Cabinet talks about war - Trump talks about pens!
At the White House, the focus is on Iran, on missiles, on rising oil prices and nervous markets. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Vice President JD Vance, Marco Rubio and Steve Witkoff report on the situation. US soldiers are deployed, the situation is tense. At that exact moment, Donald Trump reaches for a black marker and holds it up. “Do you see this pen?” he asks and begins to talk. For five minutes, with pauses, with digressions, with visible enjoyment of his own story.
It is no longer about war, but about a Sharpie. Trump explains how ballpoint pens in the White House used to cost a thousand dollars and why that bothered him. At bill signings, these pens are given away, sometimes to dozens of people, even to children who do not know their value. That had been too expensive. So he acted himself. He contacted the manufacturer, had a model with a golden logo developed and decided to pay five dollars per unit. The company, Trump says, wanted to charge nothing, but he insisted. That is good business, he says. While outside there is talk about war and energy prices, there is laughter in the room. Trump calls it a business story. Then he gives the floor to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. “Good luck,” he says. Bessent replies dryly that they are used to following him. The room laughs again. The topics remain the same. The moment has shifted anyway.
Ukraine becomes a point of contact against Iranian drones
Volodymyr Zelenskyy is in Saudi Arabia. He announces important meetings, says nothing more. Still, it is clear what it is about. Gulf states are looking to Ukraine because they have a problem that has long been everyday reality there. Iranian drones are no longer a theory. Russia has been using them for years, against cities, against infrastructure, repeatedly also with civilian casualties. Ukraine had to respond, not at some point, but immediately. What works and what does not was decided under real conditions. That is exactly what other countries are now interested in. It is about concrete procedures, about detection and defense, about rapid response in an emergency. Saudi Arabia and other states face the same development. The talks are therefore not about politics, but about experience. Ukraine is not an observer, but part of this reality. Anyone who wants to understand how to deal with these drones is now looking there.
Iran speaks of planned assassinations - threats against Araghchi and Qalibaf reach the United Nations!
Tehran is taking the official route and making the accusation internationally. In a letter to the United Nations, Iran warns of concrete threats against Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf. The letter was signed by Ambassador Amir Saeid Iravani. The content is clear: both top politicians had been designated as targets, their killing only temporarily suspended. The trigger are reports according to which Israel and the United States are currently sparing these two figures as long as talks on a ceasefire are ongoing. For Tehran, that is precisely the evidence. The letter states that there is an operational framework that provides for the assassination of leading representatives of the Islamic Republic. The fact that these plans are only paused shows that the threat is real, deliberate and still active.
The wording is sharp. Iran speaks of state sponsored terrorism. The accusation is directed straight at two states, while diplomatic channels are being kept open at the same time. Abbas Araghchi remains involved in talks, Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf is considered a possible counterpart for negotiations with the United States. The background is a war that has long gone beyond military targets. Already at the beginning of the airstrikes, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed. Several military commanders were also killed. The line between military leadership and political leadership has effectively been erased.
At the same time, mediation efforts are underway. Pakistan is organizing indirect exchanges between Tehran and Washington, supported by Egypt and Turkey. While positions are being exchanged at this level, the accusation remains that leading politicians are being deliberately targeted. The letter from Tehran is therefore more than a complaint. It is a clear warning. If it is confirmed that political leadership is being deliberately attacked, the line of this war will shift again. And with it the question of how far this escalation can still go.
The UN Security Council is holding a closed meeting today on the situation in Iran. Russia had requested the meeting because of attacks by the United States and Israel on civilian infrastructure. The meeting was scheduled by the United States, which currently holds the presidency of the Security Council.
International law is the framework of the world order
The legal classification follows clear norms. Article 2 paragraph 4 of the Charter of the United Nations prohibits any use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of a state. Exceptions exist only in cases of self defense under Article 51 or through a mandate of the Security Council. If neither applies, a military attack is in violation of international law. Self defense is narrowly limited. It requires an armed attack that has already occurred or is imminent. Preventive strikes without an acute threat do not meet this requirement. The regime in Iran can only be described as inhumane, that is beyond question. But this is exactly where the legal justification for attacks on Iranian territory fails.
In addition, there is international humanitarian law. The Geneva Conventions as well as Additional Protocol I require distinction between military targets and the civilian population. Article 48 sets out this principle. Article 51 prohibits attacks on civilians and disproportionate attacks. Article 52 protects civilian objects. These rules apply regardless of who conducts the conflict. If civilians are killed in airstrikes or residential areas are hit, that is not a side issue, but the central point of assessment. Without clear military necessity and without proportionality, there is a violation of international humanitarian law.
Targeted killings of political leadership outside immediate combat situations are also highly problematic legally. Without a direct military function in a specific engagement, the basis for such a measure is lacking. The International Criminal Court examines such cases under the Rome Statute. Article 8 covers war crimes, including intentional attacks on civilians, civilian objects and disproportionate attacks. Article 7 concerns crimes against humanity when attacks are directed systematically against the civilian population. The standard is the law alone.
The comparison is simple and legally correct: anyone who enters another person’s home armed and uses violence will be convicted in court. Not because someone does not like them, but because they have broken the law. This is exactly how relations between states function as well. Rejection of Iranian policy does not change that. Law applies regardless of sympathy. If it is ignored, the boundary of what is permitted shifts - and that is exactly what makes this development and perhaps the world so dangerous.
10,000 troops in the region - pause in attacks, war remains open
The Pentagon is reviewing the deployment of up to 10,000 additional ground troops to the Middle East. Planning is ongoing while Donald Trump at the same time holds out the prospect of talks with Tehran. Attacks on the Iranian energy sector are to be suspended for ten days, until April 6. Trump says Iran wanted this extension. Mediators contradict this and make clear that this request did not come from Tehran.
At the same time, the first public hearing on the war is being prepared in the US Senate, but only after the recess in April. Political review is thus being postponed while military options are being expanded. From Tehran comes a sharp accusation. The Iranian UN ambassador speaks of state sponsored terrorism and refers to reports of possible targeted killings of leading politicians. The United Nations Security Council reacts and schedules a closed meeting. The situation remains contradictory. On one side talks, on the other side additional troops. Decisions are being made in two directions at the same time. The next few days will show which line is actually being pursued.
Spain says no - Sánchez openly opposes Trump
Pedro Sánchez made his position clear early. Even before the war against Iran began, it was internally clear that Spain would reject it. While many European governments acted cautiously and sought contact with the White House, Madrid is taking a different path. Sánchez openly says no to the war and denies the United States the use of Spanish air bases. At the same time, he continues to reject the NATO target of five percent of GDP for defense. The line is deliberately chosen. Conflicts with Washington are not avoided, but openly named. Support for this is growing in Europe.
Germany and Italy are also staying out of the war. Polls show how much trust in the United States has declined. In Spain, a large majority rejects Trump, while he responds with trade threats. Domestically, Sánchez uses the clear stance, even though his government is under pressure. Corruption allegations in his party’s environment and a lack of parliamentary majorities weaken him. At the same time, he is pushing issues that go beyond Spain. He calls for stricter rules for platforms like X and wants stronger regulation of social networks. The dispute with Elon Musk shows how directly this course is being pursued. At the same time, Sánchez is building international ties with left wing politicians and is specifically seeking exchange with US Democrats. Even on security, his line remains contradictory. Spain blocks military support for the war, but participates in protective measures for European partners such as Cyprus. Statements from Washington that Spain is working militarily with the United States are publicly rejected by Madrid. The government does not see itself as isolated, but as part of a growing European course. Sánchez argues that clear positions make the alliance more stable than silent compliance. His opponents counter that he is covering domestic weakness with foreign policy toughness. What is certain is that Spain is no longer aligning itself, but setting the direction.
Hungary charges a journalist - and calls it espionage
Szabolcs Panyi is an investigative journalist. He works for Direkt36 and VSquare and has been reporting for years on intelligence services and Russian influence in Hungary. Now the Hungarian government has brought charges against him. The accusation: espionage for a foreign state. Panyi rejects this. He calls it what, in his view, it is - an attack on independent reporting.
The trigger is, among other things, a secretly recorded and selectively published conversation about checking a phone number belonging to the foreign minister. At the same time, reports are circulating that Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó has regularly been in contact with his Russian counterpart and is said to have passed on information. The government does not fundamentally deny this - but rejects any broader interpretation. Panyi is not an unknown figure in this story. It is documented that Pegasus spyware was used against him - together with other journalists and lawyers in Hungary. Those who are monitored are now being charged. The sequence says a lot.
In the background, an election campaign is underway that is putting Viktor Orbán under pressure. Current polls show him clearly behind a pro western challenger. Attacks against Ukraine are becoming sharper, warnings of alleged foreign influence louder - concrete evidence is lacking. Support is coming from outside. Donald Trump has repeatedly backed Orbán, a visit by Vice President JD Vance has been announced. You look at this case and think that it is not a Hungarian peculiarity. It is a system. Journalists are monitored, then pressured, then charged - and somewhere in between reporting is supposed to stop. This has been working in Hungary for a while. The only question is how many such cases it will take before Europe stops looking away.
Latest update Iran war: attack, run aground - Strait of Hormuz remains blocked
A Thai cargo ship has run aground in the Persian Gulf after an attack. The Mayuree Naree had already been attacked on March 11, the crew left the ship, three sailors have been missing since then. Now the vessel is stuck near Qeshm Island. The situation shows how insecure the Strait of Hormuz has become. At the same time, Iran is tightening its control over shipping. South Korea is not classified as hostile, but must coordinate every passage with Iranian authorities. At the same time, Tehran is demanding detailed information about ships still in the region. According to information from Seoul, 26 of its own ships are still in the waters around the strait. Iran is making it clear that as a party to the war it is exerting influence over trade routes and reserves the right to sanction companies from the United States and Israel. For shipping, this means a new reality. Routes are no longer freely planned, but dependent on political decisions and the military situation. The incident with the cargo ship shows how quickly economic infrastructure is drawn directly into the conflict.
