Read the daily news to learn English

Middle East crisis live: Tehran says it will charge ships in strait of Hormuz after 60 days; US-Iran presidents sign peace deal

The director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Rafael Grossi, said the organisation was ready to start defining the “concrete steps” that will need to be taken after the signing of the agreement between the US and Iran which provides for the dilution of Iranian uranium stocks under its supervision. “It is good that the memorandum is there. Now the technical work starts,” Grossi told reporters in Geneva. “Now it is for us to sit down with our American and Iranian colleagues and start formulating concrete steps that will have to be taken.”

US to review benefits of having troops in Europe with ‘era of free-riding’ over – Europe live

None of this is really new new – Hegseth largely repeats the US’s main frustrations and grievances with the alliance, repeatedly expressed by Trump – but the tone of the delivery is still very, very striking. Hegseth has laid into Nato allies for not helping enough with bases and overflights during its early Iran operations – and once he did not name any countries, it’s likely targeted at the likes of Spain, Italy, Portugal. In other parts, it is just a broader criticism of what the US sees as “free riding” from the allies, as they do not move quickly enough on spending. Coming just weeks before the Nato summit in Ankara, it is clearly intented to serve as a warning to several of the allies that still don’t spend enough and don’t seem to act with the urgency the US is expecting them to increase that spending – or even offer a credible path towards it. The proposed posture review – and explicit threat that some of them will fail it – and the suggestion the US could reduce its contributions if others do not pay enough, will make some think twice about their plans in the next few weeks. As Hegseth ends his remarks, Rutte says “there’s much to discuss and decide today.” You bet it’s going to be lively.

Russian oil refinery on fire after barrage of Ukrainian drones strike Moscow

Ukrainian drones have hit several locations across Moscow, including setting an ⁠oil refinery on fire, sending out flames and towering plumes ⁠of smoke over the city and forcing the capital’s airports to suspend flights. The scale of the long-range attack, apparently designed to shut down operations at the key oil refinery in the Kapotno area, caught most Muscovites by surprise in a city that does not typically warn residents with air raid alarms, and prompted panicked messages on social media. Footage posted online showed three plumes of smoke rising from the refinery. The strike was the second in two days on the facility, in what the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, then called “a just response to Russian strikes”. The Ukrainian strikes came after Kyiv was hit by a major strike of ballistic missiles and drones, in a marked escalation of the air war between Moscow and Kyiv. The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, had warned of impending “systemic strikes” on Ukraine. “Air defence forces are continuing to repel a large-scale attack. Several drones managed to reach the [Moscow oil refinery],” said Sergei Sobyanin, Moscow’s mayor, adding that a shopping centre was also damaged. He claimed ‌about 180 drones heading for the capital had ‌been downed. Sobyanin said emergency crews were working at the site and also reported “damage” to Sadovod shopping centre in the south-eastern part of the city. At least seven drones appear to have beaten Russia’s air defences to strike targets in the city. Traffic was halted on Moscow’s ring road near ⁠the refinery, the broadcaster RIA cited ‌the interior ministry as saying, while air traffic was disrupted at Vnukovo, Sheremetyevo, and Zhukovsky airports. Footage posted on social media also appeared to show the strike on the top floors of a high rise building in the Zhukovsky district. An earlier strike on Tuesday was understood to have already halted operations at the refinery, adding to widespread damage to Russian energy facilities and extending a fuel crisis deeper into the country. Russia, the world’s third-biggest oil producer and ‌a major oil and fuel exporter, is to import fuel by sea this month as it seeks to manage a shortage after extensive Ukrainian drone attacks on its refineries. In the surrounding ‌Moscow region, a high-rise residential building, an industrial facility and a number of private houses were damaged in the drone attack, the regional governor said. Sheremetyevo airport, Moscow’s busiest, suspended flights and evacuated people. Some sought shelter in the parking area, the airport said. Russia said its ⁠air defence systems had intercepted and ⁠destroyed 555 Ukrainian drones over ⁠multiple regions ‌overnight. The number actually shot down could not be independently confirmed. Kyiv came under air attack this week as Russia unleashed ballistic missiles on the Ukrainian capital, city officials said, with residents urged to take shelter. Authorities in the north-eastern Ukrainian city of Sumy said one person was killed in a drone attack. Airstrike alerts were issued for most of Ukraine’s territory. One person was killed in the Ukrainian city of Enerhodar, where most of ‌the staff of the Russian-held Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant live, said the Russia-installed mayor, Maksim Pukhov. In Russia’s Belgorod border region, officials said a Ukrainian drone strike killed one man in his car. On Wednesday, Moscow accused Ukraine of attacking a bus carrying Belarusian children, an accusation Kyiv said was false. In the southern Russian region of Rostov, a Ukrainian drone attack killed one person and caused a fire at two commercial facilities, officials said. Russia and Ukraine deny deliberately targeting civilians. Reuters contributed to this report

Thursday briefing: What we can learn from the Swiss rejection of a population cap

Good morning. Polling stations have just opened in Makerfield, where byelection voters will make a decision that – whatever the result – will have long-term, national consequences. Results are expected in the early hours, and we’ll have them in full, along with much more, in your inboxes tomorrow morning. Today we turn to another vote, which, much like certain parts of the campaign in Makerfield, centred on immigration. Swiss progressives breathed a collective sigh of relief on Sunday night, after voters rejected a divisive referendum. The far-right proposal, backed by Switzerland’s biggest parliamentary party, the Swiss People’s party (SVP), wanted to limit the country’s permanent population to 10 million until 2050. It would have made Switzerland the first country to implement a population cap. The Swiss electorate had other ideas. After a campaign in which the margins looked incredibly tight, final figures show the initiative was defeated by a more comfortable 55% to 45%. By most metrics, Switzerland is one of the world’s most prosperous, happy and healthy nations. Nonetheless, this debate rages on. For today’s First Edition, I discussed the vote with Joseph de Weck, an associate fellow at the German Council on Foreign Relations, to see what lessons there are to take from the defeat of this populist panacea. But first, this morning’s headlines. Five big stories Middle East | Donald Trump has signed a 14-point agreement with Iran, claiming it delivered a “major win” for the United States – even as it made significant political and financial concessions to Iran to reopen the strait of Hormuz and prevent a “worldwide depression”. UK news | British officials believe Russia will try to retaliate for the Royal Marines’ seizure of the oil tanker Smyrtos, prompting UK shipowners to exercise greater vigilance until tensions with Moscow ease. Health | Women who received an HPV vaccine in early adolescence have virtually zero risk of dying from cervical cancer before the age of 30, according to a groundbreaking study, but falling vaccination rates could see a rise in avoidable deaths. UK economy | Brexit has depressed UK exports to the EU by 12%, and rejoining the customs union would undo only a fraction of the damage, research shared with the Guardian shows. Science | Decriminalising the possession of cannabis or strictly regulating access to the drug do not appear to drive up usage, but when the drug is sold commercially the number of users increases and more mental health problems are seen, a review has found. In depth: ‘There’s a mentality of Switzerland as this calm fortress that is being stormed’ Anti-immigration sentiments have been pervasive in Switzerland for decades. “It’s a small country, and there is constant anxiety about being ‘taken over’ by foreigners,” says de Weck. “It’s similar to the ‘great replacement theory’ being discussed in other European countries. But the Swiss attitude predates this. There’s a mentality of Switzerland as a refuge, and that this picture-perfect, clean and calm fortress is being stormed. That paradise could be lost.” Immigration in Switzerland is relatively high. The country’s population has jumped from 6.7 million in 1990 to approximately nine million today. According to government figures, over a quarter of residents weren’t born in the country – one of the highest levels in Europe. In Switzerland, a referendum can be forced if 100,000 people back an initiative within 18 months. These then need a double majority to pass: nationally, 50% of voters need to vote yes, as must the majority of voters in at least half of Switzerland’s 26 semi-sovereign states (called cantons). As a result, immigration policy is a near constant question in the country. “The Swiss have voted on immigration perhaps 20 times in the past 60 years, from different angles,” says de Weck. “These votes are mostly launched by the far-right SVP, the biggest in parliament.” Only one such vote has passed, the “against mass immigration” initiative in 2014, which led to minor reforms. Comparisons have been made between this year’s vote and an infamous 1970 referendum. Known as the Schwarzenbach initiative, de Weck says “it would have limited the percentage of foreign-born people living in Switzerland to 10%. If accepted, over 300,000 foreigners would have been expelled.” Voters narrowly rejected it, which “gave the far right a theme to expand on. It’s no great surprise we had Sunday’s vote – it’s almost a Swiss tradition.” “That’s important to understand about Switzerland,” says de Weck. “We vote again and again on the same issues. This doesn’t mean we disrespect democracy. Votes are like signals or pivots – the population tells Berne to pivot a bit. And if they go too far, we tell them. Since everyone can launch initiatives, we do so regularly.” *** Reframing the debate If current trends continue, Switzerland’s population is projected to hit 10 million by 2040 or 2041. Capping it there would be entirely arbitrary, de Weck believes. “I’m approaching 40 – we grew up learning that Switzerland is a country of 7 million. Psychologically, it’s a shift to go into double digits.” While plenty of nations limit immigration, no country has ever voted explicitly to cap its population. If the vote had passed, once the population hit 9.5 million, restrictions on family reunification, asylum and residency permits would have been expected, as would Switzerland looking to leave the Schengen area. Opting for a ceiling in the referendum that required no immediate action was tactical. “They didn’t want to scare voters into saying the stop is tomorrow,” says de Weck. “The relationship with the EU would have to be renegotiated imminently – and nobody wants a Brexit mess. Presented as a safeguard measure for the future, they hoped it would feel less radical to voters in the centre.” Its far-right proponents adjusted their framing, too. “The SVP labelled it the ‘sustainability initiative’, trying to couch this vote in that language: infrastructure being strained; the environment being damaged – it’s nonsense. This party is pushing for super-low corporate tax rates, and is pro fossil fuels. “Polling in the run-up to the vote showed left-wing voters weren’t tempted by this. (In 2023, voters backed a commitment to net zero with a sizeable majority.) It shows how far-right parties will constantly adapt their anti-immigrant rhetoric.” Progressive attempts to appease the right on immigration, de Weck suggests, only leads to the goalposts moving – something Britons may recognise in how the debate has shifted even further rightwards since the Brexit result, and recent falling immigration figures. *** Moving goalposts Despite the defeat, a large chunk of the Swiss electorate still backed the radical, anti-immigration measure. But in global quality of life rankings, Switzerland regularly comes out close to the top. Its population has one of the highest levels of current life satisfaction in Europe. In the OECD’s Better Life Index, Switzerland outperforms the average on everything from education and life expectancy to disposable income. Financial stability and success, even if welcome, is clearly not the simple salve to anti-immigration sentiment that some on the left may hope. “The discourse was therefore about immigration’s secondary effects. Trains being full, traffic being bad. They invented the term dichtestress, meaning ‘density stress’: the strain a growing population puts on infrastructure. And then the sense of feeling at home: walking down the street and hearing so many foreign languages.” Analysis shows that voters in urban areas, with higher levels of immigration, rejected the referendum in the greatest numbers. As the results were announced, the SVP president, Marcel Dettling, lamented that “cities simply wipe the country out”. This, de Weck argues, is significant. “As always, regions with the fewer immigrants voted in favour.” Areas where rents are lower; public services are less pressured. “It’s evidence that those who support these initiatives do so because of their opinion on foreigners, rather than societal strains they’re not even personally experiencing.” It is a pattern we see repeated in much of the western world. *** There is another way Britain’s Labour government has taken a hardline approach to immigration since being elected in 2024. Potential Makerfield MP (and challenger to the prime minister), Andy Burnham, has backed these policies. The progressive approach in Switzerland, explains de Weck, is different. “The left is making a positive case for immigration here,” he says. “It is unafraid of saying Switzerland is a success story because of immigrants. The Swiss left doesn’t have the same issue as the German or British left in moving towards the right on immigration. “Immigration has been high compared to other European countries, but Switzerland is highly successful and wealthy because of this globalisation. It created a stable economic climate that has attracted foreign innovators.” The economy is strong. Unemployment is low. Wages are high. “Life here is pretty good,” says de Weck. “But that doesn’t mean the far right don’t push anti-immigrant rhetoric. It’s a lesson to progressives: even in a country where you’ve solved most economic and social issues” – or, where immigration is predominantly from within western Europe – “a far-right party can still prove successful.” That’s not to deny challenges facing residents. Housing came up a lot in this referendum, de Weck says. Average house prices have more than doubled in the past two decades. Statistics show that while rent and salaries have increased, low-income earners have been left worse off. “There is an issue: a lack of building, the financial sector buying up properties for investments and immigration pushing up demand,” says de Weck. But instead of blaming migrants, progressives, who govern most cities in Switzerland, are looking for solutions. In Zurich, for example, the city government has budgeted £560m to purchase properties in 2026, bringing more housing into public ownership. “There is more to be done,” says de Weck, “and this stuff takes time. But in Switzerland, the left has understood you need to take action.” These results, he says, are proof. “The Swiss have resisted the hubris of nationalism and xenophobia. And for now at least, immigration doesn’t need to absorb even more of our political capital.” What else we’ve been reading Russia caused major damage to Kyiv’s Pechersk Lavra monastery this week. These striking images of this Unesco world heritage site before the deadly air raid really capture its beauty. Michael Judith Kerr, beloved author of The Tiger Who Came to Tea and When Hitler Stole Pink Rabbit, was not the only talent in her family. Now music composed by her mother, Julia, whose musical career was cut short by the Nazis, has been re-discovered in German archives. Libby This moving, personal and persuasive column by 14-year-old trans athlete Lina Haaga should give us all pause for thought: “No child, transgender or cisgender, should be forced to endure the cruelty of uninformed adults.” Michael World Cup 2026 On the pitch England v Croatia | Captain Harry Kane struck twice in a spluttering first half before goals from Jude Bellingham and Marcus Rashford sealed a stylish win for England in Dallas. Ghana v Panama | A stoppage time goal from Caleb Yirenkyi gave Ghana a 1-0 win over Panama as they joined England at the top of Group L. And the rest … | Newcastle striker Yoane Wissa became the first DR Congo player to score at a World Cup to force a draw against Portugal, while in Mexico City, Colombia managed to squeeze past dogged Uzbekistan, although the 3-1 scoreline didn’t fully reflect the pattern of the Group K match. Off the pitch Mexico | A protest is set to be held before the game between Mexico and South Korea in Guadalajara, against World Cup sponsor Hyundai’s business dealings with the South American mining company Ternium. Ghana | The Black Stars’ football odyssey has been a topsy-turvy ride due to managerial instability, Thomas Partey’s visa issues and loss of their most influential player, Mohammed Kudus, to injury. Social media | Every World Cup sees the dawn of new stars, and social media is increasing that effect as previously unknown players have gained millions of social media followers thanks to the attention of tournament Today’s Fixtures • Czechia v South Africa, 5pm BST on BBC • Switzerland v Bosnia and Herzegovina, 8pm BST on ITV • Canada v Qatar, 11pm BST on ITV • Mexico v South Korea, 2am BST on BBC The front pages “Team Burnham talk ministers out of resigning to avoid chaos”, is the Guardian’s front page today. The Times leads with “Change is coming, says Burnham in snub to PM”, the i Paper has “D-Day for PM as Makerfield voters shape future of UK”, and the Mail’s headline is “Miliband set to trigger cabinet coup”. Metro writes “Starmer’s bye-bye election?”. Elsewhere, the Telegraph has “England flags face ban by council”, the FT says “Warsh era begins at Fed with ditching of bias towards lower borrowing costs”, and the Sun, on the World Cup, has “Texas Kane score massacre”. Today in Focus: The Latest Why did Russia warship fire warning shots in the Channel? Keir Starmer has called the firing of warning shots by a Russian warship at a British yacht sailing across the Channel on Tuesday “deeply concerning and reckless”. Russia’s defence ministry said the yacht was on a ‘dangerous course’ and several attempts were made to contact it – a claim disputed by the retired couple onboard the 40ft yacht. Nosheen Iqbal speaks to the Guardian’s defence and security editor, Dan Sabbagh – watch the full episode here. Cartoon of the day | Ella Baron The Upside A bit of good news to remind you that the world’s not all bad In two decades’ time, London could be encircled by willow, hornbeam and hazelnut trees, all thanks to a group of volunteers who are planting a tree-ring around the metropolis – an M25 for nature, if you will. The London Tree Ring project is an ambitious initiative to create a corridor of plant and animal life around the capital over 25 years. In Hadley Wood, north London, a group of young adults with disabilities are taking part in the project, which also acts as pathway into green sector jobs. “I don’t like being stuck in offices the whole time,” says Josh Limb, a young participant in the project. “I love being outdoors – I can breathe.” Sign up here for a weekly roundup of The Upside, sent to you every Sunday Bored at work? And finally, the Guardian’s puzzles are here to keep you entertained throughout the day. Until tomorrow. Martin Belam’s Thursday news quiz Quick crossword Cryptic crossword Wordiply

Ukraine bolsters its northern defences amid fears Belarus is being dragged into war

Russian spy drones flying into Ukraine from Belarusian airspace have sharply increased since the beginning of the year, as senior officials in Kyiv express mounting concern over Belarus’s involvement in the war. Ukraine has stepped up by reinforcing fortifications on its northern border, including anti-tank ditches, concrete “dragons’ teeth” obstacles to block armoured vehicles and new areas of barbed wire. Troops operating along the border say they have noted a jump of about 20% in Russian intelligence drones since January. The increase in drone sightings comes in parallel with reports that Russia has constructed five new drone bases near its shared border with Belarus as part of its efforts to use Minsk’s airspace to attack Ukraine. Ukrainian officials, including the president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, have spoken of “unusual activity” on the Belarus border, amid concern that Moscow is seeking to draw its ally further into the conflict, and warnings that have been given to Minsk. The claims came as Russia and Belarus on Wednesday accused Ukraine of conducting a deadly drone strike on a bus carrying Belarusian schoolchildren while visiting the Russian region of Bryansk, an allegation that Ukraine’s military said was “false”. According to reports in May, Belarus has also been expanding infrastructure that could support Russian operations, including logistics routes and training grounds, as well as communications and surveillance infrastructure in support of Russian drone strikes into Ukraine, which use the Belarusian border areas as an air corridor for attack. Officials say there is no evidence that Russian forces – or the Belarusian military – are gathering in large formations in border areas for a repeat of the use of Belarusian territory to invade Ukraine, as happened during the full-scale invasion in February 2022. Instead, what concerns Ukrainian and European officials is that Moscow is attempting to integrate Minsk ever more closely into its war efforts, including through joint nuclear exercises earlier this year. Among those who have flagged up concern over Belarus’s intentions is the former Ukrainian foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba, who also served on the national defence and security council of Ukraine. In a recent television interview, Kuleba said that the Belarusian president, Aleksandr Lukashenko’s “actions today are different from 2022”, when he allowed his territory to be used by Russia for the invasion. “I’m not saying that an offensive will begin tomorrow,” Kuleba said. “I’m saying I can see something different. A series of events unfolding that gives reason to believe Lukashenko is preparing for war.” Other experts have noted an increase in pro-Russian messaging in Belarus, even as Moscow’s war against Ukraine increasingly has faltered. “Russia is in a strategic stalemate,” Maksym Pleshko, a Ukrainian politician and political scientist, told a recent expert roundtable on the Belarusian threat. “Russia faces serious problems on the frontlines because we are beginning to win this war, and Lukashenko’s use of his narratives and propaganda is precisely an attempt to somehow justify and resolve this situation,” said Pleshko. “And Putin is pressuring Lukashenko for greater cooperation, for greater involvement of his military system in the war against Ukraine, so Lukashenko is trying to justify this to his domestic audience.” Others, however, including Yevhen Mahda, the director of Kyiv’s Institute of World Policy, are highly sceptical that Lukashenko would risk using Belarusian troops to support Moscow. That was reinforced by warnings last month from Ukraine’s unmanned forces commander, Robert Brovdi, that Kyiv has already identified approximately 500 targets it would hit in the event of Minsk’s involvement becoming more direct. “If we are talking about him [Lukashenko] involved in a potential action against Ukraine, politically it would be the end of him, not least after all that has been said about 500 targets in Belarus that Ukraine is ready to hit,” said Brovdi. If there is broad agreement among experts in Ukraine and elsewhere, however, it is that Moscow – faced with a deepening impasse on the existing fronts in its war – may seek to use Belarus to threaten to widen the geographical scope of conflict against Ukraine, but also potentially in a wider European context. It was precisely this point that was made by Ukraine’s foreign minister, Andrii Sybiha, in May. “Moscow is increasingly dragging Belarus into its war against Ukraine, turning it into a platform for aggression, not only against our country, but against Europe as a whole.” And on Ukraine’s northern border with Belarus, Kyiv is not taking any risks regarding Minsk’s increasing participation in Moscow’s war. North of the city of Chernihiv, occupied for a few brief months by Russian forces in 2022, sparsely populated villages are set amid forests of pine, silver birch and black alder. Here, along a narrow road leading to the border, a shirtless work crew fixes loops of razor wire while an excavator digs new anti-tank barriers. Sitting in the parking area of a disused hotel and cafe 2km (1.2 miles) from Belarus, a major in Ukraine’s border force, who referred to himself by his military call sign, Nissan, is involved in improving the defences. “There’s no secret that Belarus was a platform to invade in 2022, so there’s no trust of Belarus,” said Nissan. “We’ve seen a lot of statements from Lukashenko. We see joint training, including nuclear forces. We have to be ready for any scenario. So every day we are building our fortifications. “With the landscape and what we have done, it’s my opinion it would be almost impossible for tanks and vehicles and infantry to move through here. Everything would be destroyed.” While Nissan sees nothing to suggest any troop buildup, the evidence instead points to the Kremlin seeking to further exploit its key cross-border air corridor for strikes on Ukraine, including the creation of a large new base at Tsymbulovo in the Oryol region, which Russian sources suggest would be one of the world’s biggest. And while Ukrainian forces have shot down more than 500 drones in the Chernihiv region alone since the beginning of the year, Russia is also intensifying its efforts to counter anti-drone and missile measures in this region. “What we have seen,” said Nissan, “is an increase in the numbers of intelligence drones flying from Bryansk region [in Russia and into Belarus and then Ukraine] to collect data on our troops.” The trends have not gone unnoticed by local residents. In a shop in the village of Novi Yarylovychi, 5km from the border and home to about 300 people, Natalia Lanna, 55, and Svitlana Sotvykova, 57, see Russian drones daily. “We had 16 go over yesterday evening in pairs,” said Natalia. “Sometimes they fly so low over the village, at 20-metres height, that it feels like I could catch them in my hands. “We can tell the difference between the armed drones and the intelligence ones. We’re experts,” added Svitlana. “The day before yesterday, it was a Gebera surveillance drone. It’s a different sound. A different colour. They circle round.” For some analysts, what residents and troops are seeing on the border represents the real meaning of the risk: not a sudden move by Moscow to open a new front, but an incremental widening of the scope of Russia’s activities involving Belarus. “For European policymakers,” wrote Hanna Liubakova, a journalist from Belarus, in a recent paper for the Atlantic Council, “recent developments in Belarus create a different kind of challenge. “This locks Belarus into a hybrid role that stops short of co-belligerent status, while deepening the country’s indirect participation in Russian aggression. For the Kremlin, this approach makes good sense. After all, Belarus is more useful to Moscow in the role of stable support base than as an unstable ally on the battlefield. “The risk is not of sudden escalation, but rather of gradual normalisation. As Belarus becomes more embedded in Russia’s war effort, incidents linked to its territory, whether drone activity, airspace violations or other forms of pressure, are likely to become more frequent and harder to interpret.”

Western Europeans believe crime is rising despite fall in overall rates, poll finds

Western Europeans believe crime is rising in their country, according to a survey, despite long-term overall crime rates falling across the region since the mid-1990s. The YouGov poll of Britain, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy and Spain found most countries trusted their national police, led by Denmark where 74% of respondents said they had a lot or a fair amount of confidence in police nationally. Between 57% and 64% of respondents in Spain, France, Germany and Italy also said they felt the same, but Britain was an outlier: only 43% said they had a lot or a fair amount of confidence in the police nationally, compared with 53% who had little. But while most western Europeans said they trusted their police, often sizeable majorities – ranging from 53% in Denmark to 66% in the UK, 78% in France and 80% in Italy – also said they thought crime was rising in their home countries. Asked whether they thought violent crime was also increasing, the responses were largely similar: 52% of respondents in Denmark and 59% in Britain said they thought violent crime had gone up a lot or a bit, rising to 76% in Italy and 77% in France. In fact, despite recent spikes in some violent crimes, often linked to drug trafficking in some countries – notably France and Germany – and a significant increase in online fraud almost everywhere, crime rates generally have been falling since 2000. Western Europe is much safer today than it was in the late 1980s and 1990s, with murder rates – considered the most reliable metric because homicide is almost always reported – plunging dramatically since 2000, according to Eurostat. In western European countries such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain, murders have fallen by 30% to more than 50% since the late 1990s. Italy’s annual murder tally has fallen from 1,917 in 1991 to 327 in 2024, giving it one of the lowest rates in the EU. France’s murder rate, similarly, was roughly 2.3 per 100,000 people in 1995. Even after a string of recent minor increases that have lifted the annual victim tally above 1,000 for the first time in two decades, the per capita rate remains about 1.4 per 100,000. Experts said France showed why falling overall crime rates remained largely invisible to the public: a rise in gang-related drug violence and increased reporting of sexual and domestic violence have grabbed headlines, eclipsing the long-term general decline. YouGov’s survey showed more people in France than not (44%) believed crime in their home country was worse than elsewhere, compared with only 27% of Germans and 11% of Danes – 37% of whom felt crime was lower in Denmark than in other countries. Asked about the prevalence of particular kinds of crime, respondents in Britain (60%) said they thought the UK was unique in suffering from a high rate of knife crime, compared with 40% of Germans and 24%-30% in the other countries surveyed. A majority of respondents (61%) in France, on the other hand, felt drug trafficking and distribution were more problematic than elsewhere, along with rioting and public disorder (42%, compared with between 7% and 21% in other countries). Respondents in Spain (56%) and Italy were (46%) were particularly likely to say corruption was more of a problem in their countries than elsewhere, against just 7% in Denmark, where financial and economic crime was seen as the most common. Italians were also the most likely (41%) to think their country – home to groups including the Neapolitan Camorra and the Calabrian ‘Ndrangheta – had a specific problem with organised crime, compared with 16-32% in other nations. Germans, meanwhile, felt drug trafficking and gang violence (23-25%) were less of a problem for them than elsewhere.

Oil prices fall after peace deal signed – as it happened

We’re about to close this page but will resume our live coverage of the latest in the Middle East crisis on a fresh blog later in the day. You can see a full report here, and below is a recap of the latest key events on another eventful day. Donald Trump and Iranian president Masoud Pezeshkian both digitally signed the memorandum of understanding in English and Farsi aimed at ending the war with Iran, ‌US and Iranian officials said. Iran’s foreign ministry said the agreement was already in effect as of Wednesday, as did mediator Pakistan. The deal calls for an immediate and permanent halt to military operations on all fronts, includes Lebanon. It commits both sides and their allies to cease hostilities and refrain from the threat or use of force against each other, though Israel retains the right to strike back if Hezbollah attacks. Washington and Iran have 60 days to reach a final deal to be endorsed by a binding UN security council resolution. Senior US officials said the administration would know within “days or weeks, not months” if Iran was stalling – and was prepared to tighten economic pressure significantly if talks broke down. Trump threatened to resume attacks and kill Iranian officials if Tehran failed to honour its commitments. “We’re going to bomb the hell out of them if they violate the agreement,” Trump said of Iran. “I don’t want them to. I want them to honour the agreement.” The memorandum reportedly includes the full resumption of maritime traffic “with no charge” in the strait of Hormuz, the lifting of a US blockade of Iranian ports, the waiving of US sanctions on Iran, the unfreezing of its assets, and a $300bn investment fund for Iran’s post-war reconstruction Under the agreement Iran also undertakes not to build nuclear weapons, reaffirming a vow it had made for decades. It also agreed to an on-site “down-blending” of its stockpile of enriched uranium. Lead Iranian negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said the Hormuz strait “will not return to prewar conditions” and that Iran would charge ships to transit the waterway – which Trump has opposed– after the 60-day toll-free period stipulated in the agreement. Oil prices fell again on prospects for the reopening of the Hormuz strait, with Brent crude futures below $80 at Wednesday – their lowest level since the war’s start – but later regaining more than 1% after Trump threatened renewed violence.

Donald Trump’s Iran deal met with anger, relief and incredulity

Pakistan’s prime minister has hailed the “peaceful resolution” of the conflict between the US and Iran, while congratulating the leadership of both countries for signing an agreement that he claimed would immediately reopen of the strait of Hormuz. But amid the celebrations from Shehbaz Sharif – who has served as mediator for the deal – the release of the memorandum of understanding (MOU) that gets the ball rolling on the next 60 days of negotiations between Iran and the US, has proven more divisive, eliciting a mixture of outrage, bewilderment, and relief. In France, the leaders of the G7 countries welcomed the deal, calling it a “historic opportunity to prevent Iran from acquiring any nuclear weapon.” European leaders have largely been sidelined from the negotiations, but expressed relief that the strait of Hormuz would reopen, allowing the flow of oil to resume. Emmanuel Macron said it would put a stop to a “situation of great instability that had terrible consequences for our economies”. In Israel, however, the agreement has been greeted with less optimism. Mark Regev, a former senior adviser to prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, questioned how seriously Iran would approach negotiations over its nuclear program, now that America has removed the economic and military “pressure”. Under the terms of the MOU, Iran will reopen the strait of Hormuz, and in return receive waivers for US sanctions on crude oil exports, petroleum products and associated banking services. They will then enter into negotiations over the fate of their nuclear program and stock of highly enriched uranium. “The straits are open and the Iranians can start exporting their oil, and therefore they get money coming in, you’ve taken away the economic pressure,” said Regev, adding “maybe Trump will get a great deal … but at the moment I don’t see that. I see America having given Iran’s regime a return to life.” Regev’s views were reflected across Israel. Yair Lapid, the leader of Israel’s opposition, said on Tuesday, “Netanyahu promised us a historic victory – and we got a crisis with the Americans, Hormuz open to the Iranians, money for the Revolutionary Guards, ballistic missiles aimed at Israel, and Israel waiting in the corridor like a scolded child.” With Israel set to hold elections before October, Lapid and his coalition partner Naftali Bennet, are seeking to capitalise on the anger brewing in Israel over the agreement between the US and Iran. Trump, who has previously enjoyed high approval among Israelis, is facing widespread criticism in local media. David Horovitz, the founding editor of the Times of Israel, wrote on Wednesday that the US-Israel war on Iran was lost due to “US presidential weakness”, among other issues. “It will come back to bite America. It leaves Israel more vulnerable than before the war began, with a new US-Iran ceasefire agreement that aims to deny Israel the freedom to protect and defend itself,” he wrote. Netanyahu’s Likud party, apparently aware of the cooling views on the US president, has reportedly scrapped plans to highlight the prime minister’s close ties with Trump in its upcoming election campaign. Not all voices were speaking in opposition to the agreement though; Danny Citrinowicz, a former head of the Iran branch of Israeli military intelligence, said the deal showed reality had “finally returned to US policy on Iran”. “Before events spiraled completely out of control, the US administration stepped back from maximalist objectives and returned to a more measured and realistic approach,” Citrinowicz wrote on Wednesday. Those same splits in opinion were reflected in the US. The Republican senator Lindsey Graham, a key Trump ally, appeared to soften his view of the MOU after a “very lengthy and productive” conversation with the US special envoy Steve Witkoff. “After this discussion, it is my opinion that signing the MOU will be beneficial to the United States, in as much as the strait of Hormuz will begin to open, and the hostilities with Iran will stop,” Graham wrote on social media. “Whether or not the United States can reach an acceptable, verifiable deal with Iran regarding its nuclear program and other issues is yet to be determined, but I see little downside to trying.” A handful of other Senate Republicans were more critical in their views. Bill Cassidy, who Trump failed to back in a tightly fought primary last month, said “Iran’s nuclear ambitions were not curbed, and they have learned that threatening the strait of Hormuz works and will undoubtedly leverage it in the future.” Senator Ted Cruz, who has backed the war, said the president was getting “very poor advice when it comes to this deal”. Susan Rice, a former official in the Obama and Biden administrations was more blunt in her assessment, calling it “the biggest national security blunder in decades”, while Democratic Senator Adam Schiff said it was “hard to imagine a more thorough capitulation.” “Iran gets sanctions relief, the release of frozen funds, the ability to export oil, and a $300 billion reconstruction fund. The U.S. gets a reiteration of the vague promise Iran won’t develop a nuke.” Trump himself hailed the agreement as a “major win” for the United States, while Iran’s chief negotiator, Mohammad Ghalibaf called it “a record of US failure”. Trump signed the agreement on Wednesday and soon after, Iran announced that its president, Masoud Pezeshkian, has also signed it in Tehran. Trump signed during a dinner with Macron at the palace of Versailles, the site of the 1919 agreement which formally ended the conflict between Germany and allied powers after the first world war. The outcomes of that agreement were short lived, and Europe was again consumed by war just 20 years after it was signed.