Read the daily news to learn English

picture of article

Middle East crisis live: Iran’s president apologises to Gulf nations; Trump threatens further strikes

For many US veterans of post-9/11 wars, the strikes on Iran bring troubling echoes of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. My colleague Aaron Glantz has spoken to some of them: Nearly two decades after his second tour, Nathan Wendland is still troubled by his experiences in Iraq. Like 700,000 other Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, the 46-year-old former US army staff sergeant receives compensation for post-traumatic stress disorder. Last January, Wendland checked himself into a psychiatric emergency room because he was worried he would kill himself. He was on the mend, but then Donald Trump ordered a sustained campaign of airstrikes on Iran. All those memories came flooding back. “This war brings triggers into the news cycle every hour,” he said. “I cannot focus on my daily life.” For Wendland and other veterans of the post-9/11 wars, the attack on Iran brings troubling echoes of the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, another war of choice based on questionable claims of weapons of mass destruction that threatens to destabilize the entire region, with no clear endgame and a seemingly callous disregard for civilian casualties. “We’ve put young men and women and support staff in bases all over the world at risk for no reason,” said Shawn VanDiver, a navy veteran. VanDiver said the irony was that many veterans voted for Trump specifically because he promised to keep the US out of wars. “Too many of our generation and friends died fighting these illegal wars that he said he wasn’t going to get us back into,” he said.

picture of article

The myth of Baba Vanga: how a mystic’s ‘prophecies’ fuel online propaganda

In some corners of the internet, the Bulgarian mystic Baba Vanga has taken on mythical proportions. Social media and tabloids across the globe credit her with predicting the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Covid-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine. Last week, some headlines went further, asking: “Did she foresee the Israel-Iran war, US interference, missiles and airspace shutdowns?” An earlier article mused on her “predictions for 2026”, which purportedly included the start of world war three and humanity’s first contact with aliens. Such claims garner clicks, but a chorus of voices from Bulgaria and beyond has warned many of the prophecies attributed to Vanga were probably never said by her. Instead, they say, the so-called “Nostradamus of the Balkans” has become a potent avatar, used for everything from sensationalised clickbait to the pushing of pro-Russian narratives. “It’s absurd,” said Ivan Dramov of the Bulgaria-based Baba Vanga Foundation as he listed off false claims – amplified on TikTok, YouTube and publications that range from UK tabloids to Albanian state-run media – of Vanga’s visions of nuclear catastrophe or world wars. “Absolute lies have been told about this holy woman,” said Dramov, whose organisation was launched by Vanga’s followers and was chaired by Vanga herself in the years before her death. “Vanga dealt mainly with people’s health problems, not with upcoming cataclysms in the world.” Known around the world as Baba Vanga, Vangeliya Pandeva Gushterova was born in 1911 in what was at the time the Ottoman Empire. As a teenager, she was said to have been thrown into a field by a tornado, leading to the gradual loss of her eyesight. She found herself in the local limelight during the second world war as people began visiting her to find out whether their loved ones would return from the front, said Dramov. By the 1960s, she was a regional phenomenon, attracting crowds to Petrich, the south-western Bulgarian town where she lived with her husband. As her reputation spread beyond national borders, visitors began arriving from countries such as Russia, Romania and Greece. Vanga’s pronouncements were often tightly focused on the lives of those who came to see her, as well as their relatives, said Dramov. “She told people which doctor to go to, what actions to take, but nothing more.” Her star soon began to rise internationally, as TV series, books and talkshows delved into her life and prophecies. Among those who eagerly embraced Vanga were Russians, with the Bulgarian becoming “one of the most noteworthy mediums of ‘truth’ in 20th- and 21st-century Russian imagination,” researchers at the University of Texas at Austin noted in 2024. Much later on, with the advent of social media, mentions of Vanga multiplied. Her imprint on Russian culture was such that she inspired a verb, vangovat, meaning to predict, as well as an expression that roughly translates as: “How should I know, do I look like Baba Vanga to you?” Today, her name and supposed prophecies are commonly referenced in Russia, at times to bolster Kremlin-aligned political narratives. The result is a combination with a far-reaching impact: a 2024 report on disinformation by the media organisation BIRN Albania, which surveyed 36 Albanian publications over a year, found at least a dozen articles, most of them citing Russian media, in which Vanga’s predictions were “often used by conspiracy and disinformation media to reinforce certain narratives against Nato and the EU”. Russians’ eager embrace of Vanga belies the fact that the Bulgarian is unlikely to have said much at all – at least explicitly – about Russia, said Viktoria Vitanova-Kerber, a PhD student and research assistant at the Chair for Global Christianity and Interreligious Theology at the University of Fribourg. Instead, many of the predictions attributed to Vanga, from the fall of the Soviet Union to visions of a glorious future for Russia, can be traced back to the Russian writer Valentin Sidorov, who claimed to have met Vanga in the 1970s. “There are, however, no recordings of these meetings, which allowed Sidorov a free interpretation, or possibly even construction of what Vanga has or has not said about Russia,” said Vitanova-Kerber. “Some of his writings from the early 1990s suggest that Vanga had predicted the future primacy of Russia over the US – a narrative well-received in today’s Russia as well.” Sidorov’s writings gave rise to a new generation of prominent so-called Vanga experts in Russia, many of whom have gained prominence in the past 10 years, even as they have invented facts or distorted the scarce historical resources to fit their own political views or interests, said Vitanova-Kerber. These pundits “exaggerated, complemented, and reinterpreted the information, once again, until it suited the dominant narratives of today’s Russian identity politics: national grandeur, anti-westernism and conservation of the ‘traditional values’ of the eastern-Orthodox Christianity, as opposed to the ‘rotten’ liberal values of ‘the west’,” she said. The result was a discourse on Vanga – among the many that circulate in Russia today – that stands out for its conspiratorial, anti-western slant and seeks to justify events such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. “This vagueness of the historical facts, paired with the spiritual authority Vanga still has in Russia – and not only there – makes her a convenient instrument of political propaganda,” Vitanova-Kerber said. The view was echoed by the researchers at the University of Texas at Austin, who noted that Vanga’s power and appeal were not limited to her role as a medium for the dead or her purported ability to see the future. “Instead it lies in the fact that she is a flexible medium, whose name and voice can be deployed for various purposes,” they said. The seemingly unabated stream of prophecies attributed to Vanga is surprising, given that no one recorded Vanga while she was alive and the mystic did not leave any written records, said Zheni Kostadinova, a Bulgarian author whose books about Vanga have been translated into several languages. “Everyone puts words in her mouth that she never said,” said Kostadinova. “But because her authority as a prophetess is like that of Nostradamus, there are hundreds of people tempted to speak on her behalf.” In one book, Kostadinova described Vanga’s prophecies as somewhere between “truth and myth”, noting they had usually been retold and interpreted to a certain degree. Still, many seemed keen to spread false, sensational claims about what Vanga had said during her life, said Kostadinova. “If you ask me, who has not taken advantage of Vanga’s name for their own purposes? Every propaganda uses it to broadcast their own suggestions, those that are pleasing to them, in order to reach the masses.” It was, in some ways, a hint of the future that Vanga had foreseen, said Dramov of the Vanga Foundation. In 1989, as Bulgaria’s communist regime crumbled, Vanga watched as her image and name began to be used to sell everything from clothing to handkerchiefs. While Vanga had never mentioned the possibility that disinformation and propaganda could be added to the list “in general, she stated that her name would be misused”, said Dramov. “She said many times that people will use her name during her life and after her death.”

picture of article

‘How many American troops should die for this?’: veterans split on war with Iran

Nearly two decades after his second tour, Nathan Wendland is still troubled by his experiences in Iraq. Like 700,000 other Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, the 46-year-old former US army staff sergeant receives compensation for post-traumatic stress disorder. Last January, Wendland checked himself into a psychiatric emergency room because he was worried he would kill himself. He was on the mend, but then Donald Trump ordered a sustained campaign of airstrikes on Iran. All those memories came flooding back. “This war brings triggers into the news cycle every hour,” he said. “I cannot focus on my daily life.” For Wendland and other veterans of the post-9/11 wars, the attack on Iran brings troubling echoes of the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, another war of choice based on questionable claims of weapons of mass destruction that threatens to destabilize the entire region, with no clear endgame and a seemingly callous disregard for civilian casualties. Six US military service members have been killed by Iran’s retaliatory strikes. In Iran, US-Israeli airstrikes struck a girls school and left more than 100 children dead. “We’ve put young men and women and support staff in bases all over the world at risk for no reason,” said Shawn VanDiver, a navy veteran and founder of #AfghanEvac, a coalition of 250 veterans, national security and human rights groups which helped rescue thousands of America’s Afghan allies after Kabul’s 2021 fall to the Taliban. VanDiver said the irony was that many veterans voted for Trump specifically because he promised to keep the US out of wars. “Too many of our generation and friends died fighting these illegal wars that he said he wasn’t going to get us back into,” he said. In Washington, lawmakers who served in Iraq and Afghanistan have been among the most outspoken in their rebuke of the administration. “It’s a scary situation when you don’t hear what the plan is, what the victory is, when the president doesn’t lay out what the goals are. You don’t know what part you are in that mission, and what does that mean for your life,” said Senator Ruben Gallego, an Arizona Democrat and marine corps veteran of the Iraq war whose unit sustained heavy casualties. Gallego said the war was illegal, arguing there was “no imminent threat” permitting the Trump administration to circumvent congressional authorization. Democratic representative Chris DeLuzio of Pennsylvania, a navy veteran of the Iraq war, said “every hawk cheerleading this war” should “answer a simple question: how many American troops should die for this?” Veteran opinion is hardly unanimous, however, including in Congress. Senator Joni Ernst, an Iowa Republican and combat veteran of the Iraq war, backed the president, arguing the six American service members killed by Iran “gave their lives in support of a noble mission: protecting: protecting their fellow Americans and keeping our homeland secure”. Trump won nearly two-thirds of the veteran vote in 2024, according to exit polls. Many, especially, older veterans, are sticking with the president, saying he took bold action to attack a regime determined to destroy the US. “They chant ‘death to Israel’, ‘death to the United States’,” said Don Buel, a 77-year-oldnavy veteran of the Vietnam war, who ministered for the Campus Crusade for Christ. Buel, who lives in Minden, Nevada (population 3,000), is a three-time Trump voter. “They say we’re the great Satan,” he said of the Iranian government. “You can’t negotiate with that.” The American Legion, which boasts 1.6 million members in more than 12,000 posts across America, released a statement praising the presidentTrump. “The Iranian regime has been the world’s leading state sponsor of terror, kidnapping and murdering U.S. citizens and targeting U.S. military and allied personnel through proxies,” the statement said. “While there may be debate about the immediate justification for these actions, there is strong bipartisan agreement that the Iranian regime poses an enormous threat to the United States and our allies.” But to Stephanie Keegan, the US military’s attack on Iran is both illegal and not worth the loss of American lives.. Her son, Sgt Daniel Keegan, deployed on two special operations tours in Kandahar, Afghanistan, with the 82nd Airborne Division and succumbed at home after developing an infection linked to his heroin addiction. Keegan said her son, who was named seventh Special Group Soldier of the Year, would strongly oppose this war. “This would be an absolute abomination to him,” she said. “The rules and the constitution were not followed. The necessity has not been validated. He would have felt deceived.” VanDiver said his immediate concern is for the safety of 1,100 of America’s Afghan allies at Camp Al Sayliyah, a former US military base in Qatar that is now run by the state department. US patriot missiles are intercepting most Iranian attacks, he said, but the explosions send flaming balls of shrapnel falling from the sky, “flying into bedrooms where their children are sleeping. They are terrified.” Residents of the camp, who are awaiting permission to come to the US, include 150 immediate family members of active duty military, VanDiver said. Rachel Leingang contributed reporting

picture of article

US bomber lands in UK after warning of surge in strikes on Iran

A US bomber has landed at an RAF base in Britain after Washington warned that strikes on Iran would “surge dramatically”. The 146ft B-1 Lancer, which is capable of carrying 24 cruise missiles, arrived at RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire on Friday evening after Keir Starmer had granted permission for “defensive” US action against Iranian missile sites from UK bases. The armed forces chief, Richard Knighton, said he expected the US to launch missions from the Gloucestershire base “within the next few days”. The prime minister agreed on Sunday to allow the US to strike Iran defensively from Fairford and Diego Garcia, the largest of the Chagos islands in the Indian Ocean. The landing comes shortly after the US defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, warned on Thursday that strikes were “about to surge dramatically”, referring to “more fighter squadrons, more defensive capabilities and more bomber pulses more frequently”. On Friday, Donald Trump demanded Iran’s unconditional surrender while Israeli warplanes bombed Tehran and Beirut and Iran launched another wave of retaliatory strikes against Israel and Gulf countries. Starmer has defended his decision to block initial offensive strikes by the US and Israel at the weekend, saying he stood by his judgment and denying it had damaged the so-called special relationship. The move prompted Trump to launch a personal attack against the prime minister, saying that he was “not Winston Churchill”. At a top secret national security council (NSC) meeting last Friday, Starmer’s suggestion to allow the US to use RAF bases to carry out defensive strikes was reportedly met with opposition from a number of cabinet ministers including Ed Miliband, Rachel Reeves, Yvette Cooper and Shabana Mahmood, according to the Spectator, in a report that was then picked up by several media outlets. Starmer insisted that “all ministers” on the national security council had supported the UK position on the use of British bases, rejecting reports he had faced cabinet opposition led by Miliband. The Guardian understands, however, that all options were discussed at the NSC meeting on Friday. On Saturday morning, Sadiq Khan said Starmer was “right to resist pressure” from the US to join strikes on Iran, and heavily criticised the “war of choice” that he said was “being waged unilaterally without any international consensus or UN approval, or any serious strategy as to what comes next”. Starmer held a call with Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, on Friday, in which the prime minister said the UK stood ready to help defend the country should it be needed. It comes after he faced some criticism from Gulf states and Cyprus, where a drone evaded detection and hit RAF Akrotiri, for not doing enough to protect regional allies and British citizens there from Iranian strikes. Air defence destroyer HMS Dragon is not expected to sail to the eastern Mediterranean until next week while France and Greece have already deployed military assets to defend Cyprus. One reason it is taking some time to prepare the Type 45 destroyer is because it is being equipped to remain at sea for several months if required, rather than rushed into the eastern Mediterranean for a short period. The Tory leader, Kemi Badenoch, is due to renew her attack on the UK’s response to the war in a speech on Saturday, when she is expected to say that “allies feel they can no longer rely on us”. Badenoch sparked a row over her suggestion that UK military jets had been “just hanging around” and not taking the necessary action in the Middle East. The former shadow foreign secretary Andrew Mitchell told Times Radio that Badenoch did not have “anything to apologise for” and that she had been making a point about ministers being slow to offer support to allies in the region. A second government charter flight carrying British citizens from Oman landed at Gatwick on Saturday as efforts to help people trapped in the war zone continue. The latest arrivals join about 6,500 Britons who have returned from the United Arab Emirates since widespread conflict began in the region.

picture of article

Iran rejects Trump’s demand for unconditional surrender as a ‘dream’

The president of Iran has rejected Donald Trump’s call for the country’s unconditional surrender as a “dream”, while issuing a rare apology for Iranian strikes that had targeted sites in neighbouring Gulf states. In a prerecorded address broadcast on state television on Saturday, Iran’s president, Masoud Pezeshkian, said the country would never capitulate, responding to remarks by the US president, who said on Friday that only Iran’s total submission could bring the war to an end. Iran’s enemies, Pezeshkian said, “must take their dream of the Iranian people’s unconditional surrender to their graves”, in remarks that further escalate the eighth day of conflict, which has choked global oil supplies and cut world air travel. At the same time, Pezeshkian issued an apology to neighbouring states for Iran’s recent “actions”, in an apparent attempt to ease regional anger after Iranian strikes hit civilian targets in Gulf Arab countries. Tehran has responded to attacks on its territory by targeting Israel, but also Gulf Arab states that host US military installations, while Israel has also launched intense strikes on Lebanon, where the Iran-backed armed group Hezbollah is based. Over the past week, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia have all reported drone and missile attacks. Pezeshkian said Iran’s temporary leadership council had approved suspending attacks on nearby countries unless an assault on Iran originated from those states. “I personally apologise to neighbouring countries that were affected by Iran’s actions,” he said. It remains unclear whether Pezeshkian’s remarks signal a broader decision by Tehran to scale back its campaign, or what prompted the apparent shift, with reports suggesting some strikes were still being directed at Gulf states on Saturday morning. Iranian president’s speech comes as Israel said it had launched a fresh wave of strikes on Iran, sending 80 fighter jets in a pre-dawn blitz that set one of Tehran’s main airports on fire. Israeli officials said the targets included a military academy, an underground command centre and a missile storage facility. Photos showed flames and thick plumes of smoke rising from Mehrabad International airport, one of the two airports serving the Iranian capital, Tehran. Iran also retaliated on Saturday. Air raid sirens sounded and explosions were reported above Jerusalem as well as in Gulf cities including Dubai and Manama, and near Riyadh, where Saudi Arabia said it intercepted a ballistic missile aimed at an airbase hosting US military personnel. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps also said it had targeted the oil tanker Prima in the Gulf as it attempted to pass through the strait of Hormuz, a narrow maritime choke-point for global shipping that Iran has in effect closed. Now entering its second week, the war was triggered by joint airstrikes by Israel and the US that killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei. Since then the conflict has rapidly widened, spilling into Lebanon and reaching as far as the eastern Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean. Iran’s health ministry said at least 926 civilians had been killed and about 6,000 injured. Israel has also intensified airstrikes in Lebanon, repeatedly targeting the southern suburbs of Beirut. Lebanon’s health ministry said at least 217 people had been killed, while the prime minister, Nawaf Salam, warned that a humanitarian disaster was looming. The Norwegian Refugee Council said about 300,000 people had fled their homes.

picture of article

‘It means missile defence on data centres’: drone strikes raises doubts over Gulf as AI superpower

It is believed to be a first: the deliberate targeting of a commercial datacentre by the armed forces of a country at war. At 4.30am on Sunday morning, an Iranian Shahed 136 drone struck an Amazon Web Services datacentre in the United Arab Emirates, setting off a devastating fire and forcing a shutdown of the power supply. Further damage was inflicted as attempts were made to suppress the flames with water. Soon after, a second data centre owned by the US tech company was hit. Then a third was said to be in trouble, this time in Bahrain, after an Iranian suicide drone turned to fireball on striking land nearby. Iranian state TV has claimed that Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps launched the attack “to identify the role of these centres in supporting the enemy’s military and intelligence activities”. The network built by Jeff Bezos’s company could withstand one of its regional centres being taken out of action but not a second, let alone a third of their huge warehouses of technology. The coordinated strike had an immediate impact. Millions of people in Dubai and Abu Dhabi woke up on Monday unable to pay for a taxi, order a food delivery, or check their bank balance on their mobile apps. Whether there was a military impact is unclear – but the strikes swiftly brought the war directly into the lives of 11 million people in the UAE, nine out of 10 of whom are foreign nationals. Amazon has advised its clients to secure their data away from the region. Perhaps more significantly, the strikes on this ‘next generation’ war target are now raising questions about the prospects of the UAE building on its plans, and many billions of pounds worth of US and other foreign investment, to exploit what they hope will be the ‘new oil’: artificial intelligence (AI). “The UAE really wants to be a major AI player,” said Chris McGuire, an AI and technology competition expert who served as a White House national security council official in Joe Biden’s administration. “Their government has very strong conviction about this technology, probably stronger than any other government in the world, and if there’s going to start to be security questions around that, then they’re going to have to resolve those very quickly, somehow.” A datacentre is a facility designed to store, manage, and operate digital data. The growing demand by businesses for artificial intelligence (AI) and cloud computing – where firms have a pay-as-you-go relationship with the providers of servers, storage and software – is driving the need for centres that have significantly more computational power. It requires a ready and consistent supply of very cheap electricity. The UAE, as it seeks to diversify away from fossil fuels, has been able to point out that it has this in spades, along with a huge sovereign wealth fund ready to invest and subsidise projects. According to Turner & Townsend’s Global Data Centre Index, the overall global cost increase of datacentre construction increased in 2025 by 5.5% – but the UAE ranks 44th in the league table of most expensive unit cost per watt out of 52. The UAE’s geography also makes it a critical subsea cable landing point, providing access between Europe and Asia. Then there are the geo-politics, with the US keen to keep the Gulf states away from Chinese technology. A four-day tour by Donald Trump of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE last May coincided with the announcement of the construction of a vast new AI campus – a partnership between the UAE and the US – for the purpose of training powerful AI models. As part of the deal, the Trump administration eased restrictions on advanced chips sales to the Gulf. OpenAI has said the planned UAE campus could eventually serve half the world’s population. McGuire said that this week’s events could be pivotal. “If we’re going to have large scale datacentres built out in the Middle East, we’re going have to get pretty serious about how we protect them,” he said. ‘We think about how to protect it right now, and we’re saying, ‘Oh, it means you have guards and good cybersecurity’. “If you’re actually going to double down the Middle East, maybe it means missile defence on datacentres.” Sean Gorman, the chief executive of Zephr.xyz, a technology firm that is a contractor to the US air force, said that the Gulf states’ ambitions would have likely been in the thoughts of military planners in Tehran. He said: “I believe the Iranians are building on tactics they’ve seen be effective in the Ukraine conflict. Asymmetric warfare that can target critical infrastructure creates pressure on adversaries by disrupting public safety and economic activity. “UAE and Bahrain have both been positioning themselves as global AI hubs by investing heavily in datacentres and fibre infrastructure to connect them to the rest of the world. “If they can disrupt that infrastructure, it puts their strategic position under risk while also disrupting operations that are important to the economy. In addition, there could be an adjacent impact of defence operations, but that would likely be more luck than the primary objective.” Gorman said the UAE had a “long track record of managing regional instability without becoming party to it” but that there were a range of risks apart from that from the air. He said: “The UAE also has one of the most diversified submarine-cable landing environments in the Middle East, but the diversity is geographically uneven. “There are multiple landing stations and cable systems, but many of them concentrate on the east coast at Fujairah, which creates a partial geographic chokepoint. “In addition, there is a specific risk from Iranian cyber operations targeting US-aligned digital infrastructure in the Gulf, which presents a more concrete near-term threat to datacentre and cloud operations than geography in the traditional sense.” Gorman said the concern would be if Iran demonstrated any further capability to target Gulf digital infrastructure as part of its retaliation. He said: “The UAE will need to show partners that its infrastructure is defensible. This is the question investors should be asking, not whether the broader AI ambition survives.” Vili Lehdonvirta, senior fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, said there were significant costs to such defences but that the danger was real. The former chair of the US National Security Commission on AI, Eric Schmidt, suggested last year that a country falling behind in an AI arms race could bomb their adversary’s datacentres. Lehdonvirta said he suspected that no one actually believed that datacentres “would get bombed despite such scenarios being openly floated for some time”. “If that’s the case then from now on we might perhaps see operators of prominent datacentres like AWS [Amazon Web Services] investing in air defence, similar to how shipping operators armed up against pirates,” he said. Where might Iran fruitfully strike next? “The Iranians will be well aware that the fibreoptic cables that connect these datacentres to the United States and to the rest of the world run through the strait of Hormuz,” Lehdonvirta said, “although they’ll be closely watched by the US and allied forces.”

picture of article

British family stranded in Middle East after Foreign Office errors

A British family stranded in the Middle East after being wrongly refused entry to an evacuation flight from Oman say they have received an apology from the Foreign Office, but no actual help to get home. Nusaybah Sattar, 26, from London, was in Dubai with her family to celebrate her brother-in-law’s 40th birthday when the city was hit by Iranian drones and missiles last Saturday. Sattar said she heard bangs earlier in the day but thought it was construction work. “It just hit home – the reality that it could happen anywhere,” she said. When they realised what was happening, the family left the country, making an eight-hour drive to Oman. There, they registered their presence with the UK government and were informed of a charter flight to London being organised for British nationals by the Foreign Office. The family of six paid more than £1,700 for tickets, but when they tried to board the flight on Wednesday, Foreign Office ground workers said that most of them had not been approved to do so. They later found out that Sattar’s 19-month-old toddler and her 84-year-old grandmother-in-law, who uses a wheelchair, were the only ones cleared to board. “Those two are the most vulnerable of our group and they need carers. They can’t just go on a flight by themselves,” Sattar said. Sattar’s husband contacted the Home Office, which said they did not have the correct visas to enter the UK. Every member of the family is a British national and had their UK passports in hand while attempting to board the plane. Sattar was also told there was an issue with how her name appeared in the system because she had a different surname before marriage. “If we had English names, I don’t think there would have have been an issue,” she said. “There were other families there that weren’t of our background and it was much for easier for them to get on to the flight.” With half an hour to go before the plane was due to take off, the family had to concede that none of them would be able to board. The flight, which was the first charter to take British nationals back to the UK from the Middle East since the US and Israel launched strikes against Iran, was ultimately delayed until Thursday. The flight was part of a wider evacuation effort that the UK prime minister, Keir Starmer, has called “one of the biggest of its kind” but it still departed without Sattar’s family onboard. More than 140,000 Britons have registered their presence in the Middle East with the Foreign Office, but MPs and British nationals in the Middle East have criticised the pace and scale of the evacuation effort. Airspace over the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and much of the surrounding area was initially suspended after Iranian strikes targeted Dubai and other major cities in the region, and has since opened up in a very limited capacity. The Foreign Office later told Sattar’s mother that the family had all been cleared to board but, according to its records, had not arrived at the airport. “There’s so many different things that they’ve been saying to everyone and none of it is actually true. It’s so completely disorganised,” Sattar said. She added that several Foreign Office staff members have since called her and her family to apologise but failed to offer any further help. On Thursday night the Foreign Office crisis team was still unable to tell the family whether a further charter flight would be leaving Oman, so Sattar and her family made the eight-hour journey back to Dubai to stay with her brother-in-law. However, on Friday morning, she was told another evacuation flight would depart from Oman later that day – one she would no longer be able to reach. Sattar said she no longer has the “physical or financial resources” to make another journey to Oman, having so far spent just under £4,000 on tickets for the charter flight, hotels in Oman, and transport from and back to Dubai. She added that taxis were charging £1,000 per person to flee Dubai for Oman. She said that her disabled grandmother, a stroke patient who suffers from serious back problems, had now run out of essential medication, and that the Foreign Office, despite being at fault, told her it was “not willing to do anything to help us get back”. She is now pleading with the Home Office to organise her family’s safe transport from Dubai back to Oman and accommodation until the next available evacuation flight, or to secure them seats on a charter plane out of the UAE. “I used to think that the British Embassy was this big deal. If you needed help to get back safely to the UK, they’d be willing to do that,” she said. “It doesn’t matter if you have a certain name. You are a British national and you’ll come back safely. It’s just shocking that this has even happened.” A government spokesperson said: “Our rapid deployment team has been working through the night to support British nationals through this distressing time. “All passengers are told that eligibility checks must be completed before a seat can be confirmed, and that they should not travel to the airport unless contacted directly by our consular team. This kind of operation is logistically complicated and things can change quickly.”

picture of article

‘An ideological guest list’: Trump invites Latin America’s rightwing leaders to Florida summit

Donald Trump will welcome the leaders of at least 10 Latin American countries to a palm-dotted golf resort in Miami on Saturday as the president continues his quest to transform the US’s standing in the region and outmuscle China. Since returning to power last year, Trump has launched a dramatic – and at times deadly – crusade to, as the Pentagon chief, Pete Hegseth, put it, “reclaim our back yard”. Vows to “take back” the Panama canal were followed by airstrikes on alleged narco boats in the Caribbean and Pacific, overt meddling in Brazil’s judicial system, threats of military intervention in Mexico and Colombia, and, most startlingly, the abduction of Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, and the use of Predator drones to help kill one of the world’s most wanted drug bosses, El Mencho, in Mexico. Trump has also rescued Argentina’s president, the radical libertarian Javier Milei, with a multibillion-dollar bailout, and interfered in Honduras’s recent election in support of the eventual rightwing winner. He recently suggested a “friendly takeover” of Cuba, as his administration seeks to strangle the country’s struggling communist regime into submission by cutting off its oil supply, despite UN warnings of a humanitarian “collapse”. “As a critic of him, I’m the first to admit there has not been a presidency since perhaps Kennedy that has had such a profound effect on Latin America, in so many spheres of activity. The effects are real,” said a former US ambassador to Panama, John Feeley, who has likened Trump’s behaviour to that of the ruthless fictional mob boss Tony Soprano. Trump officials describe his “Don-roe Doctrine” – a revamp of the 19th-century Monroe Doctrine by which President James Monroe sought to keep European powers out of the Americas – as an attempt to reduce Beijing’s regional footprint and impose Washington’s will through economic and military pressure. On Wednesday, the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, told reporters that Saturday’s invitation-only Shield of the Americas summit was designed “to promote freedom, security and prosperity in our region”. Trump’s guest list includes the rightwing presidents of Argentina, Bolivia, El Salvador and Paraguay but excludes the leftist leaders of three of Latin America’s biggest economies: Brazil, Mexico and Colombia. “This is the VIP level of the Latin America Trump Club – and this meeting really does seem to be conceived as a way to add a clear benefit to membership at that level,” said Brian Winter, the editor-in-chief of Americas Quarterly magazine. Winter said the conclave would be attended by “ideological fellow travellers Trump likes to take photos with”. “There doesn’t appear to be anything really earth-shattering or momentous on the agenda [although] it will surely include security, migration [and] the questions of Venezuela and Cuba.” Trump’s Latin American aficionados have been celebrating their trip to Florida. “Paraguay will be present at this important meeting that will strengthen cooperation and joint work in favour of the security and stability of our nations,” its president, Santiago Peña, wrote on Instagram alongside an image of his invitation. Chile’s ultra-conservative president-elect, José Antonio Kast, who has promised a Trump-style immigration crackdown after he takes power next week, will also attend, as will Ecuador’s president, Daniel Noboa, who this week trumpeted joint anti-drugs operations with the US. On Thursday, one of Trump’s most powerful officials, Stephen Miller, hinted at more such collaboration, claiming the region’s drug traffickers could only be defeated with military force. “Not a single one of your nations should tolerate the existence of a single square mile of territory that is under the control of any entity other than the sovereign governments of your country,” Miller told Latin American military heads, calling drug cartels “the Islamic State and the al-Qaida of the western hemisphere”. Winter said rubbing shoulders with Trump made sense for rightwing politicians keen to show voters they were tough on crime. “Security is the number one issue in Latin America today and the Trump administration is in a unique position to help in a way that produces domestic political benefits for these leaders. Nobody has the intelligence, much less the firepower, that the US does … Virtually every government in the region is eager to have access to the intelligence that only Washington can provide,” he said, noting how Mexico’s leftwing president, Claudia Sheinbaum, accepted the CIA’s help in tracking down El Mencho. But Trump’s Latin America strategy has also caused alarm and outrage in capitals such as Brasília and Bogotá, where officials view Maduro’s capture and US attempts to suffocate Cuba as a flagrant violation of international law. “Cuba isn’t going hungry because it doesn’t know how to produce [food] … Cuba is going hungry because they don’t want Cuba to have access to the things that everyone has a right to,” Brazil’s leftwing president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, said this week. For now, however, such criticism has – like Europe’s response to Trump’s Iran attacks – been cautious, with politicians reluctant to offend the US president. Even Colombia’s outspoken leftwing president, Gustavo Petro, has toned down his anti-Trump rhetoric, and held a friendly meeting with the US president in the White House last month. “What’s interesting – and somewhat surprising – is that at least so far, many countries are going along with this, whether out of convenience or fear,” Winter said. “Even some of the governments that are deeply uncomfortable with the Don-roe Doctrine are keeping their protests to themselves [and] seeking constructive relationships with Trump while quietly scrambling to diversify their relationships so that they depend less on the US.” Benjamin Gedan, the director of the Stimson Center Latin America programme, said the summit’s “ideological guest list” exposed the failure of Trump’s “theatrical” doctrine, and the White House’s inability to work with Latin America’s key countries. “Brazil and Mexico comprise together more than half of the population in the region [and] more than a half of all economic activity … Throw in Colombia and you’ve got the two biggest South American countries. All [of them] completely on the outside of a US hemispheric policy – and this is the hemisphere the US supposedly dominates and [where it] demands pre-eminence,” Gedan said.