Top World News

Foreign policy expert Trita Parsi issued a dire warning Sunday that “all signs” were pointing to a “major escalation” in the U.S. war against Iran, one that “may very well” occur next month.“All signs point to a major escalation between the US, Iran and Israel. And it may very well be initiated by Tehran itself a week or two before the midterm elections,” Parsi wrote Sunday in a statement published on social media. “Iran’s pattern of behavior suggests preparation for that war, including how they are clearing the path for even more effective strikes against Israel.”The U.S. war against Iran has seen few direct exchanges of fire since July, a trend that was broken last week after Iran responded to a wave of U.S. strikes by attacking U.S. allies Jordan and Bahrain. On Saturday, the United States struck three Iranian oil tankers, an attack that Iran’s parliament speaker vowed Sunday to answer with a "more intense and more painful response,” CBS News reported.And yet, Iran’s response to U.S. attacks, as previously noted by Parsi, has been comparatively reserved, suggesting Tehran may be waiting for a more “optimal moment to strike back.” That moment, Parsi previously theorized, could be “two or three weeks before the congressional elections, maximizing the political damage to Trump.”Should a “major escalation” in war occur, Parsi also warned that it was likely Israel would play a larger direct role in the conflict.“While the US kept Israel out of the second round of war because Washington feared Israel would escalate beyond what the US believed was manageable, Trump may, in this third round, see himself far more aligned with Israel’s desire for a far larger war,” Parsi wrote.I just completed our eighth Q&A with subscribers, and I fear I left folks quite worried and depressed.But I was being honest: All signs point to a major escalation between the US, Iran and Israel. And it may very well be initiated by Tehran itself a week or two before the…— Trita Parsi (@tparsi) September 6, 2026

US Energy Secretary Chris Wright on Sunday denied that the Trump administration was stealing Venezuela’s oil just one hour after boasting that the country is being “forced to work” with the United States.During a Sunday morning interview on ABC News, Wright was asked why he trusted interim Venezuelan President Delcy Rodriguez, given that she was previously the vice president of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who was abducted by the American military earlier this year and brought to the US to face narco-terrorism, drug trafficking, and weapons charges.“We have a lot of leverage over Venezuela,” Wright explained. “We control the sale of oil outside of their country. So right now, they are forced to work in partnership with us, and they are working in partnership with us.”Shortly after, during an interview on Fox News, Wright grew indignant at the suggestion that the US was forcing Venezuela to give up its oil through threats of military force and other coercive measures.“This is a home run!” Wright said of the Trump administration’s arrangements with the Venezuelan government. “These senators saying we’re stealing their oil at gunpoint, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the more oil that’s produced in Venezuela, including with the deal with the US government, the more royalties and tax revenues go to the Venezuelan government and the Venezuelan people.”Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado, who was supportive of the US abducting Maduro, last week criticized the Trump administration for cutting a deal with what she said was still a corrupt and oppressive government in Caracas.“The wealth of our land does not belong to an illegitimate regime,” Machado said in a video posted on social media, “it belongs to the Venezuelan people.”In an analysis published last week, economist Paul Krugman accused the Trump administration of concocting a “plot to steal Venezuela’s oil,” which he described as equal parts “vile and deeply stupid.”The deal is vile, Krugman said, because it validates "everything the Latin American left has ever said about US imperialism” in the region.And it is simultaneously stupid, he argued, because the investments required to improve Venezuela’s oil infrastructure will be so great that its benefits are unlikely to materialize in the near future, if at all.“Venezuelan oil currently sells for around $70 a barrel on world markets,” Krugman wrote. “But as I said, getting that oil out will require huge investments in infrastructure. Nor does Venezuela oil come gushing out when you drill a well: As one expert put it, ‘it comes out of the ground with the consistency of cold peanut butter.’”

Exclusive: US-controlled weapons corporations and forces have control or access to more than 100 facilities across the continent, which some analysts describe as a ‘colonisation’ of Australia’s military. Find a map of them hereUS military presence in Australia, mapped – videoWhy can the US access so many Australian military bases? – podcastUS military interests control or have access to more than 100 defence facilities on Australian soil, in what some analysts describe as a “saturation” – even a “colonisation” – of the Australian continent.New data compiled by the Nautilus Institute and published by Guardian Australia maps the extent of US militarisation. The US military controls 17 facilities on mainland Australia and has access to 75 more Australian-run military installations. US defence corporations have access to an additional 18.Gathering intelligence, accessing satellite data for targeting information and communications intercepts.Training, including for 2,500 marines on dry-season rotation in the Northern Territory.Pre-positioning warfighting assets such as Osprey aircraft.Logistics hubs holding weapons, munitions and fuel, stored in case of a war in the Pacific. Continue reading...

Slavery’s legacy continues ‘to deprive our country and our people’, says minister, as group prepares to appeal to Jamaica’s head of stateA landmark petition is to be handed to King Charles by Jamaica over slavery reparations, aiming to confront historical crimes that still disadvantage former British colonies, the Caribbean nation’s culture minister has said.The petition will be lodged with Charles, Jamaica’s head of state, on Monday. Continue reading...

A former supporter of President Donald Trump says he will forever regret his vote after his brother died in ICE custody.According to an article by The Mirror, Naseer Paktyawal posted a tearful video, first shared by ABC News, describing the loss of his brother Mohammad Nazeer Paktyawal and the guilt he carries over voting for Trump. The two men were inseparable, Paktyawal said, describing his bond."We never call each other a brother," Paktyawal, who came to the U.S. from Afghanistan, said. "We call best friends."His brother served in the U.S. Special Forces in 2005, Afghan community leaders and a refugee group said, but the Department of Homeland Security, the parent agency of ICE, claimed it had no record of his service, according to the Mirror.He recounted the arrest outside a Dallas apartment that led to his brother's death. He saw "two cars unmarked. Seven, eight people jump out of those cars," he said. Agents grabbed his brother and put him in handcuffs in front of his family, Paktyawal said.Later, Paktyawal got a phone call from an ICE facility. He was told that his brother had died and that his body was left in a hospital parking lot."That's the thing that I will never forget in my life," he said. Paktyawal's brother had been seeking asylum since 2021 and was the 12th person to die in ICE custody in 2026, according to The Mirror.Paktyawal voted for Trump after he arrived in the U.S. in 2014, and he blamed the choice for his brother's death, according to The Mirror."My first vote was for this president, and I regret it, and I'm gonna regret it for the rest of my life," Paktyawal said. "Because of me, because of my voting, he got arrested, and he lost his life. And I'm never going to forgive myself for that."Paktyawal said he no longer trusts the Trump administration, saying, "I don't believe this administration."

The Justice Department accidentally stopped working with Canada after a division chief misunderstood instructions to reschedule a meeting, The Wall Street Journal reported.According to a Friday article, the DOJ's antitrust division was instructed to halt all work with the Canadian government after an email was sent out with the subject line, "Pause on Canada." The chief of the antitrust division's international section, Lynda Marshall, sent out the email after she was told to reschedule a meeting.The email ordered DOJ officials in the division to stop all cooperation on cases and engagement on policy issues with Canadian authorities, according to The Journal. Marshall didn't offer any reasoning in her email for why the division had to stop working with Canada, but she wrote that she would "circle back if the guidance changes," The Journal reported.A follow-up email was sent on Friday to section chiefs within the division demanding lists detailing areas of cooperation with Canada by the end of the day, according to The Journal. In yet another email from Marshall that came later that day, she told staff in the division that she had been mistaken and cooperation with Canada could continue.Justice Department spokeswoman Emily Covington told The Journal that the directive to stop cooperation came after Marshall misunderstood a directive. Covington explained that Marshall had been told to push back a scheduled meeting, The Journal reported. The mix-up came as the Trump administration and Canada are in a dispute after trade talks broke down last month, with both the U.S. and Canada imposing tariffs on each other.According to The Journal, the DOJ division has resumed working with Canada. Representatives from Canada or its Competition Bureau didn't respond to The Journal's request for comment.The Journal noted that Canadian and U.S. antitrust authorities have multiple agreements in place to increase cooperation and have collaborated on major investigations since the 2000s. The two countries worked together on investigations into price-fixing in the auto parts and air cargo industries as well as on cases about mergers in tech, aerospace, and other industries.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio reportedly helped shut down a federal investigation into a businessman involved in President Donald Trump’s massive Venezuelan oil deal —then publicly said there was no investigation against him.Venezuelan businessman Alejandro Betancourt had spent years under investigation by the Justice Department as part of a sprawling billion-dollar money laundering case, according to a new CNN report. But prosecutors in Miami recently closed the probe after receiving direct orders from then-Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche.“The move came as part of an effort by Trump White House officials and Secretary of State Marco Rubio to enlist Betancourt to engineer a massive new oil deal with Venezuela’s government,” the report said.Rubio, in an interview this week with a Venezuelan broadcaster, took credit for helping arrange Betancourt’s role in the oil deal and went on to defend the businessman as having been fully vetted.“We thoroughly investigate what we know within our system,” Rubio said. “Obviously, if these individuals were under investigation in the United States, and we have checked that with all the authorities, there was no investigation within our system against him.”But, according to CNN, Rubio did not disclose that he “played a key role in why Betancourt is no longer under investigation.” The Justice Department disputed that Blanche personally directed prosecutors to shut the case, calling the claim “a complete fabrication,” the Friday report said. Betancourt, who is now a partner in Trump’s Venezuelan oil plan, was never charged with a crime. “Now we have an opportunity to do something that I believe is going to benefit everyone,” Rubio said in the interview. “But specifically, in the long term, benefit the Venezuelan people.”

President Donald Trump downplayed the severity of the Iran war when pressed by reporters in the Oval Office during an executive order signing ceremony on Friday."The Vice President said yesterday that he would not describe the conflict with Iran as a war…If this is not a war, what exactly is it?" asked ABC's Rachel Scott. Trump replied, "I call it a military conflict because it's small potatoes for us. It's not a big thing."When Trump was reminded that 18 people have died and are facing "record-long deployments," Trump shot back, "Why is it record long? How long were we in Vietnam? We're in 5 months now."The president's flippant comments earned instant outrage from commenters on social media."A quote — 'small potatoes' — that Republicans would absolutely hang over the head of a Dem president if he uttered it," wrote The Bulwark's Sam Stein. "Underscores the disparity in the messaging machines between the two parties.""Ordering Americans into harm’s way is maybe the most solemn and serious responsibility of the Commander in Chief. And this guy calls it small potatoes?" wrote Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-PA), himself a veteran of the Iraq War. "Every chicken hawk cheerleading this reckless war owns his disrespect of our troops and their patriotism.""Every day he does the most un-American thing possible, and every day it's something new," wrote Tucson-based attorney Joe St. Louis. "I thought I was numb to his callousness, but God this makes by blood boil."