Social Media

Putin Declares “Ukraine Is Ours” and Revives Nuclear Threats in Blunt Rebuke to Peace Hopes Russian President Vladimir Putin has made his most aggressive declaration on Ukraine in months, abandoning recent conciliatory tones and signaling an unwillingness to compromise—even as peace talks involving Donald Trump loom in the background. Speaking at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, a high-profile investment gathering, Putin stunned attendees with a hardline vision for the war in Ukraine. When asked what he considered the endgame for the conflict, he answered bluntly: “I have said many times that I consider the Russian and Ukrainian people to be one nation. In this sense, all of Ukraine is ours.” The comment drew raucous applause from an audience packed with loyal politicians and business elites. But the Russian leader didn’t stop there. “There is an old rule,” he added. “‘Where a Russian soldier sets foot, that is ours’.” With those words, Putin appeared to reaffirm a maximalist vision of territorial conquest, one far more sweeping than the partial annexations or negotiated settlements that have been floated in diplomatic channels. His remarks mark a sharp departure from recent Kremlin messaging, which had grown notably softer since Donald Trump began promoting the idea of a U.S.-brokered peace deal. For months, Russian officials had adopted a more measured tone, presumably to position themselves as open to a negotiated solution. But that posture was absent in St. Petersburg. Instead, Putin returned to the aggressive rhetoric that dominated much of the early war period. Most concerning to many observers was the Russian president’s renewed invocation of nuclear threats. Asked how Moscow would respond if Ukraine used a “dirty bomb” against Russian forces, Putin’s reply was chillingly direct. “This would be a colossal mistake on the part of those whom we call neo-Nazis on the territory of today’s Ukraine,” he said. “It could be their last mistake.” He continued, “We always respond and respond in kind. Therefore, our response will be very tough.” Such nuclear threats had been a near-weekly fixture of Kremlin communication during the final stretch of Joe Biden’s presidency, but they largely receded when Trump assumed office. Putin’s decision to bring them back now is widely seen as a calculated move, one meant to signal that Russia remains unbowed—not just militarily, but ideologically. Analysts suggest this rhetorical shift is more than just bluster. It may reflect deep skepticism within the Kremlin over the utility of peace talks and a desire to reassert dominance on both the battlefield and the geopolitical stage. The timing is also telling. With Trump attempting to cast himself as a potential peace-broker, Putin’s words seem to suggest that Moscow does not intend to accept any compromise that falls short of its expansive territorial ambitions. In essence, the message to Washington and Kyiv alike is that Russia's objectives remain unchanged—and uncompromising. Whether this signals a coming escalation or is intended to shape the contours of any future negotiations remains to be seen. But for now, Vladimir Putin has made it abundantly clear: he believes all of Ukraine belongs to Russia, and he is prepared to back that claim with the threat of catastrophic force. Adapted by ASEAN Now from Sky News 2025-06-23

"Preachers Confronted by Police at King’s Cross: ‘I Just Think It’s Wrong’" A video capturing the tense moment a British Transport Police officer told a group of Christian evangelists to stop preaching outside King’s Cross station has sparked widespread debate over freedom of religious expression in public spaces. The short clip, which has since gone viral, shows a female police officer confronting members of Mad 4 Jesus Ministries and expressing her personal disapproval of their public gospel preaching. "It’s so loud," she tells the preachers. "These people just want to do their journey, they’re not coming here to listen to you." When the preacher challenges her, asking, "If I was doing a happy, clappy song it would be ok?" she bluntly replies, "I just think it’s all wrong," before walking away. The confrontation occurred on the busy concourse between King’s Cross and St Pancras International stations—two of London’s largest transit hubs that see nearly 60 million passengers annually. According to Mon B, who leads the Mad 4 Jesus Ministries group, they had been told not to stand in front of the station barriers before being confronted by the officer. Mon B described the officer's remarks as an "unnecessary" expression of personal opinion. This incident is the latest in a string of controversies involving police officers and Christian street preachers in London. Last year, Christian singer Harmonie London was told to stop performing church songs outside a church’s grounds, leading to a formal apology from the Metropolitan Police. Harmonie, then 20, said she felt “humiliated,” “sad,” and “bullied” after the confrontation, during which volunteer officer Maya Hadzhipetkova threatened to confiscate her instruments following her rendition of Amazing Grace. The Met later admitted the officer was wrong to state that church songs could not be performed outside church property and clarified that the issue had been about unlicensed busking, not the content of her songs. Responding to the latest King's Cross video, members of the public expressed outrage. One commenter asked, “I’m sorry, is this officer paid to give out her opinions? Or is she paid to protect the public?” Another wrote, “You are not breaking the law. She should be out catching criminals not bothering you.” A third added, “Luckily you’re not paid for your opinions. You’re paid to do your job and stopping peaceful preachers is not part of it.” Mon B later shared a more positive interaction with a second officer from the same patrol, during which they reportedly prayed together. A video shows the second officer nodding and appearing to thank the group after the prayer session. Additional footage from the same location shows the group performing a Christian song titled Yeshua, originally released by Jesus Image in 2022, using a loudspeaker while commuters pass by without incident. The British Transport Police addressed the incident in a statement explaining: “Officers were on patrol at the station when they came across a group preaching on private land with a loud speaker which requires permission from Network Rail, and as such they asked them to leave. We fully appreciate anyone’s right for religious expression, and the incident in full is currently being reviewed by a senior officer.” In a separate incident earlier last year, Metropolitan Police officers threatened to arrest a preacher for allegedly making homophobic remarks during a gospel message on Uxbridge High Street. Although the officers stated they had not personally witnessed the alleged offense, they warned the preacher he could be arrested for failing to provide his name due to the public complaint. One officer said, “If I do walk away and I see offences, and the victim wants to press charges... I could have failed a potential victim.” Another added, “Provide me your name now or you will be arrested. You can spend the night in a cell and we can do it that way.” The missionaries defended their message, citing John 3:16 and asserting their right to religious expression. “We’re just passionate,” one preacher said when accused of being emotional. The officers insisted they were not attacking the group, but the exchange highlighted a growing tension between public religious activity and modern policing approaches in London. Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Standard 2025-06-23

Mark Zuckerberg’s Political Rebrand Reveals a Long-Held Persona, Say Insiders Mark Zuckerberg’s recent public pivot toward conservative politics and overt support for President Donald Trump has sparked widespread debate — but according to dozens of people who have worked closely with the Meta CEO, the move is far from surprising. Rather than a dramatic political about-face, insiders say it’s simply the Facebook founder dropping the act and revealing a version of himself that’s long existed just beneath the surface. “Mark was trying to keep his real feelings tight inside and put on a suit and cut his hair and be a good boy. But the whole time this was all one inch underneath,” one Meta insider told the Financial Times. “Then he said, ‘F*** it. I might as well be the person I really am.’” Since Trump’s election in November, Zuckerberg has increasingly aligned himself with the former president. According to reports, he has met with Trump at Mar-a-Lago, donated $1 million to Trump’s inaugural fund, attended the inauguration, and even co-hosted a reception. Behind the scenes, Meta has also implemented policy changes that reflect a closer alignment with the Trump administration’s worldview. Andrew Bosworth, Meta’s Chief Technology Officer, said that what the public is only now beginning to perceive has long been apparent internally. “The public is seeing him more how we have, internally, since the beginning,” Bosworth told the Financial Times. He also suggested that Zuckerberg’s earlier public persona—marked by buttoned-up appearances and deferential attitudes toward government regulators—was a performance more than a conviction. “He thought he was supposed to be doing that,” Bosworth added. Meta declined to comment for the story, and the White House has yet to respond to inquiries. Zuckerberg’s ideological evolution appears to have been gradual, largely influenced by years of criticism and regulatory pressure. Tensions peaked during the early stages of the Biden administration, when officials urged Facebook—Meta’s former name—to moderate content about COVID-19, particularly misinformation. Zuckerberg complied at the time but reportedly came to regret the decision. In contrast, his posture under the Trump administration has been notably more resistant to appeasement. The shift also coincides with a more visible embrace of what Zuckerberg himself calls “masculine energy.” Speaking on the Joe Rogan Experience, he said, “Masculine energy is good.” Even when Meta executives privately pushed back on the comment, Zuckerberg stood by it without apology. Those familiar with Zuckerberg suggest that his newfound embrace of conservative values and masculine aesthetics—evident in his interest in Brazilian jiu-jitsu, his switch to casual streetwear, and a more assertive public tone—is part of a broader rebranding effort aimed at boosting his personal appeal. “He saw that Elon Musk was popular among the tech bros,” a former Meta insider said. “There was a push to make him cool. The core of The Social Network movie is true — he just wants people to like him.” Whether the public will embrace this “authentic” version of Zuckerberg remains to be seen, but to those on the inside, it’s not a transformation. It’s a long-restrained identity finally being unmasked. Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Independent 2025-06-23

A growing divide in housing provision is fuelling claims that Britain prioritises asylum seekers over its own homeless citizens. An investigation has revealed that 17 councils across England are accommodating up to ten times more asylum seekers than homeless households, prompting public outrage and political criticism. The starkest disparity has been found in Pendle, a borough recently won by Reform UK in Lancashire, where 453 asylum seekers are reportedly being housed, compared to just nine homeless households in temporary accommodation. Other areas with similar discrepancies include Stockton-on-Tees, which hosts 797 asylum seekers against 26 homeless households, and Wyre, with 375 versus 14. Critics argue these numbers expose a deeply unfair system. Robert Bates of the Centre for Migration Control stated, “Those who were born here and have contributed to the economy have been abandoned, and left on the streets, in favour of undocumented young men towards whom we should have no moral or legal obligation. Thousands of British veterans and families are facing real hardship but are denied even a fraction of the generosity extended to asylum seekers.” He added, “Scattering these people across the country places further strain on communities suffering with a dysfunctional housing market, increasing rents and making it harder for young people to own a home. Anyone entering the country illegally should be detained and swiftly deported—it is only then that we can hope this madness will end.” While critics cite inequality, officials argue the comparison itself is flawed. A Government spokesperson said: “This analysis is incorrect and misleading as it compares the number of individual asylum seekers with homeless households, which can contain more than one person.” The Home Office is legally required to house asylum seekers awaiting a decision on their claim. If successful, they are granted refugee status and entitled to work, claim benefits, and seek housing through local councils—subject to a priority system based on vulnerability and need. However, officials emphasise that councils cannot control where homeless individuals choose to reside, and asylum housing is assigned based on national dispersal systems. Yet the optics remain jarring. In Coventry—home to one of the country’s highest asylum seeker populations—locals expressed their frustration. Louise, 37, said: “I'm currently homeless. The houses go to the asylum seekers rather than the actual homeless. I'm in a shared accommodation and I am technically homeless. I think the Government should be looking after their own before helping other people.” Dee, 38, added, “I think it's ridiculous that asylum seekers can come over here and get housed but my husband, who has paid taxes his whole life, is on the street. I don't think we can handle the numbers, we can't house the people who are from this city.” The cost of accommodating asylum seekers has ballooned, now reaching £4.2 million a day. About 30,000 remain in hotels, receiving meals and an allowance of £8.86 per week—or £49.18 if meals aren't provided. They also receive free NHS care, prescriptions, dental services, and school access for their children. The issue is further complicated by the fact that many newly recognised refugees also fall into homelessness. The No Accommodation Network (Naccom) reported a doubling of refugee homelessness in the past year, citing nearly 2,000 cases—the highest they’ve ever recorded. Once refugee status is granted, individuals have just 56 days to vacate asylum housing and find accommodation on their own. Alp Mehmet of Migration Watch UK highlighted the broader picture: “Over 100,000 people applied for asylum in 2024, including main applicants and their dependants. There will be just as many seeking asylum this year. Then there’s the 430,000 net migration added to the population last year. Well over half a million people needing a roof over their heads, roofs that won’t be available to British citizens. When will the Government see sense and end this madness? Get a grip, Sir Keir!” The Government says it is responding, noting increased asylum decision rates, £1 billion allocated to homelessness services, and an effort to stop using hotels for asylum seekers within four years. Yet, with public frustration mounting—as evidenced by protests and polling showing 68% believe asylum numbers are too high—the pressure on Westminster to resolve the housing crisis for all remains as urgent as ever. Adapted by ASEAN Now from Daily Mail 2025-06-23

Pentagon: ‘Bold and Brilliant’ Operation That Crippled Iran’s Nuclear Infrastructure” The Pentagon has declared a high-stakes overnight strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities a decisive success, describing it as a “bold and brilliant” operation that inflicted massive damage without harming civilians or military personnel. US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth opened the briefing by emphasizing the mission’s primary aim: to “degrade” and “destroy” Iran’s nuclear capabilities. “This was a highly classified mission with very few people in Washington knowing the timing or nature of this plan,” Hegseth explained, calling the execution a testament to the precision and secrecy of the US military. Directing reporters to a large screen, Air Force General Dan Caine of the Joint Chiefs of Staff provided detailed insights into the timeline and logistics of the strike. According to Caine, the attack began when seven B-2 bombers undertook an 18-hour flight. At roughly 17:00 local time (22:00 BST), a US submarine launched more than two dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles targeting key nuclear infrastructure at the Isfahan site. Strikes on all three designated targets—Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan—occurred between 18:40 and 19:05 Eastern Time. “It appears that Iran's surface-to-air missile systems did not see us,” said Caine. “We are not aware of any shots fired at our aircraft during egress.” He further revealed that the final Tomahawk strike was timed to ensure the US retained “the element of surprise.” General Caine said that the mission involved the “largest B-2 operational strike in US history,” and preliminary assessments showed “extremely severe damage and destruction” to all targeted nuclear facilities. “Final battle damage will take some time,” he noted, “but an initial battle damage assessment indicates all three sites sustained extremely severe damage.” Hegseth echoed the assessment, stating: “All of our precision munitions struck where we wanted them to strike and had the desired effect.” He confirmed that the attack specifically avoided military personnel and civilians, reiterating, “This mission was not and has not been about regime change.” With US forces on “high alert” following the operation, Hegseth issued a stern warning to Tehran. “Any retaliation would be an incredibly poor choice,” he said. Asked whether there had been a definitive moment when President Donald Trump decided to authorize the operation, Hegseth said Trump had been “fully committed to the peace process” but was repeatedly met with “stonewalling” from Iran. “There was no particular moment for Trump,” he said. “But there was a moment where he realised there was a time when action needed to be taken to minimise the threat.” Hegseth further stressed that Washington had not closed the door on diplomacy. “They know precisely what the American position is, what steps they can take to allow for peace, and I hope they do so.” During the Pentagon’s briefing, Vice-President JD Vance echoed the administration’s stance in an interview with NBC News. “The United States is not at war with Iran,” he stated. “We are at war with its nuclear ambitions.” Vance affirmed that the US believes it has “destroyed” Iran’s nuclear programme and rejected suggestions that the operation fell outside President Trump’s authority. “It’s not true,” he said, responding to criticism from Democratic House Leader Hakeem Jeffries. Caine also disclosed that a total of 75 precision-guided munitions were used in the strike, including 14 Massive Ordnance Penetrators—commonly known as “bunker busters.” Some bombers were dispatched westward into the Pacific as a decoy to divert attention and mask the real target. “The president has authorised a precision operation to neutralise the threats to our national interests posed by the Iranian nuclear programme and the collective self defence of our troops and our ally, Israel,” Hegseth concluded. “We devastated the Iranian nuclear programme, but it's worth noting the operation did not target Iranian troops or the Iranian people.” As the bombers return home, the Pentagon continues its assessment of the operation’s long-term impact, but early signs indicate the mission achieved its core objective: a crippling blow to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC 2025-06-23

More off topic posts removed including some making inflammatory slurs on Jews in the US @ronnie50 Trump Confirms Surprise US Airstrikes on Iran’s Nuclear Sites, Including Fordo

UPDATE: Pentagon Briefing: Pentagon briefing on 'Operation Midnight Hammer' | U.S used deception tactics to hit Iran: Pentagon (more to follow)

UPDATE: Starmer Supports Trump’s Strike on Iran, Calling Nuclear Threat “Grave to Global Security” Starmer Supports Trump’s Strike on Iran, Calling Nuclear Threat “Grave to Global Security” Prime Minister Keir Starmer has offered Britain’s full support for the surprise US airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, declaring that Tehran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons represents “a grave threat to international security.” His endorsement came just hours after President Donald Trump confirmed that US forces had bombed three Iranian nuclear sites, including the heavily fortified Fordow facility. In a statement released early this morning, Starmer said, “Iran's nuclear programme is a grave threat to international security. Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and the US has taken action to alleviate that threat. The situation in the Middle East remains volatile and stability in the region is a priority. We call on Iran to return to the negotiating table and reach a diplomatic solution to end this crisis.” The Fordow site, located roughly 80 miles south of Tehran and buried deep within a mountain, was reportedly hit with a 30,000-pound “bunker buster” bomb. The US also launched Tomahawk cruise missiles from submarines targeting other key nuclear facilities at Natanz and Isfahan. Trump described the strikes as a “spectacular military success” during a late-night address from the White House, claiming that the uranium enrichment base at Fordow had been “flattened.” According to reports from US defense sources, the bombers used in the strike flew directly from the United States rather than operating from the joint UK/US base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. While the UK was not directly involved in the operation, Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds confirmed that Britain was informed ahead of time. The Prime Minister’s endorsement of US military action marks a notable shift, as Starmer had previously urged caution and emphasized the need for diplomatic solutions to avoid escalating tensions across the Middle East. However, following the strikes, he has publicly recognized the US’s actions as a necessary step to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Support for the US strikes extended beyond the government benches. Opposition leader Kemi Badenoch said, “By targeting Iran’s nuclear sites, the US has taken decisive action against a regime that fuels global terror and directly threatens the UK. Iranian operatives have plotted murders and attacks on British soil. We should stand firmly with the US and Israel.” Reform UK leader Nigel Farage also endorsed the airstrikes, posting on social media: “Iran must not be allowed to have nuclear weapons, the future of Israel depends on it.” The international fallout from the operation remains uncertain, but the political response in the UK has been overwhelmingly in favor of the strikes. With tensions in the Middle East already dangerously high, the backing of America’s actions by the UK’s political establishment signals a rare moment of unity in confronting what many see as a defining threat to global stability. Adapted by ASEAN Now from Daily Mail 2025-06-22

If your not interested in discussing the topic because other subjects are more important to you, then move on. Any further off topic diversion attempts will be removed. Trump Confirms Surprise US Airstrikes on Iran’s Nuclear Sites, Including Fordo

@MalcolmB any more off topic troll posts and it will not be only posts removed

Please discuss the topic and do not try to divert it to what you want it to be: Trump Confirms Surprise US Airstrikes on Iran’s Nuclear Sites, Including Fordo

IMPORTANT UPDATE: President Trump statement on U.S. Strikes on Iranian Nuclear Sites

New Topic:

Thank you, the topic is now in the world news, please continue there: //closed//

Trump Confirms Surprise US Airstrikes on Iran’s Nuclear Sites, Including Fordo President Donald Trump has announced that the United States has launched a surprise military strike on Iran, targeting three of its nuclear facilities in what he described as a “very successful attack.” The move ends weeks of speculation over whether Washington would join Israel in its escalating conflict with Tehran. Ever since Israel began its offensive against Iran, there had been a tense and uncertain waiting game over whether Trump would involve the United States directly. His hesitation was particularly noteworthy given his long-standing criticism of previous American interventions in the Middle East. As recently as two days ago, Trump had told reporters he would make a decision on US involvement “within two weeks,” a remark that seemed designed to calm tensions and buy time for diplomatic maneuvering. However, in a dramatic turn of events, Trump announced through a post on Truth Social that the United States had carried out airstrikes on three key Iranian nuclear sites—Fordo, Natanz, and Esfahan. Among these, Fordo is known to be heavily fortified and located deep underground, requiring specialized ordnance to penetrate its defenses. “We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. All planes are now outside of Iran air space,” Trump wrote. The president, also revealed that a “full payload of bombs” had been dropped on the Fordo site. He did not specify whether the sites were destroyed or merely damaged, and so far, no video or photographic evidence of the strikes has been released to the public. “All planes are on their way back to the US,” he added. According to a report by the Reuters news agency citing a US official, the attack involved B-2 stealth bombers, aircraft known for their ability to penetrate dense air defenses and deliver bunker-buster bombs—suggesting that the operation was carefully calibrated to disable Iran’s most protected nuclear facilities. The announcement is sure to raise fresh concerns over the prospect of a broader regional conflict. US airstrikes on Iranian territory—especially on nuclear infrastructure—represent a major escalation and risk triggering retaliation from Tehran or its allies across the Middle East. Whether Trump’s decision will spark further violence or serve as a deterrent remains to be seen. But what is certain is that his unexpected move has brought an end to the guessing game that has dominated headlines since Israel began its assault—and ushered in a new, unpredictable phase of the confrontation with Iran. Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC 2025-06-22 bf685d4951066ee291181a0556db8c1c.mp4

@TallGuyJohninBKK the posts you have made have had text size reduced to confirm to Community Standards aside from the headlines. Please do not keep doing this. 5. Do not post text with all capital letters or with over-sized fonts

@BLMFem your post was removed, any more of that and you will get more than a public mod post warning 17. ASEAN NOW news team collects news articles from various recognised and reputable news sources. The articles may be consolidated from different sources and rewritten with AI assistance These news items are shared in our forums for members to stay informed and engaged. Our dedicated news team puts in the effort to deliver quality content, and we ask for your respect in return. Any disrespectful comments about our news articles or the content itself, such as calling it "clickbait" or “slow news day”, and criticising grammatical errors, will not be tolerated and appropriate action will be taken. Please note that republished articles may contain errors or opinions that do not reflect the views of ASEAN NOW. If you'd like to help us, and you see an error with an article, then please use the report function so that we can attend to it promptly.

Further off topic diversion attempts have been removed. The topic title is below, feel free to read the OP and comment on it. Trump to make decision on US involvement 'within two weeks' An additional post over a month old article on Hegseth has been removed.

Labour Whip Resigns in Protest Against Starmer’s Welfare Reforms Labour MP Vicky Foxcroft has resigned from her role as a party whip, stating she cannot stand behind welfare reforms proposed by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer that would result in financial losses for disabled people. In a letter addressed directly to Starmer, Foxcroft expressed her opposition to what she described as damaging and unjust changes to the welfare system. “I cannot support reforms which include cuts to disabled people’s finances,” she wrote, making her stance clear in a growing internal dispute within the Labour Party. Foxcroft’s resignation comes as tensions continue to rise over a controversial £5 billion-a-year package of proposed savings to the government’s disability and sickness benefits bill. Central to the plan are reductions in the personal independence payment (PIP), a benefit designed to support people with long-term physical or mental health conditions. These measures have sparked the largest rebellion of Starmer’s leadership so far. More than 150 Labour MPs have reportedly signed a private letter voicing their opposition to the planned cuts, underscoring a deepening divide between the party’s leadership and its backbenchers. Despite mounting pressure, the Prime Minister has remained defiant. Over the weekend, he made it clear he was prepared to face down dissent from within his own ranks, emphasizing the necessity of implementing the reforms. “The reforms must be pushed through,” he insisted, signaling his determination to proceed despite the backlash. Specific details of the legislative changes are expected to be laid out later this week, ahead of a crucial parliamentary vote likely to take place before summer recess begins next month. The outcome of that vote may prove to be a defining moment for Starmer’s administration, as he seeks to press forward with a policy that has triggered both political fallout and public controversy. Foxcroft’s departure from the frontbench adds further weight to the growing opposition movement and highlights the difficult balancing act facing Labour’s leadership: reconciling fiscal discipline with social responsibility, while maintaining party unity in the lead-up to a critical vote. Her resignation letter marks a public and pointed rejection of the current direction of Labour policy under Starmer’s leadership, placing further scrutiny on the Prime Minister’s handling of internal dissent and the broader implications of cutting support for vulnerable citizens. The issue of disability benefits reform is fast becoming a litmus test not only for Starmer’s leadership, but for Labour’s core values as a party that has long prided itself on defending the welfare state. Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Telegraph 2025-06-21

Iran’s Allies Retreat: Axis of Resistance Withers Amid Growing Regional Pressure Iran’s once-formidable “Axis of Resistance” is now showing deep cracks, with many of its longtime militant allies distancing themselves from Tehran as the Islamic Republic grapples with dwindling regional influence and increasing isolation in its conflict with Israel. Experts say that the constellation of Iran-backed groups across the Middle East — from Hezbollah in Lebanon to Hamas in Gaza, and the Houthis in Yemen to Shiite militias in Iraq — are more preoccupied with their own survival than defending their Iranian benefactor. Years of military losses and shifting political priorities have left them unwilling or unable to escalate the fight on Iran’s behalf. “For all of these networks right now, it’s about survival. They all understand the wrath of these types of military campaigns,” said Renad Mansour, senior fellow and director of the Iraq Initiative at the Chatham House think tank, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. “Many of them question if this is the time for resistance or whether it’s the time to keep your head down and try to stay out of this conflict.” Among the most striking examples of retreat is Hezbollah, once seen as Iran’s strongest and most loyal proxy. Following a devastating Israeli campaign in Lebanon last year that reportedly killed nearly all of the group’s senior leadership — including its founder Hassan Nasrallah — Hezbollah has significantly scaled back its operations. A surprise “pager” attack by Israel in September killed dozens of militants and injured thousands more, according to Arab diplomats. Since then, Hezbollah has not fired a single rocket following last week’s attacks on Iran. Disillusionment is reportedly growing within Hezbollah’s ranks. Some members blame the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) for intelligence failures that allowed Israel’s surprise assault, and believe Iran did little to protect them. Lebanese officials, including President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, have publicly insisted that their country will not be dragged into another war — further isolating Hezbollah from Tehran’s current regional ambitions. The shift away from Iran is not limited to Lebanon. In Syria, the sudden ouster of longtime dictator Bashar al-Assad in a swift revolution late last year dealt a major blow to Iran’s regional ambitions. Assad had been one of Tehran’s key allies, but reports suggest Iran did not instruct its militias to defend him, instead urging them to evacuate. This perceived abandonment has sent a stark message across the resistance network. In Iraq, the traditionally militant Iran-backed Shiite militias have adopted a notably cautious stance. Unlike previous conflicts, they have not launched attacks on U.S. bases — a sign of their reluctance to jeopardize their current political and economic gains. Many militia leaders are now embedded in Iraq’s government and benefiting from the country’s oil boom. “They’ve been sort of benefiting from Iraq’s stability, in a way, and the high oil prices to develop economic empires,” said Mansour. So far, only Kataeb Hezbollah has commented on the current crisis, stating that it would only act if the United States directly enters the conflict. Even the Houthis in Yemen — who have vowed to attack Israeli and U.S. ships in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden in solidarity with Iran — are operating with diminished capability. After a series of intense U.S. and British airstrikes in March and April, their missile and drone infrastructure has been significantly degraded. According to American officials, these strikes, part of the so-called SignalGate operation, have severely limited the group’s ability to project force. Iran now faces a strategic vacuum. Its “Axis of Resistance,” once seen as a powerful regional deterrent, is faltering. Beset by internal doubts, military losses, and shifting alliances, the proxies that once defined Tehran’s reach are increasingly choosing to lie low rather than stand by the Islamic Republic in its hour of need. Adapted by ASEAN Now from NYP 2025-06-21

Majority of Democrats Say Party Leadership Must Go, Survey Finds Amid Internal Strife A growing number of Democrats are voicing dissatisfaction with the direction of their party, with more than 60 percent now believing that its leadership should be replaced, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll. The findings come at a turbulent time for the Democratic Party, which has been struggling to regroup after a devastating loss in the 2024 elections. The survey, conducted between June 11 and June 16 and including responses from 1,293 self-identified Democrats out of 4,258 participants, revealed that 62 percent of Democrats support replacing the current leadership. Only 24 percent opposed such a change, while 14 percent were undecided or did not respond. The poll has a margin of error of three percentage points. The party has been engulfed in internal chaos since losing both the presidency and control of the Senate in November. As Democrats scramble to identify the causes of their political downfall, they have also struggled to coalesce around a coherent vision for the future. The Democratic National Committee (DNC), once a symbol of unity and strategy, has instead become a site of increasing infighting. In just the past week, tensions boiled over again when a major teachers union leader stepped down from a party leadership role. This came just days after former DNC Vice Chair David Hogg declared he would not seek re-election in a forthcoming leadership vote. These high-profile exits have only intensified scrutiny of current DNC Chair Ken Martin, whose leadership has drawn criticism from within the party ranks. Fractures are also clearly visible on Capitol Hill, especially when it comes to messaging on divisive issues like transgender rights and how best to counter former President Trump’s political narrative. Rep. Sarah McBride of Delaware, who made history as the first openly transgender member of Congress, emphasized the need for a more inclusive approach within the party. “We must make more space for disagreement when it comes to trans rights and welcome ‘imperfect allies’ into the discussion to bring about long-term and substantial change,” McBride said this week. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has not escaped criticism either. Earlier this year, Schumer faced backlash from progressive members of his own party after supporting a Republican-led funding bill. Among the most vocal critics was Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, who denounced Schumer’s actions. “There is a deep sense of outrage and betrayal,” Ocasio-Cortez said at the time. The Reuters/Ipsos poll further revealed that 49 percent of Democrats are dissatisfied with the party’s current leadership, while 41 percent still support them. The remaining 10 percent either did not respond or were unsure. These numbers reflect a deepening schism within the party base and highlight the urgent need for a recalibration of Democratic strategy heading into 2026 and beyond. As calls for change grow louder, the Democratic Party faces a pivotal moment—one that may determine not only the future of its leadership but also its identity in an increasingly polarized political landscape. Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Hill 2025-06-21

Pope Leo’s Surprising Family Tree: From Pop Stars to Revolutionaries Pope Leo XIV, the first American pontiff in the history of the Catholic Church, has a family tree more intertwined with modern celebrity and historical upheaval than many might expect. According to new genealogical research, the Pope shares a distant ancestral link with global pop icon Madonna—making the two ninth cousins through a common ancestor born around six generations ago. The discovery is particularly striking given Madonna’s contentious history with the Catholic Church. The singer has frequently courted controversy for her provocative use of religious symbols in music videos and stage performances, most notably in her 1989 hit “Like a Prayer.” Despite their opposing public personas—one a conservative spiritual leader and the other a rebellious pop provocateur—they are bound by shared heritage. This familial connection is just one of many uncovered by a deep investigation conducted by The New York Times Magazine in collaboration with genealogists from American Ancestors and the Cuban Genealogy Club of Miami. Their five-century sweep through Pope Leo’s lineage uncovered a host of well-known relatives. Pop singer Justin Bieber, former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Oscar-winning actress Angelina Jolie, Canadian political figures Justin and Pierre Trudeau, and Beat Generation author Jack Kerouac all share ancestry with the pontiff, through the same 16th-century forebear—Louis Boucher de Grandpré, a Canadian born in the 1590s. The researchers describe Pope Leo’s ancestry as a mosaic of nobility, enslavement, and resistance. “Noblemen, enslaved people, freedom fighters and slaveholders are all part of the family tree of the first American pope,” the magazine stated on social media. One of the most striking revelations was that Pope Leo has 17 identified African American ancestors, a finding the team called “earthshattering.” This complex background includes ancestors who were both enslaved and slaveholders. Pope Leo’s maternal fourth-great grandmother, Marie Jeanne, was enslaved by François Lemelle, who fathered at least six of her children. In 1772, Lemelle freed her and two of their daughters. When he died in 1789, he left Marie Jeanne one-fifth of his estate, which included 15 slaves. Pope Leo also descends from military and revolutionary figures. His fourth-great grandfather, Charles Louis Boucher de Grandpré, served as a militia commander in Louisiana during the American Revolution and was responsible for capturing several British outposts in 1777. Another ancestor, Antonio José de Sucre, was a Venezuelan general who fought alongside Simón Bolívar in the liberation of Latin America from Spanish colonial rule. Sucre’s decisive victory at the Battle of Ayacucho in 1824 helped secure Peru’s independence. He later became Bolivia’s first constitutionally elected president in 1825, only to be assassinated in Colombia five years later. What emerges is a portrait of a Pope whose background defies expectations—marked by unexpected celebrity connections, deep American roots, and a lineage threaded through both the darkest and most triumphant chapters of history. Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Telegraph 2025-06-21

Three Years to the Brink: Climate Scientists Warn of Imminent 1.5C Breach The planet is just three years away from surpassing the critical 1.5 degrees Celsius global warming threshold if carbon dioxide emissions remain at current levels, according to a dire new warning issued by more than 60 of the world’s top climate scientists. Their latest study, the most comprehensive update yet on the trajectory of global warming, signals that without swift and severe cuts to emissions, the world will overshoot its most important climate target. In 2015, nearly 200 nations signed the landmark Paris Agreement, pledging to limit global temperature increases to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels in hopes of staving off the most catastrophic impacts of climate change. However, a continued reliance on fossil fuels and widespread deforestation have pushed that target dangerously close to being breached. "Things are all moving in the wrong direction," said Professor Piers Forster, lead author of the study and director of the Priestley Centre for Climate Futures at the University of Leeds. "We're seeing some unprecedented changes and we're also seeing the heating of the Earth and sea-level rise accelerating as well." He added that these shifts are no surprise. "These changes have been predicted for some time and we can directly place them back to the very high level of emissions." At the start of 2020, climate scientists estimated humanity had around 500 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide left to emit to retain a 50% chance of staying within the 1.5C limit. But by early 2025, this “carbon budget” will have shrunk dramatically to just 130 billion tonnes, according to the new findings. With current emissions averaging 40 billion tonnes per year, that budget would be depleted in roughly three years, potentially locking the planet into breaching the Paris threshold. Although this would not immediately result in a global temperature rise of 1.5C, the trajectory suggests that threshold will likely be passed around the year 2030. While 2024 saw the first-ever 12-month period where average global air temperatures exceeded 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, this alone does not constitute a formal breach of the Paris Agreement. However, researchers found that last year’s temperature—1.36C above historical norms—was overwhelmingly driven by human-caused emissions. The planet is currently warming at a pace of about 0.27C per decade—an unprecedented rate in Earth’s geological history. While some propose removing carbon from the atmosphere as a potential solution after breaching 1.5C, experts caution that such technologies remain largely theoretical and may not fully reverse the warming. "For larger exceedance [of 1.5C], it becomes less likely that removals [of CO2] will perfectly reverse the warming caused by today's emissions," warned Professor Joeri Rogelj of Imperial College London. One of the most striking findings of the study is the acceleration in the Earth’s “energy imbalance”—the rate at which the planet is absorbing more energy than it emits. Dr. Matthew Palmer of the UK Met Office and University of Bristol explained, "That's a really large number, a very worrying number" over such a short time frame. This energy is manifesting in multiple ways—warming land and air, melting glaciers, and, most significantly, heating oceans. Approximately 90% of the excess heat is absorbed by the seas, contributing not only to marine disruption but also rising sea levels. The pace of sea-level rise has doubled since the 1990s, further endangering coastal populations around the world. Despite the grim projections, there is a faint glimmer of hope. The rate of emissions growth appears to be slowing, partly due to the expansion of cleaner technologies. Scientists stress that now is the time for urgent action. "Reductions in emissions over the next decade can critically change the rate of warming," said Professor Rogelj. "Every fraction of warming that we can avoid will result in less harm and less suffering of particularly poor and vulnerable populations and less challenges for our societies to live the lives that we desire." Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC 2025-06-21

Stephen Fry and the Cultural Elite’s Contempt for Dissenting Women Stephen Fry’s recent comments about JK Rowling have added yet another voice to the chorus of celebrities condemning the author over her views on sex and gender. Speaking on The Show People podcast, Fry remarked that Rowling “seems to be a lost cause for us,” accusing her of making comments that are “inflammatory and contemptuous, mocking and add to a terribly distressing time for trans people.” He even went so far as to claim that she had “been radicalised by TERFs” — a slur often used against feminists who assert the importance of biological sex. It’s not the first time Fry has taken aim at Rowling. In 2022, on another podcast, he attempted a more diplomatic approach, calling Rowling a friend while lamenting that his “trans friends and intersex friends” were “deeply upset by her.” He suggested a truce of sorts, calling on Rowling and trans activists to “retreat” and consider that both trans people and women should be able to live full lives with dignity. That request, couched in civility, failed to mask the underlying presumption: that Rowling’s concerns should be shelved to preserve the comfort of his social circle. Fry’s misunderstanding of the political and cultural stakes in the so-called “gender wars” is telling. This is not about table manners or polite disagreement; it’s about rights, definitions, and material realities. The notion that Rowling is simply stirring controversy for its own sake ignores the substance of her arguments — arguments rooted in longstanding feminist thought and, as recently affirmed by the UK Supreme Court, biological fact. Perhaps Fry’s renewed criticism was prompted by that very ruling, which defined “woman” in biological terms, a victory Rowling celebrated publicly. Her celebratory mood — champagne and cigars — may have rankled Fry. Some men, after all, don’t like to see women win arguments, especially when they defy the expectations of their cultural class. Fry’s desire for Rowling to “retreat” is not just misguided — it’s a reflection of the cultural elite’s impulse to control who gets to speak and how. He himself has faced criticism in the past, including a 2023 scandal involving off-color jokes about women and Muslim terrorists. One might think that someone who has tasted the wrath of the outrage machine would be more cautious about demanding silence from others. Instead, Fry now appears eager to stay in the good graces of a new cultural establishment — one that prizes ideological conformity over open debate. His image as a modern Oscar Wilde rings hollow when paired with such cowardice. At best, his remarks betray a shallow understanding of what Rowling actually says. At worst, they represent a willful attempt to isolate her for refusing to submit to the social orthodoxy of the moment. Most revealing was Fry’s complaint that Rowling fails to show “love” to trans people. “You have to let people love you,” he said, arguing that to be labeled “transphobe” over mere disagreement is counterproductive. But demanding “love” from political opponents is not only unrealistic — it’s also a tactic used to shame women into silence. It reframes principled disagreement as a failure of etiquette or kindness. What Fry and others seem to want is not genuine dialogue, but docility. They want women like Rowling to defer, apologise, and recede. When they refuse, it is framed as cruelty or bigotry. But women have every right to defend their boundaries, their spaces, and their vocabulary. They don’t need love — they need freedom, dignity, and respect. If that’s too much for Fry and others to stomach, then so be it. JK Rowling has endured years of criticism from powerful figures, but she remains undeterred. She is used to being told to be quiet. And, thankfully, she continues to speak anyway. Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Telegraph 2025-06-21

Activists Claim Damage to RAF Military Aircraft in Protest Against Gaza Operations Two pro-Palestine activists say they infiltrated RAF Brize Norton and caused damage to military aircraft in protest against British involvement in the war in Gaza. The incident, which reportedly took place on 20 June, was captured on video and released by the protest group Palestine Action. The footage shows the activists approaching the aircraft on electric scooters before spraying red paint into the turbine engines using what appear to be modified fire extinguishers. They are then seen using crowbars to cause further physical damage to the planes. Palestine Action stated that the target was chosen due to the airbase’s regular flights to RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus, a key hub for British military operations in the Middle East. "Flights leave daily from the base to RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus," the group said. "From Cyprus, British planes collect intelligence, refuel fighter jets and transport weapons to commit genocide in Gaza.” The group claims that the two individuals involved in the sabotage managed to leave the base without being apprehended. “The two activists escaped undetected,” Palestine Action reported. RAF Brize Norton, the largest station in the Royal Air Force and a vital point for air transport, aerial refuelling, and strategic airlift, has yet to issue a statement in response to the incident. The protest highlights growing tensions over Britain’s perceived military role in the conflict in Gaza. The activists’ use of symbolic tactics—red paint to mimic blood, for instance—echoes previous Palestine Action demonstrations aimed at raising awareness of what the group alleges is UK complicity in Israeli military actions. While the authenticity of the activists' claims and the extent of the damage have not yet been independently verified, the incident marks a serious breach of security at one of the UK’s most important military installations. RAF Brize Norton has been contacted for comment. Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Independent 2025-06-21