quantity of explosives through official forensic reports, but it is suspected that an improvised explosive device (IED) or a chemical reaction caused the blast. Authorities are examining a possible link to the seizure of a large ammonium nitrate cache in Faridabad in the National Capital Region, linked to a ‘white collar terror module’ with links to Jammu and Kashmir.</p><h2>Who is responsible for the Delhi Red Fort blast?</h2><p>No group has claimed responsibility for the Red Fort blast. All possibilities, including a terror link, are being investigated. The Delhi Police and Home Ministry have not confirmed any specific organisation or suspect, though the case is being investigated under relevant anti-terror laws.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/live-blog-delhi-red-fort-explosion-live-updates-national-capital-on-high-alert-one-feared-dead-1762783949668">Delhi Red Fort explosion Highlights: One person detained in connection to blast</a></p><h2>How many died and were injured?</h2><p>At least eight people were confirmed dead and between 17 and 24 were injured, though some earlier media reports had placed the death toll at 13. The dead include at least four occupants of the car, and bystanders. The injured suffered burns and shrapnel wounds and were treated at nearby hospitals, including LNJP, AIIMS, and GTB Hospital.</p><h2>Delhi Red Fort blast: What did Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah, and Delhi Police say?</h2><p><br>Speaking in Bhutan, where he is on a state visit, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said on Tuesday: “Our agencies will get to the bottom of this conspiracy. The conspirators behind this will not be spared. All those responsible will be brought to justice.” Home Minister Amit Shah, who visited the blast site and hospitals on Monday, said that “all possibilities” are being explored and ordered a thorough investigation by central agencies, including the NIA. The Delhi Police Commissioner said all angles, including technical and forensic, were being examined. The government issued a nationwide alert as a precautionary measure.</p><h2>Red Fort blast aftermath: What is the security situation in Delhi?</h2><p>Shops and stalls in Chandni Chowk, the busy shopping centre near Red Fort, quickly shut down after the explosion, with traders describing the blast as similar to an earthquake. Most shops in the area remained closed on Tuesday morning, with police having blocked several lanes. Security has been tightened in central Delhi, with the blast area cleared and cordoned off. Forensic teams, the Delhi Police, and the NIA are conducting investigations. The Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) has placed on high alert all the major Delhi-NCR installations that it secures, including Delhi Metro stations, the Indira Gandhi International Airport, and several government buildings.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/breaking-delhi-blast-car-owner-linked-to-red-fort-blast-taken-into-custody-1762840409022/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/breaking-delhi-blast-car-owner-linked-to-red-fort-blast-taken-into-custody-1762840409022/embed</a></p><h2>Who was the driver of the car?</h2><p>Dr Umar Mohammad has been named as the driver of the car and a key suspect in the blast. A few reports mentioned the name Umar Nabi, but this has not been verified. Dr Umar Mohammad, a medical doctor, is believed to have been inside the Hyundai i20 when it exploded. He, along with at least three others in the car, is thought to have died in the blast, with bodies severely burnt.</p><h2>What is Dr Umar Mohammad’s background?</h2><p>According to reports, Dr Umar Mohammad is linked to the terror module connected to earlier arrests in Faridabad. He may have transported or triggered the explosives. The identities of the occupants are being verified through DNA testing on charred remains recovered from the site.</p><p>Originating from Pulwama district in Jammu and Kashmir, Dr Umar Mohammad is reported to have studied or worked at a private medical institution in Faridabad and had professional links with others detained in the recent Faridabad terror module raids.</p><h2>What is the ownership pattern of the car involved in the Red Fort blast?</h2><p>The white Hyundai i20 with Haryana registration (HR26 series) had several previous owners. Dr Umar Mohammad reportedly had access to or control of the vehicle at the time of the blast. Investigators are examining whether the car was owned or used by individuals connected to the Faridabad module.</p><h2>Was the Red Fort explosion accidental or premature?</h2><p>Investigators are exploring whether the detonation was accidental, triggered in fear of capture, or part of a failed larger attack plan. Preliminary findings indicate that the blast might have occurred prematurely before reaching the intended target. One theory is that it was triggered accidentally or in panic following the arrest of Dr Umar Mohammad’s associates in Faridabad.</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

The 10 November Red Fort blast in Delhi killed at least eight, and injured many. Dr Umar Mohammad, a doctor linked to a Faridabad terror module, was reportedly driving the car, and is being treated as a suspect. Here are your questions on the blast, answered

A powerful explosion near Delhi’s Red Fort on Monday (Nov 10) killed at least eight people and injured dozens. The blast, involving a Hyundai i20 car, is under investigation for possible terror links. Dr Umar Mohammad, a Pulwama-based doctor, is a key suspect tied to the Faridabad terror module, which was busted just a day ago, with thousands of kilogramme of explosive precursors and related material seized. Investigations are ongoing. Below are your most important questions on the Red Fort blast, answered. Red Fort blast: When and where did it happen? The explosion occurred on Monday evening, between 6:50 and 6:55 PM IST near Gate No. 1 of the Red Fort Metro Station in the busy Chandni Chowk area of Old Delhi. The Delhi Fire Services received the first emergency call at approximately 6:55 PM. Several nearby vehicles caught fire, though the Red Fort, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, was not seriously damaged. At least six cars, four motorcycles, and three e-rickshaws caught fire, which was brought under control by firefighters by around 7:30 PM. Also read: Delhi Red Fort blast: First visual of suspect surfaces; link from Pulwama to Faridabad being investigated What do authorities know about the vehicle involved? The vehicle was confirmed to be a Haryana-registered Hyundai i20. Police identified and questioned the person under whose name the car was officially registered. CCTV footage and the initial probe revealed that the car was either parked or moving slowly near a traffic signal outside the Red Fort Metro Station before it exploded. Also read: Delhi Red Fort blast: What CCTV footage revealed about I-20 car involved in explosion What explosives were used? Investigators have not yet confirmed the type or quantity of explosives through official forensic reports, but it is suspected that an improvised explosive device (IED) or a chemical reaction caused the blast. Authorities are examining a possible link to the seizure of a large ammonium nitrate cache in Faridabad in the National Capital Region, linked to a ‘white collar terror module’ with links to Jammu and Kashmir. Who is responsible for the Delhi Red Fort blast? No group has claimed responsibility for the Red Fort blast. All possibilities, including a terror link, are being investigated. The Delhi Police and Home Ministry have not confirmed any specific organisation or suspect, though the case is being investigated under relevant anti-terror laws. Also read: Delhi Red Fort explosion Highlights: One person detained in connection to blast How many died and were injured? At least eight people were confirmed dead and between 17 and 24 were injured, though some earlier media reports had placed the death toll at 13. The dead include at least four occupants of the car, and bystanders. The injured suffered burns and shrapnel wounds and were treated at nearby hospitals, including LNJP, AIIMS, and GTB Hospital. Delhi Red Fort blast: What did Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah, and Delhi Police say? Speaking in Bhutan, where he is on a state visit, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said on Tuesday: “Our agencies will get to the bottom of this conspiracy. The conspirators behind this will not be spared. All those responsible will be brought to justice.” Home Minister Amit Shah, who visited the blast site and hospitals on Monday, said that “all possibilities” are being explored and ordered a thorough investigation by central agencies, including the NIA. The Delhi Police Commissioner said all angles, including technical and forensic, were being examined. The government issued a nationwide alert as a precautionary measure. Red Fort blast aftermath: What is the security situation in Delhi? Shops and stalls in Chandni Chowk, the busy shopping centre near Red Fort, quickly shut down after the explosion, with traders describing the blast as similar to an earthquake. Most shops in the area remained closed on Tuesday morning, with police having blocked several lanes. Security has been tightened in central Delhi, with the blast area cleared and cordoned off. Forensic teams, the Delhi Police, and the NIA are conducting investigations. The Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) has placed on high alert all the major Delhi-NCR installations that it secures, including Delhi Metro stations, the Indira Gandhi International Airport, and several government buildings. https://www.wionews.com/videos/breaking-delhi-blast-car-owner-linked-to-red-fort-blast-taken-into-custody-1762840409022/embed Who was the driver of the car? Dr Umar Mohammad has been named as the driver of the car and a key suspect in the blast. A few reports mentioned the name Umar Nabi, but this has not been verified. Dr Umar Mohammad, a medical doctor, is believed to have been inside the Hyundai i20 when it exploded. He, along with at least three others in the car, is thought to have died in the blast, with bodies severely burnt. What is Dr Umar Mohammad’s background? According to reports, Dr Umar Mohammad is linked to the terror module connected to earlier arrests in Faridabad. He may have transported or triggered the explosives. The identities of the occupants are being verified through DNA testing on charred remains recovered from the site. Originating from Pulwama district in Jammu and Kashmir, Dr Umar Mohammad is reported to have studied or worked at a private medical institution in Faridabad and had professional links with others detained in the recent Faridabad terror module raids. What is the ownership pattern of the car involved in the Red Fort blast? The white Hyundai i20 with Haryana registration (HR26 series) had several previous owners. Dr Umar Mohammad reportedly had access to or control of the vehicle at the time of the blast. Investigators are examining whether the car was owned or used by individuals connected to the Faridabad module. Was the Red Fort explosion accidental or premature? Investigators are exploring whether the detonation was accidental, triggered in fear of capture, or part of a failed larger attack plan. Preliminary findings indicate that the blast might have occurred prematurely before reaching the intended target. One theory is that it was triggered accidentally or in panic following the arrest of Dr Umar Mohammad’s associates in Faridabad.

<p>The 10 November Red Fort blast in Delhi killed at least eight. Dr Umar Mohammad, a doctor allegedly linked to a Faridabad terror module, who was reportedly driving the car and died in the explosion, &nbsp;is being treated as a suspect. Here are your questions on the blast, answered</p>

Red Fort Blast in Delhi: Your questions, answered

<p>The recovery of hundreds of kilogrammes of explosive precursor material, Kalashnikov assault rifles and propaganda material from near the heart of the Indian capital New Delhi is evoking memories of earlier terror attacks. The bust, which followed weeks of investigation and the interrogation of a Kashmiri doctor working in Faridabad in the National Capital Region (NCR), took place just weeks ahead of the anniversary of the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks and two decades after the 2005 Delhi serial blasts. The recoveries and arrests point to the existence of what police described as a ‘white-collar terror ecosystem’, with links to Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) and the al-Qaeda-linked Ansar Ghazwat-ul-Hind (AGuH). Clearly, a major terror attack—or a series of attacks—was being planned, aimed at creating mayhem in or near India’s capital, even as the wounds of the recent Pahalgam terror attack are yet to heal.</p><h2>A terror module spanning J&amp;K, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and beyond</h2><p>The joint operation, involving Jammu and Kashmir Police, the Intelligence Bureau, Haryana Police and Uttar Pradesh Police, dismantled a network that was allegedly building a sophisticated terror infrastructure in northern India. It marks a chilling evolution in terrorist strategy that combines radical ideology with professional cover to evade detection. The white-collar terror ecosystem involved working professionals and clerics operating far from traditional conflict zones, and dangerously close to India’s capital.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/j-k-police-bust-doctor-turned-jem-operative-s-tip-off-leads-to-300kg-rdx-two-ak-47s-seized-another-medic-detained-1762745949045">J&amp;K police foils major terror plot: 360kg of IED material seized after doctor-turned-JeM operative’s tip-off; another medic detained</a></p><h2>White collar terror ecosystem: How the probe began and evolved</h2><p>Jaish-e-Mohammed propaganda posters that appeared in Srinagar’s Nowgam area on 19 October were the trigger for the investigation. The posters threatened security forces and promoted extremist ideology. Police registered a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and other laws and began making arrests. Interrogations in Kashmir quickly revealed a much wider network with transnational links stretching across multiple states.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/jammu-kashmir-police-foil-terror-plot-seize-350-kg-explosives-and-ak-47-in-faridabad-1762765713896/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/jammu-kashmir-police-foil-terror-plot-seize-350-kg-explosives-and-ak-47-in-faridabad-1762765713896/embed</a></p><h2>North India terror module is unprecedented in scale and composition</h2><p>Two doctors from south Kashmir—Dr Adil Ahmad Rather and Dr Muzammil Ahmad Ganaie—were at the centre of the conspiracy, according to the police. Both were highly educated professionals who allegedly used their medical positions to disguise radical activities, including recruitment through encrypted channels. Dr Ganaie was employed at Al-Falah Medical College in Faridabad, while Dr Rather was a former Senior Resident at Government Medical College, Anantnag.</p><p>Dr Ganaie had rented a house in Dhauj village in Faridabad roughly three months before the raids. The property was used as a safehouse to store arms, explosives and improvised explosive device (IED) components. It was the interrogation of Dr Rather, arrested from Saharanpur in Uttar Pradesh on 6 November, that led investigators to the Faridabad cache.</p><h2>What the police found in Faridabad: A stunning cache</h2><p>The raid on the Dhauj property on Sunday (Nov 9), led to the recovery of about 360 kilogrammes of ammonium nitrate—an industrial chemical often used in bomb-making.&nbsp;</p><p>Police also found an AK-47 rifle, pistols, ammunition, timers, batteries, electronic circuits and inflammable liquids. One rifle was reportedly recovered from the vehicle of a woman doctor associated with the suspects. Another raid in the same area the following day led to the seizure of additional materials. Communication devices and incriminating documents indicating contact with handlers based in Pakistan were also recovered.</p><p>Seven people, all hailing from Jammu and Kashmir, have been arrested so far in connection with the case. A cleric from Shopian and several Srinagar-based operatives were detained for assisting with logistics, propaganda and recruitment.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/ansar-ghazwat-ul-hind-terror-group-revived-a-relook-at-al-qaeda-linked-group-in-kashmir-in-wake-of-2-900-kg-explosive-material-haul-1762769909131">Ansar Ghazwat-ul-Hind terror group revived? A relook at al-Qaeda linked group in Kashmir in wake of 2,900 kg explosive material haul</a></p><h2>Hiding in plain sight: How the terror module was operating among us</h2><p>Investigators believe the terror group had ties to proscribed organisations Jaish-e-Mohammed and possibly other transnational jihadist networks. The suspects were hiding in plain sight behind their professional backgrounds, operating covertly, raising funds and procuring chemicals, weapons and equipment without drawing suspicion.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/cik-conducts-widespread-raids-across-kashmir-over-suspected-online-misuse-1762668551726">CIK conducts widespread raids across Kashmir over suspected online misuse</a></p><h2>What could have happened: Massive scale of a possible terror attack</h2><p>The recovery, described by security officials as one of the largest hauls in recent years, likely prevented a catastrophic attack in or near Delhi—potentially on the scale of the 2005 Delhi serial bombings or even the 26 November 2008 Mumbai attacks.<br>But it is not just the quantity of explosive material recovered but its location that makes this case so serious. Faridabad, in northern Haryana, sits on the outskirts of Delhi and was possibly being used as a staging ground for terror mayhem. Delhi and nearby urban centres could have been potential targets.</p><p>This is another sign of terrorist activity shifting from border regions and rural Kashmir to urban infiltration. Educated terror operatives are embedding themselves in civilian life, using their positions to build covert networks.</p>

J&K Police’s Faridabad terror module bust exposes a terror network using doctors and clerics to plan major attacks near Delhi. The terror mayhem that could have involved IEDs has just been averted. Is Delhi safe from newly emerging white collar terror ecosystem?


The recovery of hundreds of kilogrammes of explosive precursor material, Kalashnikov assault rifles and propaganda material from near the heart of the Indian capital New Delhi is evoking memories of earlier terror attacks. The bust, which followed weeks of investigation and the interrogation of a Kashmiri doctor working in Faridabad in the National Capital Region (NCR), took place just weeks ahead of the anniversary of the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks and two decades after the 2005 Delhi serial blasts. The recoveries and arrests point to the existence of what police described as a ‘white-collar terror ecosystem’, with links to Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) and the al-Qaeda-linked Ansar Ghazwat-ul-Hind (AGuH). Clearly, a major terror attack—or a series of attacks—was being planned, aimed at creating mayhem in or near India’s capital, even as the wounds of the recent Pahalgam terror attack are yet to heal. A terror module spanning J&K, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and beyond The joint operation, involving Jammu and Kashmir Police, the Intelligence Bureau, Haryana Police and Uttar Pradesh Police, dismantled a network that was allegedly building a sophisticated terror infrastructure in northern India. It marks a chilling evolution in terrorist strategy that combines radical ideology with professional cover to evade detection. The white-collar terror ecosystem involved working professionals and clerics operating far from traditional conflict zones, and dangerously close to India’s capital. Also read: J&K police foils major terror plot: 360kg of IED material seized after doctor-turned-JeM operative’s tip-off; another medic detained White collar terror ecosystem: How the probe began and evolved Jaish-e-Mohammed propaganda posters that appeared in Srinagar’s Nowgam area on 19 October were the trigger for the investigation. The posters threatened security forces and promoted extremist ideology. Police registered a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and other laws and began making arrests. Interrogations in Kashmir quickly revealed a much wider network with transnational links stretching across multiple states. https://www.wionews.com/videos/jammu-kashmir-police-foil-terror-plot-seize-350-kg-explosives-and-ak-47-in-faridabad-1762765713896/embed North India terror module is unprecedented in scale and composition Two doctors from south Kashmir—Dr Adil Ahmad Rather and Dr Muzammil Ahmad Ganaie—were at the centre of the conspiracy, according to the police. Both were highly educated professionals who allegedly used their medical positions to disguise radical activities, including recruitment through encrypted channels. Dr Ganaie was employed at Al-Falah Medical College in Faridabad, while Dr Rather was a former Senior Resident at Government Medical College, Anantnag. Dr Ganaie had rented a house in Dhauj village in Faridabad roughly three months before the raids. The property was used as a safehouse to store arms, explosives and improvised explosive device (IED) components. It was the interrogation of Dr Rather, arrested from Saharanpur in Uttar Pradesh on 6 November, that led investigators to the Faridabad cache. What the police found in Faridabad: A stunning cache The raid on the Dhauj property on Sunday (Nov 9), led to the recovery of about 360 kilogrammes of ammonium nitrate—an industrial chemical often used in bomb-making. Police also found an AK-47 rifle, pistols, ammunition, timers, batteries, electronic circuits and inflammable liquids. One rifle was reportedly recovered from the vehicle of a woman doctor associated with the suspects. Another raid in the same area the following day led to the seizure of additional materials. Communication devices and incriminating documents indicating contact with handlers based in Pakistan were also recovered. Seven people, all hailing from Jammu and Kashmir, have been arrested so far in connection with the case. A cleric from Shopian and several Srinagar-based operatives were detained for assisting with logistics, propaganda and recruitment. Also read: Ansar Ghazwat-ul-Hind terror group revived? A relook at al-Qaeda linked group in Kashmir in wake of 2,900 kg explosive material haul Hiding in plain sight: How the terror module was operating among us Investigators believe the terror group had ties to proscribed organisations Jaish-e-Mohammed and possibly other transnational jihadist networks. The suspects were hiding in plain sight behind their professional backgrounds, operating covertly, raising funds and procuring chemicals, weapons and equipment without drawing suspicion. Also read: CIK conducts widespread raids across Kashmir over suspected online misuse What could have happened: Massive scale of a possible terror attack The recovery, described by security officials as one of the largest hauls in recent years, likely prevented a catastrophic attack in or near Delhi—potentially on the scale of the 2005 Delhi serial bombings or even the 26 November 2008 Mumbai attacks. But it is not just the quantity of explosive material recovered but its location that makes this case so serious. Faridabad, in northern Haryana, sits on the outskirts of Delhi and was possibly being used as a staging ground for terror mayhem. Delhi and nearby urban centres could have been potential targets. This is another sign of terrorist activity shifting from border regions and rural Kashmir to urban infiltration. Educated terror operatives are embedding themselves in civilian life, using their positions to build covert networks.

<p>J&amp;K Police’s Faridabad terror module bust exposes a terror network using doctors and clerics to plan major attacks near Delhi. The terror mayhem that could have involved IEDs has just been averted. Is Delhi safe from newly emerging white collar terror ecosystem?<br>&nbsp;</p>

‘White-collar terror ecosystem’ near Indian capital: Faridabad terror module busted by Jammu and Kashmir Police. What could have happened?

Pakistan’s 27th Constitutional Amendment has sparked outrage among politicians, civil society and provinces. If passed, the amendment would centralise power under the military, create lifetime Field Marshals, curb the judiciary and reshape nuclear command and provincial control. 

<p>Pakistan’s 27th Constitutional Amendment has sparked outrage among politicians, civil society and provinces. If passed, the amendment would centralise power under the military, create lifetime Field Marshals, curb the judiciary and reshape nuclear command and provincial control.&nbsp;</p>

Coup without a coup? 10 things to know about Pakistan’s DANGEROUS constitution reform: Nukes, Field Marshal 'rule', immunity, two chief Justices...

<p>Japan’s new Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi has declared that her country's self-defence forces could be activated if China invades Taiwan. She said recently that a Chinese military attack on Taiwan could be considered a “survival-threatening situation” for Japan. Under the country’s 2015 collective self-defence legislation, a survival-threatening situation is a legal classification allowing for the Japan Self-Defence Forces (JSDF) to deploy and operate.</p><h2>What did Japan’s PM say on China-Taiwan?</h2><p>In a November 7 speech, Takaichi said that if China were to use “warships or other armed force” against Taiwan, Japan could invoke its right to collective self-defence, mobilising the JSDF alongside allies such as the US. She repeated this stance days later, while dismissing Beijing's criticism that her remarks amounted to interference in China’s internal affairs.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/sanae-takaichi-to-become-japan-s-first-female-pm-but-women-aren-t-happy-here-s-why-hint-she-is-not-a-feminist-1759572512228">Sanae Takaichi to become Japan's first female PM, but women aren't happy - Here's why. Hint: She is NOT a feminist</a></p><h2>The legal foundation for Japan’s self-defence</h2><p>Since 2015, Japan has permitted limited military action in defence of allies if an attack on a foreign nation poses an existential threat to Japan’s survival. The new Japanese PM has given more clarity by explicitly identifying a Taiwan contingency as one such scenario. This is in contrast to the ambiguity maintained by previous prime ministers. Former prime ministers Fumio Kishida and Shinzo Abe both linked Taiwan to Japan’s security, but stopped short of committing to any automatic military response.</p><p>Abe, who described a Taiwan crisis as a “Japanese emergency” in 2021, stressed deterrence rather than direct engagement.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/u-s-speeds-f-16-deliveries-to-taiwan-amid-weapons-delay-complaints-1762188813773/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/u-s-speeds-f-16-deliveries-to-taiwan-amid-weapons-delay-complaints-1762188813773/embed</a></p><h2>Timing of Japan PM’s statement on Taiwan is significant</h2><p>Takaichi went a step further, indicating that Japan may no longer view a Taiwan war as a distant possibility but as a direct national threat.</p><p>The timing is conspicuous. Takaichi had met both US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping recently at different forums.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/trending/-dumba-video-shows-japan-s-pm-guiding-donald-trump-arorund-room-wh-seems-not-happy-about-it-1761668774979">‘Dumba**’: Video shows Japan’s PM guiding Donald Trump around room, WH seems not happy about it</a></p><h2>Japan is slowly moving away from its pacifist approach, and Takaichi is a vocal supporter of that shift</h2><p>Japan has been deepening defence cooperation with the US under the 1960 Security Treaty. It has doubled defence spending to 2 per cent of GDP and acquired long-range strike missiles, slowly moving away from its pacifist stance since World War II.</p><p>Seen as a hardliner on Japanese foreign policy issues, Takaichi’s remarks reinforce Washington’s expectation that Japan will play an active role in any Taiwan conflict.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/taiwan-taiwan-has-reported-people-liberation-army-pla-aircraft-sorties-and-naval-vessels-has-crossed-the-taiwan-strait-median-line-1753548845210">Living on the edge: Taiwan’s new normal as Chinese warplanes shadow its skies</a></p><p>&nbsp;</p><h2>In future, Japan may not be just a US base</h2><p>Takaichi's remarks are an indicator that, in a future conflict with China, Japan may not simply serve as a base to host US forces but as a potential combat participant under the banner of collective defence.</p><p>Strategically, this stance complicates Beijing’s calculations. Japan’s Okinawa Prefecture lies barely 100 kilometres from Taiwan, and Chinese missiles already overflew Japanese waters during drills in 2022.</p><p>By declaring that armed aggression against Taiwan could trigger Japan’s military involvement, Tokyo has increased the perceived cost of Chinese escalation against Taiwan.</p><p>At least for now, it is a move aimed at deterrence, but the PM's remarks could heighten regional tensions in the coming days.</p><p>While not new in law, Takaichi's remarks add teeth to Japan’s readiness to defend the regional status quo — and to act if that balance is upended by China.<br>&nbsp;</p>

Japan PM Sanae Takaichi says a Chinese attack on Taiwan could trigger Japan’s self-defence response. This is a tougher stance than her predecessors. This could reshape East Asia’s security balance. Here is why her statements matter


Japan’s new Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi has declared that her country's self-defence forces could be activated if China invades Taiwan. She said recently that a Chinese military attack on Taiwan could be considered a “survival-threatening situation” for Japan. Under the country’s 2015 collective self-defence legislation, a survival-threatening situation is a legal classification allowing for the Japan Self-Defence Forces (JSDF) to deploy and operate. What did Japan’s PM say on China-Taiwan? In a November 7 speech, Takaichi said that if China were to use “warships or other armed force” against Taiwan, Japan could invoke its right to collective self-defence, mobilising the JSDF alongside allies such as the US. She repeated this stance days later, while dismissing Beijing's criticism that her remarks amounted to interference in China’s internal affairs. Also read: Sanae Takaichi to become Japan's first female PM, but women aren't happy - Here's why. Hint: She is NOT a feminist The legal foundation for Japan’s self-defence Since 2015, Japan has permitted limited military action in defence of allies if an attack on a foreign nation poses an existential threat to Japan’s survival. The new Japanese PM has given more clarity by explicitly identifying a Taiwan contingency as one such scenario. This is in contrast to the ambiguity maintained by previous prime ministers. Former prime ministers Fumio Kishida and Shinzo Abe both linked Taiwan to Japan’s security, but stopped short of committing to any automatic military response. Abe, who described a Taiwan crisis as a “Japanese emergency” in 2021, stressed deterrence rather than direct engagement. https://www.wionews.com/videos/u-s-speeds-f-16-deliveries-to-taiwan-amid-weapons-delay-complaints-1762188813773/embed Timing of Japan PM’s statement on Taiwan is significant Takaichi went a step further, indicating that Japan may no longer view a Taiwan war as a distant possibility but as a direct national threat. The timing is conspicuous. Takaichi had met both US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping recently at different forums. Also read: ‘Dumba**’: Video shows Japan’s PM guiding Donald Trump around room, WH seems not happy about it Japan is slowly moving away from its pacifist approach, and Takaichi is a vocal supporter of that shift Japan has been deepening defence cooperation with the US under the 1960 Security Treaty. It has doubled defence spending to 2 per cent of GDP and acquired long-range strike missiles, slowly moving away from its pacifist stance since World War II. Seen as a hardliner on Japanese foreign policy issues, Takaichi’s remarks reinforce Washington’s expectation that Japan will play an active role in any Taiwan conflict. Also read: Living on the edge: Taiwan’s new normal as Chinese warplanes shadow its skies In future, Japan may not be just a US base Takaichi's remarks are an indicator that, in a future conflict with China, Japan may not simply serve as a base to host US forces but as a potential combat participant under the banner of collective defence. Strategically, this stance complicates Beijing’s calculations. Japan’s Okinawa Prefecture lies barely 100 kilometres from Taiwan, and Chinese missiles already overflew Japanese waters during drills in 2022. By declaring that armed aggression against Taiwan could trigger Japan’s military involvement, Tokyo has increased the perceived cost of Chinese escalation against Taiwan. At least for now, it is a move aimed at deterrence, but the PM's remarks could heighten regional tensions in the coming days. While not new in law, Takaichi's remarks add teeth to Japan’s readiness to defend the regional status quo — and to act if that balance is upended by China.

<p>Japan PM Sanae Takaichi says a Chinese attack on Taiwan could trigger Japan’s self-defence response. This is a tougher stance than her predecessors. This could reshape East Asia’s security balance. Here is why her statements matter<br>&nbsp;</p>

Will Japan directly get involved if China invades Taiwan? PM says its forces could be activated. Here's why this warning matters

<p>Pakistan is on the cusp of a potentially dangerous constitutional shift that could entrench military dominance and elevate Gen Asim Munir to unprecedented powers. At the heart of these concerns is the debate over the 27th Amendment to the 1973 Constitution, causing alarm among opposition political parties, legal experts and civil society. Civilian control over the military has always been largely symbolic in Pakistan, but it could be entirely sacrificed if the so-called 'Munir Amendment' passes, strengthening the hands of Munir, who currently holds the rare rank of Field Marshal.</p><h2>A collusion of government and military that suits Munir</h2><p>The current Pakistani coalition government, led by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, with Asif Ali Zardari of the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) as president, is seen by observers as Munir’s best opportunity to implement the reforms. The coalition came to power with the backing of the military establishment, providing Munir a conducive environment to push constitutional changes.</p><p>The full text of the amendment has not yet been made public, but reports indicate that three major areas are being addressed: the military command structure, particularly Article 243; federal-provincial relations; and the mandate of the judiciary. The ruling coalition has sought support from the PPP for provisions including establishing constitutional courts, revising the National Finance Commission (NFC) Award, and amending Article 243 concerning armed forces command. While there is some opposition within PPP regarding financial allocations under the NFC award, the party is generally supportive of expanding military powers.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/pak-army-chief-asim-munir-to-get-extended-rule-bilawal-bhutto-hints-at-revising-article-243-the-command-structure-of-its-armed-forces-1762170923801">Pak army chief Asim Munir to get extended rule? Bilawal Bhutto hints at revising Article 243, the command structure of its armed forces</a></p><h2>The rise of Munir: from army chief to Field Marshal</h2><p>Munir’s promotion to Field Marshal in May 2025 came in the wake of heightened India-Pakistan tensions following Operation Sindoor, India’s response to the Pahelgam terror attack. This is only the second time in Pakistan’s history that someone has been appointed Field Marshal; the first was Ayub Khan in 1959.</p><p>Already, Munir’s term as Chief of Army Staff (COAS) has been extended to November 2027 following a 2024 constitutional amendment that expanded army chiefs’ tenure from three to five years.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/imran-khan-accuses-pak-army-chief-asim-munir-of-tyranny-calls-him-mentally-unstable-1762420979624/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/imran-khan-accuses-pak-army-chief-asim-munir-of-tyranny-calls-him-mentally-unstable-1762420979624/embed</a></p><h2>Why critics worry about the new constitutional amendment</h2><p>The amendment could institutionalise military influence, giving Munir significant authority over military appointments, intelligence operations, and national security decisions, including potential war-making powers.</p><p>Supporters argue that redefining the military’s role will provide stability in Pakistan’s long-term governance, by codifying the military’s contributions to national security.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/imran-khan-attacks-asim-munir-political-crisis-pakistan-1762415636398">Imran Khan calls Asim Munir ‘mentally unstable dictator,’ accuses him of tyranny and cruelty</a></p><h2>Opposition is handicapped</h2><p>Imran Khan, the former prime minister, and his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party have strongly opposed the move, calling it an assault on civilian supremacy and judicial independence, which could lead to de facto lifetime military rule. PTI lawmakers have vowed to block the bill and staged boycotts of previous constitutional votes.</p><p>Some Islamist parties, such as JUI-F, and ethnic nationalist groups from Balochistan, Sindh, and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, are also opposed, arguing that the amendments undermine federalism and threaten provincial autonomy.</p><h2>A de facto martial law in Pakistan</h2><p>Legal experts warn that the amendment could create a “neo-martial law” environment, undermining judicial independence and democracy. If passed, Pakistan’s already entrenched reliance on the military in politics could become formalised. Civilian leadership could be sidelined, and decision-making transparency reduced.</p><h2>Will the amendment pass?</h2><p>There is an estimated 70–80 per cent chance of passage. A two-thirds majority in both houses is required for a constitutional amendment, and the ruling coalition, led by PML-N and PPP, holds nearly enough seats to meet this threshold. Observers also note that some lawmakers from smaller parties could be coerced or persuaded to vote for the amendment when it is tabled.</p><h2>What the future holds for Pakistan: Another period of turbulence?</h2><p>If the amendment passes without broad national and political consensus, it could deepen political polarisation, with opponents taking to the streets. Provincial regions could see violence and heavy-handed suppression of protests.</p><p>If enacted, the 27th Amendment could mark a watershed moment in Pakistan’s civil-military balance. Will opportunist politicians formally hand sweeping powers to Field Marshal Asim Munir and the military establishment? The coming weeks will be critical.<br>&nbsp;</p>

This picture says it all: Will opportunist politicians formally hand sweeping powers to Field Marshal Asim Munir and the military establishment? In all likelihood, they will 

Pakistan is on the cusp of a potentially dangerous constitutional shift that could entrench military dominance and elevate Gen Asim Munir to unprecedented powers. At the heart of these concerns is the debate over the 27th Amendment to the 1973 Constitution, causing alarm among opposition political parties, legal experts and civil society. Civilian control over the military has always been largely symbolic in Pakistan, but it could be entirely sacrificed if the so-called 'Munir Amendment' passes, strengthening the hands of Munir, who currently holds the rare rank of Field Marshal. A collusion of government and military that suits Munir The current Pakistani coalition government, led by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, with Asif Ali Zardari of the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) as president, is seen by observers as Munir’s best opportunity to implement the reforms. The coalition came to power with the backing of the military establishment, providing Munir a conducive environment to push constitutional changes. The full text of the amendment has not yet been made public, but reports indicate that three major areas are being addressed: the military command structure, particularly Article 243; federal-provincial relations; and the mandate of the judiciary. The ruling coalition has sought support from the PPP for provisions including establishing constitutional courts, revising the National Finance Commission (NFC) Award, and amending Article 243 concerning armed forces command. While there is some opposition within PPP regarding financial allocations under the NFC award, the party is generally supportive of expanding military powers. Also read: Pak army chief Asim Munir to get extended rule? Bilawal Bhutto hints at revising Article 243, the command structure of its armed forces The rise of Munir: from army chief to Field Marshal Munir’s promotion to Field Marshal in May 2025 came in the wake of heightened India-Pakistan tensions following Operation Sindoor, India’s response to the Pahelgam terror attack. This is only the second time in Pakistan’s history that someone has been appointed Field Marshal; the first was Ayub Khan in 1959. Already, Munir’s term as Chief of Army Staff (COAS) has been extended to November 2027 following a 2024 constitutional amendment that expanded army chiefs’ tenure from three to five years. https://www.wionews.com/videos/imran-khan-accuses-pak-army-chief-asim-munir-of-tyranny-calls-him-mentally-unstable-1762420979624/embed Why critics worry about the new constitutional amendment The amendment could institutionalise military influence, giving Munir significant authority over military appointments, intelligence operations, and national security decisions, including potential war-making powers. Supporters argue that redefining the military’s role will provide stability in Pakistan’s long-term governance, by codifying the military’s contributions to national security. Also read: Imran Khan calls Asim Munir ‘mentally unstable dictator,’ accuses him of tyranny and cruelty Opposition is handicapped Imran Khan, the former prime minister, and his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party have strongly opposed the move, calling it an assault on civilian supremacy and judicial independence, which could lead to de facto lifetime military rule. PTI lawmakers have vowed to block the bill and staged boycotts of previous constitutional votes. Some Islamist parties, such as JUI-F, and ethnic nationalist groups from Balochistan, Sindh, and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, are also opposed, arguing that the amendments undermine federalism and threaten provincial autonomy. A de facto martial law in Pakistan Legal experts warn that the amendment could create a “neo-martial law” environment, undermining judicial independence and democracy. If passed, Pakistan’s already entrenched reliance on the military in politics could become formalised. Civilian leadership could be sidelined, and decision-making transparency reduced. Will the amendment pass? There is an estimated 70–80 per cent chance of passage. A two-thirds majority in both houses is required for a constitutional amendment, and the ruling coalition, led by PML-N and PPP, holds nearly enough seats to meet this threshold. Observers also note that some lawmakers from smaller parties could be coerced or persuaded to vote for the amendment when it is tabled. What the future holds for Pakistan: Another period of turbulence? If the amendment passes without broad national and political consensus, it could deepen political polarisation, with opponents taking to the streets. Provincial regions could see violence and heavy-handed suppression of protests. If enacted, the 27th Amendment could mark a watershed moment in Pakistan’s civil-military balance. Will opportunist politicians formally hand sweeping powers to Field Marshal Asim Munir and the military establishment? The coming weeks will be critical.

<p>This picture says it all: Will opportunist politicians formally hand sweeping powers to Field Marshal Asim Munir and the military establishment? In all likelihood, they will&nbsp;</p>

Will Field Marshal Asim Munir rule Pakistan? Nation is dangerously close to giving the military unfettered powers

<p>The United States and several regional nations are working to assemble the Gaza Force, formally known as the International Stabilisation Force (ISF). This multinational mission would administer the Palestinian enclave, which is slowly recovering after two years of war between Israel and Hamas. Nearly 80 years after Britain’s colonial rule under the so-called “Palestine Mandate” ended, a new foreign force is expected to take charge of Gaza once again. The proposed ISF is a central element of US President Donald Trump’s 20-Point Gaza Ceasefire Plan. Its stated aim is to secure the enclave following the October ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, but many are asking whether it will cause more problems than it solves. Could it simply become another way for foreigners to control Palestinians by proxy?</p><h2>How ISF in Gaza is different: An enforcer, not a peacekeeper</h2><p>The US has circulated a draft UN Security Council resolution to authorise a two-year mandate for the ISF. It is expected to function as an enforcement force, not a traditional peacekeeping mission, prompting observers to wonder whether it will bring stability or signal a return to Mandate-era foreign control under a new guise.</p><p>Unlike blue-helmet UN peacekeepers, the ISF would have authority to use “all necessary measures” to maintain order in Gaza. According to the draft proposal, the ISF’s role would be to secure Gaza’s borders with Israel and Egypt, protect civilians and aid corridors, and help restore basic governance. It would also select and train a new Palestinian police force to take over internal security once the situation stabilises.</p><p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/israel-hamas-war-six-hostages-still-missing-inside-gaza-strip-1762414674258/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/israel-hamas-war-six-hostages-still-missing-inside-gaza-strip-1762414674258/embed</a></p><h2>Who will oversee the Gaza Force?</h2><p>A “Board of Peace”, chaired by Trump and working in coordination with Israel and Egypt, would oversee the Gaza Force. The US is expected to maintain a small coordination hub just outside Gaza. The mission’s declared goal is a temporary two-year stabilisation period leading to Palestinian self-governance, though it remains to be seen whether the force will truly withdraw once its term ends.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/idf-receives-casket-with-hostage-body-from-red-cross-in-gaza-taken-for-identification-1762284793257">IDF receives casket with hostage body from Red Cross in Gaza; remains taken for identification</a></p><h2>International Stabilisation Force for Gaza: Which countries are joining it?</h2><p>While Arab and Muslim-majority nations are expected to form the backbone of the ISF to ensure regional legitimacy, Israel is reported to have veto power over who can join. It has already opposed Turkey’s participation. Indonesia, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, and Azerbaijan are in early discussions, while France, Canada, and Australia may provide training and logistical support. Britain, the erstwhile ruler of Palestinians, is unlikely to play an active role in the new ISF.</p><p>Troop commitments remain uncertain at the time of writing. Most countries are waiting for formal UN authorisation before making firm pledges. Arab states have made clear they will not participate unless Palestinians play a visible leadership role, warning against what they call “new forms of tutelage”.</p><p>Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/hamas-accuses-israel-of-organ-theft-from-palestinian-corpses-and-it-s-not-the-first-time-1762018314693">Hamas accuses Israel of organ theft from Palestinian corpses - AND it’s not the first time</a></p><h2>Gaza Force: Does it have echoes of the British Mandate?</h2><p>For many Palestinians, the ISF proposal feels like déjà vu. During the British Mandate from 1920 to 1948, an external power ruled Palestine for its own good, fostering Zionist institutions and suppressing Arab revolts. Many historians argue that the Mandate laid the groundwork for the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Like that Mandate, the ISF would see foreign forces managing a territory still reeling from war.&nbsp;</p><p>Supporters, however, highlight key differences: the ISF would be multinational, UN-sanctioned, and time-limited—at least on paper—aimed at stabilisation rather than settlement-building.</p><p>Still, the similarities concern many observers. Israel’s reported veto power over participant countries is a major irritant, and the Palestinian Authority appears sidelined. Critics warn the ISF could easily evolve into a form of indirect foreign rule. “It risks being Mandate 2.0—outsiders managing Palestinians until further notice,” one Arab diplomat was quoted as saying in The Guardian.</p><h2>Palestinians’ choice between stabilisation and subjugation: When will boots go on ground for Gaza Force?</h2><p>The mission’s success or failure will depend on whether it can disarm Hamas and other armed groups without triggering renewed chaos. Hamas has already rejected any disarmament conditions, calling the ISF “a disguised occupation under foreign flags.”</p><p>If the UN Security Council approves the resolution this month, initial ISF deployments could begin in early 2026, starting in southern Gaza. Some see the plan as a bridge to peace and reconstruction; others view it as yet another experiment in external control.</p><p>For Gaza’s two million residents, the next chapter may not be written in Ramallah or Jerusalem, but in Washington, Cairo, or even New York.</p>

The proposed International Stabilisation Force (ISF) aims to secure Gaza, but for many critics, it smells like the British Mandate era. There are fears that the Gaza Force, if approved by the UN and implemented, would amount to foreign control similar to the British rule of Palestine.


The United States and several regional nations are working to assemble the Gaza Force, formally known as the International Stabilisation Force (ISF). This multinational mission would administer the Palestinian enclave, which is slowly recovering after two years of war between Israel and Hamas. Nearly 80 years after Britain’s colonial rule under the so-called “Palestine Mandate” ended, a new foreign force is expected to take charge of Gaza once again. The proposed ISF is a central element of US President Donald Trump’s 20-Point Gaza Ceasefire Plan. Its stated aim is to secure the enclave following the October ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, but many are asking whether it will cause more problems than it solves. Could it simply become another way for foreigners to control Palestinians by proxy? How ISF in Gaza is different: An enforcer, not a peacekeeper The US has circulated a draft UN Security Council resolution to authorise a two-year mandate for the ISF. It is expected to function as an enforcement force, not a traditional peacekeeping mission, prompting observers to wonder whether it will bring stability or signal a return to Mandate-era foreign control under a new guise. Unlike blue-helmet UN peacekeepers, the ISF would have authority to use “all necessary measures” to maintain order in Gaza. According to the draft proposal, the ISF’s role would be to secure Gaza’s borders with Israel and Egypt, protect civilians and aid corridors, and help restore basic governance. It would also select and train a new Palestinian police force to take over internal security once the situation stabilises. https://www.wionews.com/videos/israel-hamas-war-six-hostages-still-missing-inside-gaza-strip-1762414674258/embed Who will oversee the Gaza Force? A “Board of Peace”, chaired by Trump and working in coordination with Israel and Egypt, would oversee the Gaza Force. The US is expected to maintain a small coordination hub just outside Gaza. The mission’s declared goal is a temporary two-year stabilisation period leading to Palestinian self-governance, though it remains to be seen whether the force will truly withdraw once its term ends. Also read: IDF receives casket with hostage body from Red Cross in Gaza; remains taken for identification International Stabilisation Force for Gaza: Which countries are joining it? While Arab and Muslim-majority nations are expected to form the backbone of the ISF to ensure regional legitimacy, Israel is reported to have veto power over who can join. It has already opposed Turkey’s participation. Indonesia, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, and Azerbaijan are in early discussions, while France, Canada, and Australia may provide training and logistical support. Britain, the erstwhile ruler of Palestinians, is unlikely to play an active role in the new ISF. Troop commitments remain uncertain at the time of writing. Most countries are waiting for formal UN authorisation before making firm pledges. Arab states have made clear they will not participate unless Palestinians play a visible leadership role, warning against what they call “new forms of tutelage”. Also read: Hamas accuses Israel of organ theft from Palestinian corpses - AND it’s not the first time Gaza Force: Does it have echoes of the British Mandate? For many Palestinians, the ISF proposal feels like déjà vu. During the British Mandate from 1920 to 1948, an external power ruled Palestine for its own good, fostering Zionist institutions and suppressing Arab revolts. Many historians argue that the Mandate laid the groundwork for the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Like that Mandate, the ISF would see foreign forces managing a territory still reeling from war. Supporters, however, highlight key differences: the ISF would be multinational, UN-sanctioned, and time-limited—at least on paper—aimed at stabilisation rather than settlement-building. Still, the similarities concern many observers. Israel’s reported veto power over participant countries is a major irritant, and the Palestinian Authority appears sidelined. Critics warn the ISF could easily evolve into a form of indirect foreign rule. “It risks being Mandate 2.0—outsiders managing Palestinians until further notice,” one Arab diplomat was quoted as saying in The Guardian. Palestinians’ choice between stabilisation and subjugation: When will boots go on ground for Gaza Force? The mission’s success or failure will depend on whether it can disarm Hamas and other armed groups without triggering renewed chaos. Hamas has already rejected any disarmament conditions, calling the ISF “a disguised occupation under foreign flags.” If the UN Security Council approves the resolution this month, initial ISF deployments could begin in early 2026, starting in southern Gaza. Some see the plan as a bridge to peace and reconstruction; others view it as yet another experiment in external control. For Gaza’s two million residents, the next chapter may not be written in Ramallah or Jerusalem, but in Washington, Cairo, or even New York.

<p>The proposed International Stabilisation Force (ISF) aims to secure Gaza, but for many critics, it smells like the British Mandate era. There are fears that the Gaza Force, if approved by the UN and implemented, would amount to foreign control similar to the British rule&nbsp;</p>

Gaza Force is coming: Will the ISF be another rule by proxy for Palestinians, like the British Mandate period?

Author

Zee News Rajasthan

Editor

Vinod Janardhanan

Home

Live Tv

Latest

World

India

Business

Entertainment

Sports

Opinions

Videos

Photos

Gravitas

Lifestyle

Science

Tech

Rajasthan News in Hindi: In-depth coverage of Rajasthan Crime, Political News, Education, Rajasthan Weather Update and Latest Rajasthan News on Zee News Rajasthan.