Crime Brawl on Pattaya Beach Between Foreign Tourists & Transgender Group Leaves Several Injured
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Topics
-
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
-
Latest posts...
-
-
0
Middle East Shadow War: How Israel Crippled Iran’s Nuclear Brain Trust
Shadow War: How Israel Crippled Iran’s Nuclear Brain Trust In a string of precisely coordinated attacks, Israel has dealt a major blow to Iran’s nuclear weapons program, targeting the scientists behind its most sensitive work. In what was internally dubbed “Operation Narnia,” Israeli operatives launched a pre-dawn assault on June 13 that killed nine top Iranian nuclear scientists in near-simultaneous strikes. The victims were long-time veterans of Tehran’s secret nuclear program, and the aim, according to sources familiar with the operation, was to eliminate them before they could disappear underground. The attacks culminated a 15-year Israeli campaign to erode Iran’s nuclear capabilities by surgically removing its most valuable human assets—scientists with decades of technical experience. Just eleven days later, hours before a U.S. and Qatar-brokered ceasefire came into effect, another strike in northern Iran killed Sayyed Seddighi Saber, a scientist who had been sanctioned by the U.S. weeks earlier for nuclear weapons-related activities. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has claimed these killings have set Iran’s nuclear program back by years. While assessments of the physical damage to nuclear infrastructure are ongoing, experts and former officials agree that eliminating this caliber of talent—those with hands-on knowledge of warhead components like detonation systems and neutron triggers—has a more immediate and profound effect. “It’s one thing to lose that expertise slowly over time,” said Eric Brewer, former U.S. national security director for counterproliferation. “But if you’re in the middle of trying to build a bomb or if you see that as a potential near-term option, then it’s going to have a bigger impact.” Although Iran insists its nuclear ambitions are peaceful, the United Nations’ atomic agency has confirmed that Iran maintained a weapons-related program, the AMAD project, until 2003. Since then, Western intelligence believes Iran’s nuclear weapons development has continued in fragmented form, largely through computer modeling and research designed to appear conventional. In the wake of the June 13 attacks, Israel also deployed a drone to kill another unnamed scientist in Tehran, supposedly hidden in a secure location. Israel additionally claimed responsibility for striking the headquarters of SPND—the AMAD project’s successor. These were the first direct killings of Iranian nuclear scientists since 2020, when Mohsen Fakhrizadeh was assassinated using a remote-controlled weapon. Between 2010 and 2020, five other scientists were killed under circumstances widely attributed to Israel, though never officially acknowledged. Among those reportedly targeted was Fereydoon Abbasi-Devani, former head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization and a central figure in Iran’s nuclear weapons efforts. “If they tell me to build a bomb, I will build it,” he declared recently on Iranian television. Abbasi-Devani survived an assassination attempt in 2010. Another target was Mohammad Mehdi Teranchi, a U.S.-sanctioned scientist who led high explosives research under Fakhrizadeh and later taught at Tehran’s Shahid Beheshti University—a hub for nuclear talent. Sayyed Seddighi Saber, the final known victim, headed the Shahid Karimi Group, a unit under SPND responsible for explosives research. “Seddighi Saber is linked to projects including research and testing applicable to the development of nuclear explosive devices,” the U.S. Treasury Department said in its May 12 sanctions. Andrea Stricker of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies said Israel’s campaign had removed the “brain trust” of Iran’s nuclear program. “It dealt a blow to Iran’s ability to draw on people who have past and possibly ongoing experience in constructing specific components of nuclear weapons.” Yet others caution that Iran has invested heavily in preserving and transferring this knowledge. It has developed a distributed, resilient network of universities and institutions—including Shahid Beheshti, Sharif University of Technology, and Malek Ashtar University—where senior scientists mentor younger protégés. Israeli security analyst Ronen Solomon noted that two scientists killed on June 13, Ahmadreza Zolfaghari and Abdulhamid Minouchehr, had just published advanced modeling work on neutron sources—a key part of triggering nuclear chain reactions. “There are the professors, and they are teaching the younger scientists… to enter the heart of the Iranian nuclear program,” Solomon said. While Israel’s strikes may have decapitated the current leadership of Iran’s weapons program, the infrastructure to train replacements appears intact. Whether that next generation can fully replace what was lost remains an open and critical question. Related Topics: Iran Acknowledges Major Damage to Nuclear Facilities Amid Strained Diplomacy IAEA Chief Confirms Devastating Blow to Iranian Nuclear Facility Following U.S. Strike After the Bombing: IAEA Chief Calls for Urgent Diplomacy with Iran Amid Nuclear Uncertainty Adapted by ASEAN Now from WSJ 2025-07-01 -
0
UK Starmer worst start of any new PM, says polling guru
Starmer worst start of any new PM, says polling guru Keir Starmer has endured what polling expert Professor Sir John Curtice describes as “the worst start for any newly elected prime minister, Labour or Conservative.” A year into office, the Labour leader finds himself under intense scrutiny, facing sliding poll numbers, policy reversals, and mounting questions about his direction and leadership. Speaking to Times Radio, Curtice was blunt in his assessment. “Voters still don’t know what [Starmer] stands for,” he said. “He must paint a picture of the country he wants to create.” According to Curtice, Starmer's government has witnessed the steepest decline in public support for any newly elected British administration, with Labour currently polling at just 24 percent. Starmer himself admitted to several missteps in a series of interviews reflecting on his first year. In an interview with The Sunday Times, he acknowledged being slow to grasp the intensity of public reaction to his government’s welfare reforms, attributing the lapse to a necessary focus on international affairs. “I take ownership of all my decisions,” he said. He also expressed regret for using the phrase “island of strangers” during a speech on immigration, a term later criticized for echoing Enoch Powell’s notorious rhetoric on race and immigration. “I wouldn’t have gone near it if I had known,” Starmer said. “I didn’t know that was used by Powell. If I’d known that, I would never have said it.” While the prime minister has sought to own up to his mistakes, his leadership has faced renewed questions, particularly after being forced into three policy U-turns in two months. Curtice noted, “Apologies rarely help. U-turns can suggest a lack of direction, which is already one of this government’s biggest problems.” Dissent is also bubbling within Starmer’s party. The Telegraph reported that more than 40 MPs may push to soften policies such as the inheritance tax for farmers and the controversial two-child benefit cap. Despite this, Health Secretary Wes Streeting has come to Starmer’s defense, praising his willingness to admit fault. “I admire a leader who has the courage and humility to admit that he’s not perfect and that his government’s made mistakes,” Streeting told the BBC. “By the prime minister’s own admission, I think there are things that we haven’t got entirely right in government.” Streeting also highlighted Starmer’s international achievements, noting his efforts to “bridge Europe and America to tackle conflict” and his role in brokering trade deals that have “literally saved thousands of jobs.” He added that public service reform and anti-poverty measures were already under way, though he acknowledged the public's skepticism. “Until people start feeling that change I don’t expect the public to give the prime minister, me or anyone else a pat on the back for a job well done.” Speculation around a future leadership contest is simmering, with both Streeting and Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner often named as potential successors. Streeting, however, dismissed such talk as “mischief making.” “The fact is that we have got in Keir Starmer a prime minister who is delivering real change in our country,” he told Sky News. Rayner also denied any leadership ambitions. Yet, according to The Mail on Sunday, some of her allies believe she could be the next Labour leader. One ally reportedly said, “I think Angela will be the leader. After next year’s Welsh and local elections, if Starmer does not stand down, he will face a challenge. People have just had enough and Keir is gravely wounded.” Others close to Rayner, however, insist she remains focused on her current government duties. As Starmer enters his second year in office, the pressure is mounting not just to hold the party together, but to define clearly what his leadership means — and where it is headed. Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Times 2025-07-01 -
0
Middle East Iran Demands End to US Strikes Before Nuclear Talks Can Resume
Iran Demands End to US Strikes Before Nuclear Talks Can Resume Iran will not return to diplomatic negotiations with the United States unless Washington commits to halting further military strikes, the country’s deputy foreign minister Majid Takht-Ravanchi has told the BBC. His comments follow a period of escalating conflict between Iran, Israel, and the US, which included American airstrikes on three of Iran’s nuclear facilities. Takht-Ravanchi said the Trump administration had sent messages through intermediaries expressing a desire to resume talks, but had failed to clarify whether it would refrain from further attacks during any negotiation process. “Right now we are seeking an answer to this question: are we going to see a repetition of an act of aggression while we are engaging in dialogue?” he asked. “What they are going to offer us in order to make the necessary confidence required for such a dialogue” remained unclear, he said. The situation deteriorated rapidly after Israel launched a surprise military operation on June 13, targeting Iranian nuclear and military sites and assassinating key figures. The attack derailed a planned sixth round of mostly indirect talks that were scheduled for Muscat two days later. In response, Iran fired missiles at Israel, and hostilities continued for 12 days, during which the United States bombed Iran’s Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan nuclear sites. The deputy minister reaffirmed Iran’s right to enrich uranium, insisting the programme was for peaceful research purposes. “We have been denied access to nuclear material,” he said, “so needed to rely on ourselves.” He added, “The level of that can be discussed, the capacity can be discussed, but to say that you should not have enrichment, you should have zero enrichment, and if you do not agree, we will bomb you — that is the law of the jungle.” Tensions between Iran and the IAEA have also worsened. Iran’s parliament voted to suspend cooperation with the agency, accusing it of siding with Israel and the United States. Takht-Ravanchi said Iran had no reason to consider altering its nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief or investment. “Why should we agree to such a proposal?” he asked. He reiterated that uranium enrichment to 60% was for non-military purposes. Under the 2015 nuclear agreement, Iran was restricted to enrichment levels of 3.67% and prohibited from conducting any enrichment at its Fordo plant for 15 years. But after Trump withdrew from the deal in 2018, citing its failure to block Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon, Iran began violating its terms. By 2021, Iran had resumed enrichment at Fordo and, according to the IAEA, accumulated enough 60%-enriched uranium to potentially construct nine nuclear bombs. He also said the US had conveyed, again via intermediaries, that it was not attempting to carry out regime change in Iran by targeting Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had called for Iranians to overthrow the clerical regime, Trump has recently denied supporting such an outcome. Takht-Ravanchi dismissed the idea, calling it “a futile exercise,” and warned that foreign aggression would only unite the Iranian people, despite domestic criticism of the government. He concluded by saying the ceasefire with Israel remained fragile but would be respected “as long as there is no military attack against us.” Gulf Arab nations, especially Qatar, have reportedly played an active role in facilitating the ceasefire. “We do not want war,” he said. “We want to engage in dialogue and diplomacy, but we have to be prepared, we have to be cautious, not to be surprised again.” Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC 2025-07-01 -
0
UK Starmer Urges Public Bodies to Uphold Supreme Court Ruling on Sex-Based Rights
Starmer Urges Public Bodies to Uphold Supreme Court Ruling on Sex-Based Rights Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has called on public institutions to comply with the Supreme Court's recent decision affirming that the legal definition of “woman” in the context of the Equality Act is based on biological sex. Addressing growing concerns over resistance from some public bodies, Starmer insisted that all official guidance must align with the ruling without further delay. “Hospitals and government departments must get on with it,” the prime minister said, referencing institutions that have thus far failed to implement the ruling. Speaking to reporters, Starmer made his position clear: “I accepted the ruling; welcomed the ruling, and everything else flows from that as far as I’m concerned.” He added, “All guidance of whatever kind needs to be consistent with the ruling and we need to get to that position as soon as possible.” The April 2025 Supreme Court decision clarified that references to “woman” in the Equality Act pertain to biological females. The ruling prompted a directive for all UK organisations to review and potentially revise their equality policies accordingly. Despite this, The Times recently reported that several government departments, including within Whitehall, have chosen to delay changes, citing the need for further instruction from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). Some human resources teams have told staff that existing trans-inclusive policies will remain in place during the review period. Meanwhile, the EHRC is in the process of drafting updated guidance aimed at assisting organisations in applying the ruling. However, the commission emphasized that the Supreme Court’s decision carries immediate legal weight. “The judgment is effective immediately,” the EHRC said, stressing that any supplementary guidelines should merely serve as tools to aid implementation, not as prerequisites for compliance. Resistance is also evident in the health sector. According to The Times, some hospital administrators have chosen not to revise their internal policies until NHS England offers its own interpretation of the ruling. This has caused frustration among campaigners who view the delay as a dereliction of legal duty. Maya Forstater, chief executive of the campaign group Sex Matters, welcomed the prime minister’s remarks. “This is an important intervention from the prime minister, given the huge number of public bodies failing to implement the Supreme Court judgment and operating outside the law,” she said. “Political leadership is essential if women whose rights are being stolen are not to be forced to turn to the courts, where public bodies will end up losing, at great expense to taxpayers.” Forstater also highlighted the contrast between public and private sector responses. “It’s no coincidence that the private sector has been faster to bring their policies in line with the judgment, recognising what is at stake for the bottom line. Meanwhile most NHS, university and civil service leaders are sitting on their hands.” She rejected the notion that further guidance was needed before compliance. “The law is clear and there is no need to wait for further guidance from the EHRC or anyone else,” Forstater said. “Unlike the small businesses and services for which the regulator’s guidance is intended, public sector organisations have access to specialist legal advice, as well as extra statutory obligations under the public sector equality duty.” As the debate over legal definitions and gender policy continues to divide opinion, Starmer’s unequivocal stance signals a clear expectation: public institutions must now bring their policies in line with the law. Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Times 2025-07-01 -
0
UK Ofcom Says Trans Views Must Still Be Aired Despite Supreme Court Ruling
Ofcom Says Trans Views Must Still Be Aired Despite Supreme Court Ruling UK broadcasters must continue to give airtime to the belief that trans women are women, regardless of a recent Supreme Court ruling that defined the term "woman" in law as meaning a biological female. In a letter seen by The Telegraph, media regulator Ofcom clarified that the ruling does not settle the wider social and editorial debate surrounding gender identity, nor does it free broadcasters from the obligation to reflect opposing views. The controversy stems from a landmark judgment handed down in April 2025, in which the Supreme Court determined that, under the Equality Act, the legal term “woman” refers specifically to a biological woman. The ruling was hailed by women’s rights campaigners as a definitive legal victory in their efforts to protect female-only spaces. However, Ofcom has now warned GB News—a broadcaster that has publicly aligned itself with the biological definition—that this legal decision does not mean broadcasters can disregard alternative views. “The judgment does not purport to do so,” Ofcom said, responding to GB News’s request for confirmation that the matter was now settled across all contexts. In its letter to the regulator, GB News asked for clarification on whether broadcasters could now treat “woman,” “man,” and “sex” as terms strictly defined by biology, and whether this meant referring to people only by their biological pronouns. The network argued that contributors should generally be free to use such language, provided there was no “deliberate intention to cause harm or offence.” Ofcom, however, rejected what it called GB News’s “dogmatic propositions,” and insisted that the Supreme Court ruling applies only to the specific context of the Equality Act. “We do not consider that it is helpful or appropriate to endorse the dogmatic propositions made by GB News,” the letter stated, explaining that it does not follow that the ruling “effectively ‘settled’ wider debate about the appropriate meaning, usage and effect of such terms in all contexts.” Instead, the regulator reaffirmed its stance that discussions around sex and gender must be approached with editorial balance and a respect for freedom of expression. Broadcasters, it said, retain editorial discretion but must exercise it in line with the Broadcasting Code, which requires due impartiality on controversial issues. “Our assessment will of course also take account of all applicable Convention rights, including the broadcaster’s and audience’s rights to freedom of expression,” the letter continued, stressing that editorial choices on such issues “require nuanced decision-making.” Ofcom drew a comparison to its position on climate change, where it considers the scientific consensus settled and does not require opposing views to be presented. But in the case of gender identity, the regulator said the debate remains open and must be treated accordingly in broadcast coverage. A spokesman for Ofcom reiterated the regulator’s role: “Ofcom is a post-broadcast regulator. In line with the rights of broadcasters and audiences to freedom of expression, our rules allow broadcasters editorial freedom to choose how to cover issues in their programmes subject to the Broadcasting Code.” He added: “Our assessment of whether content complies with the Broadcasting Code is always fact-specific and takes into account all relevant contextual factors, requiring nuanced decision-making, and not a ‘one size fits all’ approach.” GB News has been approached for comment. Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Telegraph 2025-07-01
-
-
Popular in The Pub
.thumb.jpeg.d2d19a66404642fd9ff62d6262fd153e.jpeg)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now