Saturday, March 07, 2026

Rights Group Says Massacre at Iranian School—Likely by US—Should Be Investigated as ‘War Crime’

“Trump loves putting his name on things, but this should be the only building for which he is remembered by history.”


A view of the debris of a school, where many students and teachers lost their lives on the first day of the wave of attacks launched by the United States and Israel against Iran, in the southern town of Minab on March 5, 2026.
(Photo by Stringer/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Jon Queally
Mar 07, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

The bombing of a primary school by US-Israeli coalition forces in southern Iranian town of Minab that killed an estimated 160 or more civilians—mostly children—on February 28 should be investigated as a possible war crime, Human Rights Watch said on Saturday.

After reviewing satellite footage from before and after the strike on the Shajareh Tayyebeh school—as well as reviewing video taken in the wake of the bombing and other materials—the international human rights group said the available evidence indicates “that the attack was carried out by highly accurate, guided munitions, rather than errant weapons whose guidance or propulsion systems failed or were otherwise disrupted and randomly struck the area.”

The attack on the school would be among the deadliest war crimes against civilians by US forces in years. Occurring on the first day of bombings of what President Donald Trump and US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth dubbed Operation Epic Fury, the slaughter of schoolchildren—though the US has denied responsibility thus far—coincides with Hegseth repeatedly bragging that the US military would no longer follow “stupid rules of engagement” in the execution of its operations.

“The school was in use, and children were in attendance on the day of the attack,” the group said. “Human Rights Watch found no evidence that would indicate that the school was being used for military purposes, though researchers were not able to speak to witnesses of the strikes, families of those killed, or other informed sources.”

President Trump should hold Secretary Hegseth and everyone else responsible for killing Iranian children accountable, and bring this illegal, unnecessary war of choice to an end.“

According to HRW:

The United States should immediately assess its responsibility for this strike and make the findings public. If the US military carried out the strike, it should conduct a full investigation into the operational and policy failures that led it to strike a school, fully account for the civilian harm caused, hold those responsible accountable including through prosecution, and commit to changes that would ensure such failures will not be repeated in future operations.

Analyses of the bombing by various news outlets have provided strong evidence that US forces were the most likely culprits of the attack. HRW was told by an Israeli military spokesperson that it was “not aware of any [Israeli military] strikes in the area.” Hegseth said during a Wednesday press conference that the Pentagon was investigating the matter, but offered no further indication of concern in the matter.

During that same press briefing, as HRW notes in its analysis of the attack, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Dan Caine, said that US forces from the USS Abraham Lincoln strike group were providing “pressure” in preceding days along the “southeastern side” of the Iranian coast as he pointed to an area of a map showing coalition bombings that included Minab.

“A prompt and thorough investigation is needed into this attack, including if those responsible should have known that a school was there and that it would be full of children and their teachers before midday,” said Sophia Jones, open source researcher with the Digital Investigations Lab at Human Rights Watch. “Those responsible for an unlawful attack should be held to account, including prosecutions of anyone responsible for war crimes.”

“Allies of the US and Israel should insist on accountability for the Shajareh Tayyebeh school attack and for an end to attacks on civilian infrastructure in all of their operations across the region, before more civilians, including children, are unlawfully killed,” she added.

Human Rights Watch is not the only one demanding an independent investigation.

“This mass killing of children is unconscionable. It bears the hallmarks of a war crime,” said Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) on Friday after a New York Times investigation found that US forces were likely behind the strike. “Trump and Hegseth must answer for the US’s role and they must be held accountable. People deserve the full truth. There must be an immediate and transparent investigation.”

On Friday, as Common Dreams reported, another school in Iran was struck by US-Israel bombings, bringing the total number of schools hit to four in the first six days of the unprovoked military attack.

“The American people do not want their tax dollars spent on killing children in Iran, just as they did not want their tax dollars spent on killing children in Gaza,” said the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) in a statement. “The latest U.S.-Israel attacks on schools in Iran are blatant war crimes. So was the original slaughter of 180 schoolgirls that the Pentagon refuses to take responsibility for.”

“Every child murdered or injured in these indiscriminate US-Israel bombing attacks is a sign that the Pentagon under Pete Hegseth is mimicking the tactics of the cowardly and genocidal Israeli military, which has mastered the art of bombing men, women, and children from afar,” the group added. “The American people expect better from our armed forces. President Trump should hold Secretary Hegseth and everyone else responsible for killing Iranian children accountable, and bring this illegal, unnecessary war of choice to an end.”

While the war continues and Trump on Saturday said the people of Iran should expect bombing and destruction to increase not decrease over the weekend, voices for peace continued to demand a swift end to the violence and said the US president should forever be held responsible for unleashing such unnecessary bloodshed—including the specific devastation unleashed on the school in Minab.

“Trump loves putting his name on things, but this should be the only building for which he is remembered by history,” said Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, referencing the school where the massacre took place.

165 Massacred Schoolgirls in Iran — and the Silence That Exposes the West’s Moral Selectivity

These were not combatants. They were not militants. They were children seated at their desks, pens in their hands, notebooks open before them, studying, whispering to classmates, and imagining futures that stretched decades ahead.




In this picture obtained from Iran’s ISNA news agency, mourners attend the funeral of children killed in a strike on a primary school in Iran’s Hormozgan province, in Minab on March 3, 2026.
(Photo by Amirhossein Khorgooei / ISNA / AFP via Getty Images)

Hana Saada
Mar 07, 2026
Common Dreams

In an era when images can circle the globe in seconds and newsrooms claim to uphold universal humanitarian principles; one might expect the killing of 165 schoolgirls inside a primary school to dominate international headlines. One would expect emergency debates, moral outrage, and relentless coverage. Yet in the southeastern Iranian city of Minab—where Israeli-American strikes obliterated classrooms filled with children—the world’s most influential media institutions have responded with something far more revealing than condemnation: they have responded with silence.

These were not combatants. They were not militants. They were children seated at their desks, pens in their hands, notebooks open before them, studying, whispering to classmates, and imagining futures that stretched decades ahead. In seconds, that ordinary school day turned into a massacre. Desks became splintered wreckage, classrooms collapsed into dust, and rows of coffins replaced rows of pupils.

Yet the names of these girls—165 lives extinguished before they truly began—barely entered the global conversation.

This omission is not the product of oversight. It reflects something far more structural: the hierarchy of victims that governs much of the contemporary information order. In theory, modern Western media institutions present themselves as defenders of human rights and guardians of moral accountability. In practice, their editorial priorities often mirror geopolitical interests with striking precision.

When the deaths of children generate outrage in one context but indifference in another, the moral language surrounding human rights begins to lose its integrity.

When tragedies reinforce established narratives about adversarial states, they are amplified, dramatized, and transformed into global moral spectacles. But when tragedies expose the human cost of the military actions carried out by Western powers or their closest allies, they are quietly displaced from the front page—if they appear at all.

The massacre in Minab illustrates this logic with devastating clarity.

The deaths of 165 Iranian schoolgirls do not fit comfortably within the dominant geopolitical storyline that portrays Israel and its strategic partners as defenders of stability and order in a turbulent region. Acknowledging such an atrocity would inevitably raise difficult questions: about the legality of strikes on civilian infrastructure, about the ethics of military escalation, and about the widening humanitarian toll of ongoing Israeli-American attacks across the region.

It is therefore far easier to look away.

But Minab is not an isolated tragedy. Across Lebanon, relentless bombardments have repeatedly struck civilian neighborhoods, reducing homes and streets to rubble. Across Palestine, entire communities have endured cycles of destruction that claim the lives of children whose only battlefield was the ground beneath their feet. Hospitals, schools, and residential blocks have all entered the expanding geography of devastation.

These events do not occur in a vacuum. They form part of a broader pattern in which military power operates alongside narrative power. Missiles shape the physical battlefield, while selective reporting shapes the battlefield of perception.

What emerges is not merely a media bias but a form of narrative engineering. Certain victims are elevated as symbols of universal suffering, while others—often far more numerous—are rendered invisible. Compassion itself becomes curated, distributed unevenly according to political convenience.

For Western audiences accustomed to believing in the neutrality of their information systems, this selective visibility should provoke serious reflection. The credibility of humanitarian discourse depends on consistency. When the deaths of children generate outrage in one context but indifference in another, the moral language surrounding human rights begins to lose its integrity.

The girls of Minab deserved the same recognition afforded to any victims of violence anywhere in the world. They deserved to have their stories told, their lives acknowledged, and their deaths confronted with the seriousness such an atrocity demands.

Instead, they encountered a second form of erasure.

First came the missiles that ended their lives. Then came the silence that followed.

For Western audiences accustomed to believing in the neutrality of their information systems, this selective visibility should provoke serious reflection.

In the contemporary information age, propaganda rarely announces itself openly. It often operates through absence—through the stories that never reach the front page, the victims whose names remain unspoken, and the tragedies that disappear before the world has time to notice.

The massacre in Minab therefore stands as more than a local catastrophe. It exposes a deeper crisis in the global information order—one in which the value of human life appears disturbingly contingent on political context.

And if the deaths of 165 schoolgirls in their classrooms fail to trigger universal outrage, the question is no longer about geopolitics alone.

It becomes a question about the credibility of the moral system that claims to defend humanity itself.

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


Hana Saada
Dr. Hana Saada is an Algerian university lecturer and journalist, and Editor-in-Chief of the English edition of Dzair Tube. She holds a PhD in Media Translation and writes on geopolitics, media narratives, and international affairs.
Full Bio >


‘Up There With My Lai’: Investigations Find US Was Likely Behind Iranian School Massacre

“If a US role were to be confirmed, the strike would rank among the worst cases of civilian casualties in decades of US conflicts in the Middle East.”



An aerial view of a graveyard as funerals are held for students and staff from a girls’ school killed in a likely US strike on March 3, 2026 in Minab, Iran.
(Photo: Handout/Getty Images)

Jake Johnson
Mar 06, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

US investigators reportedly believe that American forces were behind the bombing of an Iranian girls’ school that killed more than 160 people—mostly young children—during the initial wave of attacks launched Saturday by President Donald Trump in coordination with the Israeli military.

Citing two unnamed officials, Reuters reported Thursday that US military investigators have found it is “likely” that American forces were responsible for the deadly strike on the school in the southern Iranian town of Minab, though the investigation has not yet been completed. Schools are protected under international law, and targeting them is a war crime.

“Reuters was unable to determine more details about the investigation, including what evidence contributed to the tentative assessment, what type of munition was used, who was responsible, or why the U.S. might have struck the school,” the outlet noted. “The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive military matters, did not rule out the possibility that new evidence could emerge that absolves the U.S. of responsibility and points to another responsible party in the incident.”

“If a US role were to be confirmed,” Reuters added, “the strike would rank among the worst cases of civilian casualties in decades of US conflicts in the Middle East.”

HuffPost‘s Akbar Shahid Ahmed echoed Reuters’ reporting, writing that Pentagon officials “told Congress in multiple briefings this week that they believed the US was most likely responsible (though probe ongoing).”

The reporting came on the heels of a New York Times analysis that concluded the US was “most likely to have carried out the strike,” given that American forces were simultaneously bombarding an adjacent Iranian naval base. The Times also rejected the claim that an Iranian missile hit the elementary school.

“The strikes were first reported on social media shortly after 11:30 am local time,” the Times reported. “An analysis of those posts—as well as bystander photos and videos captured within an hour of the strikes—helps corroborate that the school was hit at the same time as the naval base. One video, pinpointed by geolocation experts, showed several large plumes of smoke billowing from the area of the base and the school.”

Beth Van Schaack, a former State Department official who currently teaches at Stanford University’s Center for Human Rights and International Justice, told the Times that “given the US’ intelligence capabilities, they should have known that a school was in the vicinity.”

Trump administration officials have said very little about the Iranian school strike in their triumphant rhetoric about the war, which Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth hailed as the “most lethal, most complex, and most precise aerial operation in history.” Hegseth has also openly dismissed what he’s called “stupid rules of engagement,” rejecting constraints on US forces that are designed to prevent the killing of civilians.

Asked about the school strike during a March 4 press conference, Hegseth responded: “All I know—all I can say is that we’re investigating that. We, of course, never target civilian targets, but we’re taking a look and investigating that.”

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio referred reporters to the Pentagon when asked about the attack, but added that “the United States would not target, deliberately target, a school,” in purported contrast to the Iranian government, which Rubio claimed is “deliberately targeting civilians” because “they are a terroristic regime.”

Two first responders to the scene of the attack, as well as a parent of one of the killed children, told Middle East Eye earlier this week that the school was hit by two strikes, a possible “double-tap” attack. An Al Jazeera investigation concluded the attack on the school was likely deliberate.

Jeremy Konyndyk, president of Refugees International, called the school attack “a horrific US war crime, up there with My Lai,” referring to US soldiers’ massacre of Vietnamese civilians in 1968. The US military initially covered up the massacre.

“In a sane world, Hegseth would resign, Congress would hold immediate hearings and establish an investigation, and the US would come clean,” Konyndyk wrote on social media. “None of that is likely, so international mechanisms should kick in, including the [International Criminal Court]. And Hegseth should probably talk to a lawyer.”

On Thursday, as US and Israeli officials vowed to ramp up their assault on Iran, two boys’ schools southwest of Tehran were reportedly bombed.

“The targeting of civilians, educational facilities, and medical institutions constitutes a grave violation of international humanitarian law and human rights law,” a group of United Nations experts said earlier this week.



US-Israeli Bombs Strike ‘The Fourth School in 6 Days’ in Iran: Report

“There are straight lines between what Israel has attempted to do… in Gaza, to completely decimate and collapse the systems that existed there, to what we are seeing in Iran,” said one expert.


Caskets are carried by mourners as funerals are held for students and staff from a girls’ school, who authorities said were killed in a US-Israeli strike on February 28, on March 3, 2026 in Minab, Iran.
(Photo by Handout/Getty Images)

Stephen Prager
Mar 06, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

US and Israeli missiles have hit a school in Iran for the fourth time in six days, according to videos shared on social media by a spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry on Friday.

Spokesperson Esmaeil Baqaei said that the Shahid Hamedani School, an elementary school in Niloufar Square, Tehran, had been “targeted by the American/Israeli aggressors.”

He posted a video showing the school filled with dozens of young students prior to the attack, followed by scenes of the school in ruins, with several empty classrooms filled with rubble.

Baquaei said it showed “how the United States administration is helping the people of Iran.” He did not include any information about the number of casualties or the circumstances of the attack.



According to the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), at least 192 children have been killed across the Middle East since the US and Israel launched a regime change war this past Saturday.

Most of them were girls ages 7-12 who were killed on Saturday during an attack at a girls’ school in the southern Iranian town of Minab.

At least 175 people were reported to have been killed in the attack, which unnamed officials have said was “likely” carried out by the United States, according to Reuters. HuffPost reported that Pentagon officials have briefed Congress that the US “was most likely responsible.”

Eyewitnesses and relatives of the victims have told Middle East Eye that the attack was a “double-tap” strike in which survivors and first responders were targeted following the initial bombing. An Al Jazeera investigation has concluded that the attack was likely “deliberate.”

Iranian media have also published CCTV video of a separate strike on the same day, in which a missile landed next to a boys’ school in Qazvin, resulting in scenes of terrified students and teachers running for their lives.

CCTV video captures moment strike lands next to boys’ school in Iran
CCTV video showing the moment a missile struck next to a boys’ school in Iran’s Qazvin.

Al Jazeera·Mar 6


On Thursday, two other schools in the town of Parand, southwest of Tehran, were hit by missiles fired by the US and Israel, according to Iranian state media. The Fars News Agency shared photos of a classroom filled with debris. So far, no casualties from the attack have been reported.

US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has said that as it wages its war in Iran, the US is not abiding by “stupid rules of engagement,” and has boasted of raining down “death and destruction from the sky all day long.”

According to data analyzed by the Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA), part of a US-based human rights monitor for Iran, at least 1,168 civilians have been killed by US-Israeli attacks since Saturday. The Iranian government on Friday put the death toll at 1,332 people.

More than 3,643 civilian sites have been damaged in attacks attributed to the US and Israel, according to figures released by the Iranian Red Crescent Society—among them have been 3,090 homes, 528 commercial centres, 13 medical facilities and nine Red Crescent centres.

Amjad Iraqi, a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group, told Al Jazeera that these routine attacks on civilian infrastructure increasingly resemble those carried out by Israel during its more than two-years of genocide in Gaza.

“There are straight lines between what Israel has attempted to do… in Gaza, to completely decimate and collapse the systems that existed there,” Iraqi said, “to what we are seeing in Iran, on a much more massive and dangerous scale, to bring down the Islamic Republic and to cause as much devastation as possible.”

‘Beyond Evil’: Medics Say Iran School Massacre Was Double-Tap Strike

“The second bomb hit,” said one paramedic. “Only a small number of those who had taken shelter survived.”


A mourner holds a photo of two victims of last week’s bombing of a girls’ school in Minab, Iran during a funeral gathering in Minab on March 3, 2026.
(Photo by Stringer/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Brett Wilkins
Mar 04, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

As the US and Israel continued to wage war on Iran Wednesday, paramedics and victims’ relatives said last weekend’s bombing of an elementary in southern Iran was a so-called “double-tap” airstrike—a common tactic used by US, Israeli, and Russian forces by which attackers bomb a target and then follow up with a second strike meant to kill survivors and first responders.

Iranian officials said that around 175 people—most of them young children—were killed when the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls’ elementary school in Minab was hit Saturday by what they said was a US-Israeli attack

“When the first bomb hit the school, one of the teachers and the principal moved a group of students to the prayer hall to protect them,” said one of two Iranian Red Crescent Society (IRCS) paramedics who spoke to Middle East Eye on condition of anonymity.

“The principal called the parents and told them to come and pick up their children,” the paramedic added. “But the second bomb hit that area as well. Only a small number of those who had taken shelter survived... Some parents recognized their children only because of the gold bracelets they were wearing.”

The father of a girl killed in the second strike on the facility told Middle East Eye that school officials “asked us to come as quickly as possible and take our daughter home.”

However, when he arrived at the school, “My little girl was completely burned.”

“There was nothing left of her,” he said. “We could only identify her from her school bag, which she was still holding.”

“When I saw her smile after coming home from work, all my pain disappeared,” the father added. “Now I don’t know what to do with this pain. I don’t know how to live with this.”

The mother of a boy slain in the strike told NBC News that the school also called her and told her to quickly come pick up her child.

“By the time we arrived, the entire school had collapsed on top of the children,” she said. “People were pulling out children’s arms and legs. People were pulling out severed heads.”

On Wednesday, Middle East Eye published a partial list containing the names and ages of 51 children—26 boys and 25 girls—one infant, and eight women killed in the school strike.

Thousands of mourners thronged the streets of Minab on Tuesday as funerals were held for the strike’s victims.



It is not known whether the school, which is located near an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps compound, was deliberately targeted.

“All that I know is that we’re investigating that. Of course, we never target civilians,” said US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who oversees a military whose 21st century wars have killed more than 400,000 noncombatants, according to the Costs of War Project at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Monday that the Pentagon “would be investigating that, if that was our strike.”

“Clearly, the United States would not deliberately target a school,” Rubio added.

Since the late 20th century, the US has bombed—either deliberately or through inadequate target vetting and identification—schools in countries including VietnamLaosIraqAfghanistan, and Pakistan.

If carried out by the US, Saturday’s strike in Minab is likely the deadliest American school bombing since 182 students, staff, and other civilians were massacred in an apparently deliberate secret strike on a school in Laos—the most heavily bombed country ever—during the Vietnam War.

Israel has bombed all levels of schools in Gaza as part of what critics have called a deliberate policy of scholasticide.

North Carolina-based independent journalist Lauren Steiner told Common Dreams Wednesday that the double-tap tactic is “beyond evil.”

Other such strikes have been reported during the US-Israeli war on Iran, including the Sunday evening bombing of Niloofar Square in Tehran, where people were celebrating the end of their daily Ramadan fast.

“Suddenly there was the noise and explosion,” one survivor, who was enjoying the evening at a cafĂ© before the bombing, told Drop Site News. “We got up and a few people ran away. We turned around to get our belongings and we saw that blood was spraying everywhere. Someone’s hand had fallen on the floor, a head had fallen on the floor.”

“When the second one hit, suddenly everything exploded,” he added. “The windows all shattered... One of my friends whom I don’t know that well, he was sitting here... He was severed in half. Half of him was thrown to the side. I put him back together and placed him where he was. A piece of his brain was thrown here on the floor.”



The IRCS says more than 1,000 Iranians have been killed during four days of US and Israeli bombing, with Iran’s retaliatory strikes killing six US service members, 11 Israelis, and a number of people in Gulf states that have come under Iranian bombardment.

“The enemy is exploiting every possible tactic to inflict maximum harm on our people,” IRCS spokesperson Mojtaba Khaledi said Tuesday. “We beg the public: Do not rush to bombed areas. The first moments after an explosion are the most dangerous—some munitions are programmed to detonate again, turning rescuers and survivors into additional victims.”

Some of the more infamous US double-tap strikes include the April 1999 Grdelica bridge bombing in Yugoslavia, which happened while a passenger train traveling from Belgrade, Serbia to Greece was crossing, killing more than 20 people; the March 2019 drone strike in Deir Ezzor, Syria that killed scores of civilians along with some Islamic State fighters; the April 2025 attack on Ras Isa port in al-Hudaydah, Yemen that massacred 84 civilians; and the bombing last September of a boat allegedly transporting drugs in the Caribbean Sea.



Israeli has carried out many double-tap strikes in Gaza, including last summer’s attack on Nasser Hospital that killed more than 20 people including five journalists, and the July 2024 massacre of more than 90 people in a purported “safe zone” in al-Mawasi. Israel is facing a genocide case currently before the International Court of Justice in The Hague, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant are wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, including murder and forced starvation.


BOOTS ON THE GROUND


While Bombing Iran, Trump Sends US Troops Into Ground War on Drugs in 

Ecuador


“Why is Trump attacking Ecuador?” asked one leftist news outlet.

 “Same reason he’s in Iran + Venezuela: oil ‘secured’ by force, sold as fighting a ‘dictatorship’ and/or ‘drugs.’”


US and Ecuadorian marines take part in a training exercise near JaramijĂł, Ecuador on July 11, 2025.
(Photo by US Southern Command)

Brett Wilkins
Mar 04, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

Just over two months after US forces bombed and invaded Venezuela and abducted its alleged drug-trafficking president, the Pentagon on Tuesday announced the launch of a joint campaign with Ecuador to combat “narco-terrorists” in the South American nation.

US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) announced the operation, which, with the deployment of ground troops, opens a new front in the Trump administration’s Operation Southern Spear targeting alleged drug traffickers. The campaign had previously consisted of dozens of airstrikes against boats that the US military claimed were transporting drugs in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean. More than 150 people have been killed in such bombings.



‘Bombs Will Be Dropping Everywhere’: Trump Launches Illegal Regime Change War Against Iran



‘This Is Madness’: More Talk of Boots on the Ground as Trump Says ‘Today Iran Will Be Hit Very Hard’

Right-wing Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa—a close ally of US President Donald Trump whose family shipping business is allegedly linked to cocaine trafficking—hailed the joint operation as “a new phase against narco-terrorism.”



However, many Ecuadorian leftists denounced the operation.

“How can our armed forces allow so much?” asked former President Rafael Correa, who expelled the US military from Ecuador and famously said that he would let the US renew a lease on a controversial air base in Manta only if “they let us put a base in Miami.”

Last year, Ecuadorian voters rejected a proposal by Noboa to reopen US military bases in the country that were shuttered by Correa’s refusal to renew their leases.

Former National Assembly president and Imbabura Province Gov. Gabriela Rivadeneira noted in a television interview that Ecuador has “the only constitution in the world that prohibits foreign military presence” within its borders.

“As the US militarization advances, organized crime and drug trafficking advance further; this country was safer without foreign bases,” she contended.

The announcement of the joint campaign also prompted criticism around the world.

“As Trump deploys US troops in Ecuador, there’s a real danger that he’ll authorize them to summarily shoot rather than capture drug suspects as legally required,” former Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth said on social media. “In short, to commit more criminal murders.”

US climate campaigner Elise Joshi said on X that “Ecuador’s corrupt billionaire president Noboa just gave Trump permission to carry out a military operation in the country as he guts public services, Indigenous rights, and free speech.”

“Noboa sold out Ecuador to Trump’s war against the [Latin American] people,” Joshi added. “Shameful.”



Others questioned the US explanation for the intervention.

“Why is Trump attacking Ecuador?” the leftist magazine In These Times wrote on its X page. “Same reason he’s in Iran + Venezuela: oil ‘secured’ by force, sold as fighting a ‘dictatorship’ and/or ‘drugs.’ Ecuador’s Indigenous organizers forced a pullback in drilling in 2019. Now they face the US military.”

Once one of Latin America’s most peaceful countries, Ecuador in recent years has become what many observers call a “cocaine superhighway” via which the majority of drugs produced in neighboring Colombia and Peru are shipped to the United States and other international markets. The booming drug trade has sparked a fierce turf war between traffickers that has plunged areas of Ecuador, especially in the coastal province of Guayas, into violence and terror.

The Trump and Noboa administrations have forged closer ties since the US leader’s return to office last year, much to the chagrin of many Ecuadorian leftists—who point to the long history of US military invasions and other interventions throughout Latin America, including a CIA-backed coup in Ecuador in 1963.

The Ecuador operation comes amid the US-Israeli war on Iran, which has killed more than 1,000 people, according to the Iranian Red Crescent Society. Iran is the 10th country bombed on orders from US President Donald Trump, the self-proclaimed “president of peace,” who has also attacked Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen.
ACLU warns Montana ruling could gut First Amendment protections

Darrell Ehrlick,
 Daily Montanan
March 7, 2026 



Eric Seidle/ For the Daily Montanan

The American Civil Liberties Union of Montana and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression are asking the Montana Supreme Court to reconsider a 2003 decision as it relates to a current free speech case because they said it sets a dangerous precedent by placing addition hurdles for speech to get protection, contrary to the First Amendment rights found in both the state and federal constitution

The current case concerns Matthew Gordon Mayfield who allegedly told two police officers to “get f—ed” as he disputed the arrest of another man. Helena police officers arrested him, saying that he was interfering with the arrest. In the case, Lewis and Clark County District Court Judge relied on a 2003 case, State vs. Robinson, which led to Mayfield’s conviction. But Menahan’s reliance upon the case should be revisited, according to the two groups, because they warned that the Supreme Court got it wrong in 2003 and risked getting it wrong in 2026.

The 2003 case follows very similar contours in which a man was arrested by Helena Police for similar reasons, after calling an officer a profane name, seemingly for little reason.

The legal challenge says the Montana Supreme Court adopted a new way of looking at contested speech that unfairly limits the First Amendment. For more than a century, the United Supreme Court has said the First Amendment doesn’t protect “fighting words.” However, in the 2003 case, the Montana Supreme Court said that speech must also contribute “to our constitutionally protected social discourse” in order to be protected by the First Amendment as well.

It’s that additional phrase the state’s highest court adopted, saying speech must also contribute “social discourse” that the groups say is problematic.

Attorneys for the civil liberties group said the 2003 precedent must be struck down. Unless it’s reversed by the Montana Supreme Court, sets a dangerous precedent where courts must not only decide if speech provokes fight, but also if courts find the speech adds value to the public conversation, which they say should not be a consideration and not a part of case law at the federal level. Furthermore, they said the case — if it stands — could contradict a number of rulings by the United States Supreme Court, which is the highest arbiter of constitutionally protected freedoms.

Adopted more than a century ago, the United States Supreme Court created a legal test to determine whether certain speech deserved First Amendment protection. “The fighting words doctrine” says that speech that would immediately incite violence should not be protected; however, attorneys for the groups point out that even though the nation’s highest court laid out that principle, it’s not been one used routinely. One of the most popular iterations of the principle is a well-worn example of yelling out “fire” in a crowded theater.

The brief filed with the Montana Supreme Court says that the First Amendment is at its most critical when that speech is directed at criticism of the government, even if its profane or “vitriolic.” Moreover because law enforcement officers have so much power, criticism — even if sharp or profane — must be tolerated.

The court filings argue that when the Montana Supreme Court analyzed the “fighting words” doctrine in a 2003 case (State vs. Robinson) it added a new wrinkle by saying not only must the words be in the “fighting words” category, but the speech must “contribute to our constitutionally protected social discourse.”

The attorneys argue that it forces courts to judge the content of the offensive language, not only gauging whether the words would cause an immediate reaction — “fighting words” — but courts force them to consider if the words have value in a public conversation, something they say is inherently subjective and subject to abuse.

“The government would hold authority to regulate entire swaths of speech entitled to core First Amendment protection,” the civil liberties group argue. “That is not the law.”

The legal position of the groups acknowledges that there are limits to the First Amendment, including inciting violence, obscenity, defamation and child pornography.

Quoting famous First Amendment cases at the federal level, the brief points out that free speech is at its most important when it criticizes the government or those who hold power. That power also extends to language that is “vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp.”

“Free speech includes ‘the right to criticize public men and measures — and that means not only informed and responsible criticism but the freedom to speak foolishly and without moderation,” the court brief states, relying on a 1944 decision.

That some people choose to criticize police or other officials, even if it’s generally considered offensive or vulgar, doesn’t necessarily diminish the protection, the organizations argue.

“The mere fact that Robinson expressed his contempt for the police with expletives rather than erudite exposition does not diminish the constitutional protection to which his speech was entitled,’ the brief said. “When the First Amendment of course protects ‘the cognitive content of individual speech,’ it also protects its ‘emotive function’ which ‘may often be the more important element of the overall message sought to be communicated.’”

The court documents list cases and historical events that have went to the Supreme Court on protected speech issues, including the rally of Nazis marching in Skokie, Illinois, a town with both a sizable Jewish population and Holocaust survivors. Another case was the Westboro Baptist Church members’ right to picket outside a funeral of a soldier with the sign, “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.”

“The fear is not that the most crass and boorish of the population is free to spew invectives to arouse anger in others, but that the government will use the tenuous grasp of the ‘fighting words’ exception to punish the content of the speech against those with whom the government disagrees,” the documents said.

This story was published in partnership with Creative Commons.

Trump's White House is sitting on report warning of heightened threats in the US: report

Tom Boggioni
March 7, 2026 
RAW STOR


U.S. President Donald Trump disembarks Air Force One upon arrival in Miami, Florida, U.S., March 6, 2026. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

The White House has blocked the release of a joint intelligence bulletin warning state and local authorities of elevated terror threats stemming from Trump's military assault on Iran, according to the Daily Mail.

A five-page report compiled by the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and the National Counterterrorism Center was scheduled for Friday release but has been indefinitely held up by Trump officials.

The classified bulletin detailed "elevated threats by the government of Iran to US military and government personnel and facilities, Jewish and Israeli institutions and their perceived supporters, and Iranian dissidents and other anti-regime activists in the United States."

Titled "A Public Safety Awareness Report: Elevated threat in the United States during US-Iran conflict," the document warned: "Radicalized individuals with a variety of ideological backgrounds also may see this conflict or other geopolitical events as a justification for violence."

The five-page assessment provided specific operational details on how Iranian proxies could execute attacks across the country, along with guidance for local law enforcement response protocols.

Homeland Security broke protocol by alerting the White House hours before the bulletin's scheduled release. Trump officials immediately ordered it placed on hold.

The White House did not deny the suppression. Spokeswoman Abigail Jackson offered a defensive explanation: "The White House is coordinating closely with all government agencies to ensure information being disseminated is accurate, up to date, and has been properly vetted — even if that means taking additional time to review to ensure nothing is done in a vacuum."

A senior DHS official directly contradicted the White House account, stating: "The three [agencies] were going to release a joint intelligence statement that would elevate the threat level and start addressing the Iranian threat on American soil. The White House stopped it, and verbalized down to DHS that any unclassified 'for official use only' information going forward concerning Iran has to be reviewed by the White House before any dissemination."

You can read more here.
Warnings of Further Catastrophe After Trump Says Only Deal for Iran is ‘Unconditional Surrender’

“The last time a country ‘unconditionally surrendered’ to the US was after we dropped atomic bombs on Japan,” noted one foreign policy scholar.



An Iranian man stands in front of destroyed buildings near a police headquarters that is completely destroyed in U.S.-Israeli attacks in Tehran, Iran, on March 2, 2026.
(Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

Stephen Prager
Mar 06, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

President Donald Trump’s demand for an ‘unconditional surrender“ from Iran is raising fears that the massive military campaign he unleashed this past weekend will turn into an unmitigated disaster, potentially unseen since the Second World War.

“There will be no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER,” the president wrote Friday morning on Truth Social. “After that, and the selection of a GREAT & ACCEPTABLE Leader(s), we, and many of our wonderful and very brave allies and partners, will work tirelessly to bring Iran back from the brink of destruction, making it economically bigger, better, and stronger than ever before.”



Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, explained how unprecedented this demand was.

“The invasion and occupation of Iraq and replacing the Taliban with the Taliban after 20 years in Afghanistan were disastrous enough without seeking their formal surrender,” he said.

Each of those conflicts entailed the deployment of more than a million US soldiers and dragged on for years, costing hundreds of thousands of lives.

“The last time a country ‘unconditionally surrendered’ to the US was after we dropped atomic bombs on Japan,” Williams added.

With each passing day, the Trump administration has seemed to extend its projections for the scope and duration of its regime-change campaign in Iran.

Last Saturday, the first day of “Operation Epic Fury,” which killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Trump projected that the war would be over in “four weeks or less.” The next day, he adjusted that to say it could go on for “four to five” weeks, or perhaps “much longer.”

By Wednesday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the war could drag on for as long as “eight weeks.” That same day, Politico reported that US Central Command (CENTCOM) had requested additional intelligence officers for its Tampa headquarters to support Iran operations for “at least 100 days but likely through September.”

According to data analyzed by the Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA), part of a US-based human rights monitor for Iran, at least 1,168 civilians have been killed in the US-Israeli war against Iran, where Hegseth boasted earlier this week that the US is raining down “death and destruction from the sky all day long.”Investigations have revealed that the deadly bombing of a girls' school, which killed at least 175 people last weekend, mostly children, was "likely" carried out by the US, and several other schools have also been attacked.

Following retaliation from the Iranian-aligned militia Hezbollah, Israel has launched a new onslaught into Lebanon. This week, the Israeli military ordered more than half a million people to flee their homes immediately and has pounded Beirut and other areas with airstrikes, killing more than 200 as of Friday, according to the Lebanese health ministry.

Trump reportedly began the war expecting a swift and painless display of overwhelming force akin to his abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January. But Iran has mounted a fearsome retaliation that has hit US bases and other infrastructure in several of the wealthy Persian Gulf states aligned with the US and Israel, killing at least six American troops.

“Trump demands Iran’s unconditional surrender,” said Sina Toosi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy. “Meanwhile, the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, global economic costs are rapidly mounting, Iranian missile and drone strikes continue, several US [missile defense] and radar facilities have been hit, interceptors are being drained, and Israeli air defenses are showing strain.”

“Inside Iran, there are no signs of regime disintegration or unrest. The Islamic Republic’s base, and beyond it, continues to be mobilized in the streets across the country while officials assert they are prepared for a long war,” he continued. “Gulf allies haven’t joined in attacking Iran and appear more angry that Trump launched this war against their wishes.”

“The reality on the ground,” Toosi said, “looks nothing like the fantasy seemingly in Trump’s head and being sold by some in Washington.”

Trita Parsi, the executive vice president at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said that Trump’s demand for an unconditional surrender suggests that rather than seeking an offramp, he is retreating further into delusion about the ease with which the US can force Iran to capitulate.

“He was lulled into believing that Iranian surrender is in the cards,” Parsi said. “It isn’t.”

Parsi said Trump rejected diplomatic solutions, including a deal mediated by Oman just before the attack began, under which Iran had agreed to stop stockpiling enriched uranium and degrade what it has to the point where it could not be used for a nuclear weapon.

“The false lure of surrender,” he said, “is why his war is turning into a disaster.”


Trump threatens Iran with 'complete destruction' in over-the-top early morning war rant


Tom Boggioni
March 7, 2026 
RAW ST0RY


In the early hours of Saturday morning, Donald Trump ramped up his Iran war rhetoric with the threat, “Today Iran will be hit very hard!” and menaced the country with “complete destruction.”

At a time when polling shows the president’s military assault on the country is proving to be highly unpopular, Trump appears to be doubling down in his boast-filled Truth Social post.

“Iran, which is being beat to HELL, has apologized and surrendered to its Middle East neighbors, and promised that it will not shoot at them anymore. This promise was only made because of the relentless U.S. and Israeli attack,” he wrote.
“They were looking to take over and rule the Middle East. It is the first time that Iran has ever lost, in thousands of years, to surrounding Middle Eastern Countries. They have said, ‘Thank you President Trump.’ I have said, ‘You’re welcome!’’ he claimed. “Iran is no longer the ‘Bully of the Middle East,’ they are, instead, ‘THE LOSER OF THE MIDDLE EAST,’ and will be for many decades until they surrender or, more likely, completely collapse!”

He then threatened, “Today Iran will be hit very hard! Under serious consideration for complete destruction and certain death, because of Iran’s bad behavior, are areas and groups of people that were not considered for targeting up until this moment in time,” before concluding, “Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP.”

You can see his post here.

Leaked classified report undercut Trump's Iran plans a week before he started war: WaPo

Tom Boggioni
March 7, 2026 
RAW ST0RY



Donald Trump gestures as he boards Air Force One. REUTERS/Ken Cedeno

Three members of the Donald Trump administration have confirmed to the Washington Post that a classified document created by the National Intelligence Council poured cold water on the president’s hopes about regime change in Iran following his war launch.

According to the Post, the warning was completed a week before the president gave the go-ahead for the Department of Defense, under Secretary Pete Hegseth to proceed with the bombings on February 28th.

The classified report examined succession scenarios under two potential military scenarios: a targeted campaign against Iran's leadership or a broader assault on its government institutions. In both cases, intelligence analysts concluded that "Iran's clerical and military establishment would respond to the killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei by following protocols designed to preserve continuity of power," according to those familiar with the findings.

The National Intelligence Council comprises veteran intelligence analysts tasked with producing classified assessments representing the combined judgment of Washington's 18 intelligence agencies.

White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly dismissed the implications in a statement to the Post, asserting: "President Trump and the administration have clearly outlined their goals with regard to Operation Epic Fury: destroy Iran's ballistic missiles and production capacity, demolish their navy, end their ability to arm proxies, and prevent them from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon. The Iranian regime is being absolutely crushed."

Suzanne Maloney, an Iran scholar and vice president at the Brookings Institution, characterized the NIC assessment as credible, stating: "It sounds like a deeply informed assessment of the Iranian system and the institutions and processes that have been established for many years."

You can read more here.

 

Is Trump Already Searching for a Way Out of the Iran War? – Analysis

As the US-led war on Iran expands, questions are mounting about Washington’s strategy and ultimate objectives. (Design: Palestine Chronicle)

By Palestine Chronicle Editors

If regime change is no longer Washington’s goal, what exactly is the US-Israeli war on Iran trying to achieve?

Key Takeaways

  • Washington’s messaging has shifted repeatedly—from missile threats to leadership change and then back again.
  • Trump officials have struggled to articulate a consistent political objective for the war.
  • Several Western allies are distancing themselves from the conflict.
  • Gulf partners appear increasingly uneasy about the consequences of escalation.
  • Rising war costs and energy disruptions are complicating Washington’s ability to sustain the campaign.

A War Without a Plan

It is increasingly difficult to determine what the US-Israeli aggression on Iran was meant to achieve in the first place. When the first strikes were launched, Washington presented the campaign as a limited operation aimed at degrading Iran’s military infrastructure and missile capabilities.

But that explanation quickly began to shift.

Within days, the public discourse coming from Washington became inconsistent. Some officials described the operation as a narrow military effort focused on Iran’s weapons systems, while others suggested much broader political ambitions.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio indicated that the United States was not preparing for a ground invasion, emphasizing that Washington was “not currently postured” to deploy ground forces into Iran.

President Donald Trump, however, soon expanded the discussion far beyond those limits.

In comments to NBC News, Trump suggested that Washington ultimately wanted Iran’s leadership structure removed. “We want them to have a good leader,” he said. “We have some people who I think would do a good job.”

Those remarks placed regime change squarely within the conversation, even as other officials continued to present the war as a limited campaign.

Contradictions Multiply

The administration’s shifting rhetoric suggests that the political plan may never have been clearly defined.

At times, officials emphasize limited military objectives such as weakening Iran’s missile capabilities. At other moments, the president himself has spoken openly about removing Iran’s leadership structure.

These mixed signals create strategic confusion.

Early in the conflict, some analysts believed Washington and Tel Aviv were hoping that a devastating first wave of strikes would trigger internal collapse within the Iranian political system. The assassination of senior leadership figures appeared designed to produce shock and instability.

But that scenario has not unfolded.

Instead, Iran has maintained its political structure and continued coordinating military responses. President Masoud Pezeshkian stated that Iran would continue defending its sovereignty, writing that the country “will not hesitate to defend the dignity and authority of our nation.”

Rather than collapsing, the Iranian state appears to have reorganized quickly.

Allies Step Back

The lack of a clear strategic objective is also reflected in the reactions of Washington’s allies.

Several European governments have signaled reluctance to become directly involved in the conflict. Spain, for example, refused to authorize the use of military bases on its territory for operations related to the strikes on Iran.

Spanish officials argued that the campaign lacked the legal justification required under international law.

European lawmakers have warned that concern about Iran’s policies cannot justify unilateral military action outside established legal frameworks. Spanish Member of the European Parliament Hana Jalloul stated, “Worry does not legalize unilateral war or normalize strikes outside the UN framework.”

France has taken a similar stance. In a statement issued by its embassy in Tehran, Paris confirmed that France would not participate in any US-led military operation against Iran.

These responses suggest that the transatlantic coalition has not fully rallied behind the war.

Rising Costs

The economic dimension of the conflict is becoming increasingly visible.

Military expenditures alone are rising rapidly. Estimates suggest that the first 100 hours of the US campaign consumed more than $5.8 billion in operational costs and equipment losses.

Iranian retaliatory strikes have also damaged several American military assets across the region, including radar systems and satellite communications infrastructure.

But the most serious consequences may lie in the global energy market. The Strait of Hormuz remains one of the most critical arteries of global oil transport. Any disruption to shipping through the Gulf could have immediate consequences for global energy prices.

Energy analysts have warned that prolonged disruption could push oil prices sharply higher, potentially triggering wider financial instability.

In such a scenario, the economic shock of the war would extend far beyond the battlefield.

Domestic Doubts

The war is also unfolding against a complicated political backdrop in the United States.

Polling suggests that public support for the strikes remains limited. Many Americans appear uncertain about the objectives of the campaign and wary of another prolonged Middle Eastern conflict.

This skepticism matters. Wars without clearly defined objectives often struggle to maintain long-term domestic support. Without a clear explanation of what victory would look like, public patience tends to erode.

The administration has yet to present a coherent political end state for the conflict.

Searching for Plan B

If early confidence surrounding the war has faded, it is partly because Iran has managed to withstand the initial assault.

Rather than collapsing politically or militarily, Tehran has continued retaliatory operations against US bases and Israeli targets across the region.

Iran also retains additional strategic options that have not yet been fully activated.

One of the most significant is the potential role of Ansarallah in Yemen. The Yemeni movement has previously demonstrated its ability to disrupt maritime traffic in the Red Sea.

Should the Bab al-Mandab Strait become fully involved in the conflict, global shipping routes could face severe disruption.

That possibility represents a powerful strategic card in Iran’s broader regional calculus.

Our Strategic Assessment

The central problem facing Washington today is not military capability. It is strategic clarity.

From the outset, the US-Israeli aggression on Iran appeared to rely on a familiar assumption: that overwhelming force and a decapitation strike against leadership would produce rapid political collapse. The killing of Iran’s senior leadership, including the country’s supreme leader, seemed designed to trigger precisely that outcome.

But that assumption has already proven false.

Rather than collapsing internally, the Iranian state has reorganized and continued coordinating military retaliation. Tehran has demonstrated that it retains both operational capability and political cohesion even after the shock of the initial assault.

This reality has undermined the central premise on which the war appears to have been launched.

Washington now faces a strategic dilemma. If regime change was the implicit objective of the first strikes, that goal now looks increasingly unrealistic. Yet scaling back the war without achieving a decisive outcome risks exposing the limits of American deterrence across the region.

The contradictions in Washington’s messaging reflect this uncertainty.

At times, the Trump administration speaks of removing Iran’s leadership. At others, officials insist the war is limited to degrading Iran’s military capabilities. These are fundamentally different objectives that require entirely different strategies.

Meanwhile, Iran’s response has already reshaped the strategic landscape. By striking US bases across the region and continuing missile attacks on Israel, Tehran has demonstrated both the willingness and the capacity to escalate.

Just as important, Iran retains additional tools that have not yet been fully activated.

The potential involvement of Ansarallah in Yemen and the vulnerability of key maritime chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab could rapidly expand the conflict’s economic and geopolitical consequences.

At the same time, the coalition behind Washington’s campaign appears far weaker than initially assumed. Several European governments have distanced themselves from the war, while Gulf states hosting American bases are increasingly uneasy about becoming targets of Iranian retaliation.

The initial shock campaign has already passed. The assumption that Iran could be quickly destabilized has proven incorrect.

What remains is a war that Washington is finding increasingly difficult to define—and perhaps even more difficult to control.


(The Palestine Chronicle) 

Disinformation the new enemy in disaster zones, says Red Cross


The report cited numerous recent examples of harmful information hampering crisis response
. (AFP/File)

AFP
March 05, 2026


“Harmful information and dehumanizing narratives” undermines humanitarian aid and putting lives of aid workers at risk

Between 2020 and 2024, disasters affected nearly 700 million people, displaced over 105 million, and killed more than 270,000 — doubling the number in need of humanitarian aid


GENEVA: The rise of disinformation is undermining humanitarian aid and putting lives at risk, while disasters are affecting ever more people, the Red Cross warned Thursday.

“Between 2020 and 2024, disasters affected nearly 700 million people, caused more than 105 million displacements, and claimed over 270,000 lives,” the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies said.

The number of people needing humanitarian assistance more than doubled in the same timeframe, the IFRC said in its World Disasters Report 2026.

But the world’s largest humanitarian network said that “harmful information and dehumanizing narratives” were increasingly undermining trust, putting the lives of aid workers at risk.

“In polarized and politically-charged contexts, humanitarian principles such as neutrality and impartiality are increasingly misunderstood, misrepresented or deliberately attacked online,” it said.

The IFRC has more than 17 million volunteers across more than 191 countries.

“In every crisis I have witnessed, information is as essential as food, water and shelter,” said the Geneva-based federation’s secretary general Jagan Chapagain.

“But when information is false, misleading or deliberately manipulated, it can deepen fear, obstruct humanitarian access and cost lives.”

He said harmful information was not a new phenomenon, but it was now moving “with unprecedented speed and reach.”

Chapagain said digital platforms were proving “fertile ground for lies.”

The IFRC report said the challenge nowadays was no longer about the availability of information but its reliability, noting that the production and spread of disinformation was easily amplified by artificial intelligence.

- ‘Life and death’ -

The report cited numerous recent examples of harmful information hampering crisis response.

During the 2024 floods in Valencia, false narratives online accused the Spanish Red Cross of diverting aid to migrants, which in turn fueled “xenophobic attacks on volunteers,” the IFRC said.

In South Sudan, rumors that humanitarian agencies were distributing poisoned food “caused people to avoid life-saving aid” and led to threats against Red Cross staff.

In Lebanon, false claims that volunteers were spreading Covid-19, favoring certain groups with aid and providing unsafe cholera vaccines eroded trust and endangered vulnerable communities, the IFRC said.

And in Bangladesh, during political unrest, volunteers faced “widespread accusations of inaction and political alignment,” leading to harassment and reputational damage, it added.

Similar events were registered by the IFRC in Sudan, Myanmar, Peru, the United States, New Zealand, Canada, Kenya and Bulgaria.

The report underlined that around 94 percent of disasters were handled by national authorities and local communities, without international interventions.

“However, while volunteers, local leaders and community media are often the most trusted messengers, they operate in increasingly hostile and polarized information environments,” the IFRC said.

The federation called on governments, tech firms, humanitarian agencies and local actors to recognize that reliable information “is a matter of life and death.”

“Without trust, people are less likely to prepare, seek help or follow life-saving guidance; with it, communities act together, absorb shocks and recover more effectively,” said Chapagain.

The organization urged technology platforms to prioritize authoritative information from trusted sources in crisis contexts, and transparently moderate harmful content.

And it said humanitarian agencies needed to make preparing to deal with disinformation “a core function” of their operations, with trained teams and analytics.
German media group Axel Springer to buy UK’s Daily Telegraph


Axel Springer vows to “preserve the integrity of a heritage media brand” while giving it a platform for growth and expansion. (AFP/File)

AFP
March 06, 2026

Group said it would pay 575 million pounds ($766 million) for the title

LONDON: German media group Axel Springer said Friday it had agreed to buy right-wing British newspaper The Telegraph in a surprise move, as the UK government investigates a rival bid.

The German group, which already owns tabloid Bild, the Welt broadsheet and Politico news outlet, said in a statement it would pay £575 million ($766 million) in cash for the title, which comprises daily print and online versions.

It follows a drawn-out pursuit of the 170-year-old title.

Britain’s government last month launched an investigation into an agreed sale to the owner of the Daily Mail, a rival right-wing publication, citing competition concerns.

The Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT) had struck a £500-million deal with US-Emirati consortium RedBird IMI in November for the purchase.

However the paper now looks likely to come under German ownership, with Axel Springer vowing to “preserve the integrity of a heritage media brand,” while giving it a platform for growth and expansion.

“To be the owner of this institution of quality British journalism is a privilege and a duty,” said Axel Springer chief executive Mathias Doepfner.

The group wanted to help the newspaper “become the most read and intellectually inspiring centre-right media outlet in the English-speaking world,” he added.

Contacted by AFP, the Telegraph and DMGT did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“This is unprecedented in the British press scene,” Damian Tambini, a senior media lecturer at the London School of Economics, told AFP.

“Many people will be breathing a sigh of relief and particularly the (Labour) government” amid the prospect of an enlarged British right-wing media group, he added.

RedBird IMI, a joint venture between US investment firm RedBird Capital and Abu Dhabi’s International Media Investments, had struck a deal for the Telegraph Media Group in late 2023.

However, the previous UK government triggered a swift resale given concern about the potential impact on freedom of speech.

That government also amended merger laws to bar foreign governments from controlling UK newspapers.

RedBird then pursued the takeover under a revised structure, but abruptly dropped its bid in late 2025.

To further complicate matters, the current government in February issued a Public Interest Intervention Notice in relation to the planned takeover by DMGT.

“We are aware that the amazing journalists and employees at... (The Telegraph) have been operating in an extended period of uncertainty,” Doepfner said on Friday.

“We want to bring that uncertainty to an end as soon as we can.”

Axel Springer has announced job cuts in recent years, pointing in part to the role of artificial intelligence in rendering certain roles such as proofreading obsolete.
SAUDI ARABIA

Northern Borders rock art reveals ancient life



Rock art near Arar sheds light on early humans. (SPA)


Rock art near Arar sheds light on early humans. (SPA)Next

Arab News
March 07, 2026

Among the most notable remains are stone structures scattered northwest of Arar

Evidence ranges from the Neolithic era to Islamic times, forming a chronological record


JEDDAH: Saudi Arabia’s Northern Borders region contains numerous archaeological sites, reflecting a long history of human settlement dating back to early periods, the Saudi Press Agency reported.

Among the most notable remains are stone structures scattered northwest of Arar.

Varying in shape, size and design, specialists believe these structures date to the end of the Neolithic period and the beginning of subsequent eras. They are thought to have been used as stone tombs to preserve the remains of the dead.

Evidence ranges from the Neolithic era to Islamic times, forming a chronological record that highlights the diversity of communities that once lived in the region and how they interacted with their natural environment over centuries.

Ajab Al-Otaibi, director general of antiquities at the Heritage Commission, said the stone structures and rock art sites in the Northern Borders region represent an integral part of Saudi Arabia’s national cultural heritage and serve as an important resource for archaeological studies and scientific research.

He highlighted the importance of surveys, documentation and protection efforts to preserve these cultural landmarks as a historical legacy for future generations.

The region is also home to several important rock art sites, such as Shu’ayb Hamer, which features a wide and diverse collection of drawings carved on natural rock surfaces, marking it as a key site that documented early human activity in the area.

The artworks depict scenes of hunting, horsemanship, dancing, daily life and social rituals. They were created using a variety of artistic styles, most notably framed and abstract forms, and produced through different techniques including incizing and pecking, both direct and indirect.

The carvings portray human figures and a range of animals, including camels, horses and gazelles, as well as some wild and predatory species that have long since disappeared.

These images provide insight into the richness of the natural environment in earlier periods and help researchers understand the evolving relationship between humans and their surroundings.