In Barcelona, leading politicians from several countries met on Saturday to strengthen their cooperation and defend an international order based on rules. The host was Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, who has been openly opposing Donald Trump’s course for months, especially in connection with the war between the United States and Iran. At the same time, two major meetings took place where heads of government, ministers, and political representatives from Brazil, South Africa, and other countries exchanged views. U.S. Democrats such as Senator Chris Murphy and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz were also present.
Trump himself again publicly attacked Sánchez and accused Spain of economic weakness and insufficient contributions to NATO. Behind this is a concrete conflict: Spain refuses to allow the United States to use shared military bases for operations in the Iran war and rejects a drastic increase in defense spending. While Trump continues to increase this pressure, the willingness on the other side to strengthen cooperation between governments that clearly oppose this course is growing.
Chris Murphy (Democratic Party): I am in Barcelona today to bring together progressive parties from around the world to defend democracy and fight corruption. There has never been an event like this. It is necessary to push back the forces of fascism.
At the event, Sánchez made it clear that he does not see the political development as a strength of the right, but as a sign of insecurity. Brazil’s President Lula also called for wars to end and for international responsibility to be taken seriously. Concrete proposals were also discussed, such as an international body to combat inequality or the redirection of military budgets toward environmental projects.
At the event, Sánchez made it clear that he does not see the political development as a strength of the right, but as a sign of insecurity. Brazil’s President Lula also called for wars to end and for international responsibility to be taken seriously. Concrete proposals were also discussed, such as an international body to combat inequality or the redirection of military budgets toward environmental projects.
Senator Murphy went further and openly spoke of a threat to democracy in the United States. Walz used his appearance to clearly distance himself from the line of the current U.S. government. The message of the meeting is clear: while Washington under Trump is increasingly pursuing unilateral actions, other countries are trying to build new connections and find joint responses.
35,000 against millions - how simple drones are outmaneuvering U.S. defense
The war has made a shift visible that had long been underestimated. Iran relies on simple drones, built with commercially available technology, costing around 35,000 dollars per unit. Opposing them are U.S. interception systems that cost many times more. A single interception can quickly reach into the millions, often requiring multiple missiles at once because military protocol demands it.
In the air, that means a fighter jet takes off, fires two to three missiles, remains airborne - costing around 65,000 dollars or more just to eliminate a single target. On the ground, it becomes even more extreme. Systems like Patriot or ship-based defenses fire missiles to hit a target that costs only a fraction of that. Two interceptor missiles can cost up to eight million dollars. Even comparatively “cheaper” solutions like the Coyote system are many times more expensive than the drone.
The problem runs deeper. U.S. defense was designed for fast, large targets - aircraft, missiles, not swarms of cheap drones. Iran exploits exactly this gap. Launching multiple drones at once forces defenses to deploy expensive resources, often repeatedly per target. The ratio shifts clearly in favor of the attacker. There is also a practical risk: interceptor stockpiles are limited. It is not just about money, but availability. If many systems are needed at the same time, they may simply run out. That is exactly what military analysts have warned about since the start of the fighting.
In the end, the equation is simple. A drone costing 35,000 dollars forces the opponent to spend many times that or deplete its reserves. Even if every drone is shot down, the damage remains. The costs continue - and that is exactly what this strategy is built on.
The Revolutionary Guard openly defies Foreign Minister Araghchi and enforces its own line
The Iranian navy to a ship attempting to pass through the Strait of Hormuz:
“The Strait of Hormuz remains closed. We will open it on the orders of our leader, Imam Khamenei - not because of the tweets of some idiot.”
Pressure and offer - Washington probes Havana
A U.S. delegation traveled to Havana last week and set a narrow time window for far-reaching changes to the Cuban leadership. This is about more than talks, it is about a country that is economically sliding since key oil supplies were cut. Power outages, food shortages, and problems in hospitals shape daily life.
Washington is pursuing two lines at the same time. On one side there is massive pressure, on the other an offer. The talks focused on economic opening, more space for private companies, and steps toward a market-based economy. Political demands were also clearly formulated, including the release of prisoners and greater internal freedoms.
At the same time, concrete proposals were put on the table. Satellite internet via Starlink is intended to enable free communication, foreign investment could again play a role. But the conditions are clearly set, as is the expectation that the government in Havana will move. Inside Cuba, the tone is sharpening. President Díaz-Canel speaks of possible threats and calls for preparation, including militarily. Behind the scenes, discussions are underway about a possible restructuring of the system, involving figures from the old leadership.
The situation remains open. There are no indications of immediate military steps, but the pressure is increasing. Washington signals willingness to talk, while making it clear that waiting is not an option.
The distress call - clearance granted - fire follows
Somewhere in the Strait of Hormuz, a captain reaches for the radio. He has authorization. He has a position. He has done everything required for a ship to legally pass through a strait. And yet now he hears things that do not match what was promised just minutes earlier. He calls in. Names the ship. Gives the coordinates. Reminds them that passage had been cleared. His voice does not break, but it searches - for someone on the other side who answers, who explains, who at least listens. “You cleared me to pass. Now you are opening fire.” Silence.
Units of the Revolutionary Guard have already approached. The shots have already been fired. And over the same radio channel on which the captain is still speaking, a new broadcast goes out to all ships in the region - the strait is closed, no one may pass. The same strait that minutes earlier had been open. No transition, no explanation, just a new reality replacing the old one while the Sanmar Herald is still in the middle of it.
A second Indian-flagged ship is also hit. Containers damaged. Two ships, one clearance, no protection. What happens in these minutes has a context that is not random. India and Iran had shortly before agreed to resume oil deliveries. Before the ceasefire, New Delhi had negotiated safe passage for eight of its ships - an agreement that now appears to be worth as much as the paper no one ever wrote it on.
India’s foreign ministry summons the Iranian ambassador the same day. The demand is not large - only the one that once already applied: safe passage. That it has to be repeated says everything about the condition of this strait. There is a difference between a lie and a promise that simply stops being valid. A lie assumes someone knew the truth and still hid it. What happened here is more sober and in a way worse: a clearance was valid until it was not - without warning, without explanation, while a ship was already in the strait and a captain spoke his name into a radio no one was listening to anymore.
A polished surface, a hard edge - how Washington repackages its deportation policy
At first glance, the new website of the Homeland Security Task Force looks like a product from Silicon Valley. Clean typography, strong images, simple messages. “We do not negotiate. We dismantle.” Alongside this, a staging of heavily armed units moving through smoke. Everything looks polished, modern, controlled. What is missing is decisive. No mention of ICE, no direct reference to deportations, no clear description of what these units actually do. Instead, the language is about cartels, smuggling, and human trafficking. Terms that generate approval without making the concrete practice visible.
The connection is clear. The task forces are based on an order that explicitly demands strict enforcement of immigration laws. That line does not appear on the new site. The presentation shifts the focus away from arrests and detention toward an image of security and order. At the same time, these units are already operating in cities, far from the border. There they act, detaining people, placing them in custody. The reality does not contradict the website, it is simply not shown there.
The creators are part of the story as well. Joe Gebbia, billionaire and co-founder of Airbnb, leads the National Design Studio. Nate Brown, previously part of the creative scene around Kanye West, is responsible for the visual direction. And Edward Coristine, known by the nickname “Big Balls,” leads the technical implementation and speaks openly about the daily use of AI. Their goal is clearly stated: to design government communication so that it feels like a modern product. That is exactly the point. A polished surface does not change what happens behind it. It only makes it look different.
He voted for Trump three times - and now he is apologizing to the country
Registered Republican. Three elections, three votes for Trump. And now he speaks and says what many still do not say out loud.
“I want to apologize to everyone in this country for supporting this rotten, rotten man.”
He calls him corrupt. He calls him racist. Not quietly, not in an anonymous forum - but with a name, with a party, with full responsibility for what he voted for. “He takes bribes, openly. And now he is also openly racist.”
Then the sentence that sums it up: “He is not worthy of the office.” A sentence that is being heard more and more often among Trump voters in America.
What sets this man apart from many others is not the opinion. It is the willingness to say out loud that he was wrong - not once, not twice, but three times. That he puts his name behind it. That he uses the word apology without softening it. Some sentences do not need commentary. This is one of them.
