TEHRAN — Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei has suffered severe facial and leg injuries following a joint U.S.-Israeli airstrike, according to reports circulating on social media platform X and supported by emerging accounts from individuals described as close to his inner circle.

The claims, initially amplified by RT, align with reporting from multiple international outlets suggesting that Khamenei was wounded during the February 28 strikes that targeted Iran’s senior leadership. The attack killed his father and predecessor, Ali Khamenei, along with several members of the ruling elite.

According to sources cited by Reuters, Khamenei sustained “disfiguring” facial wounds and a serious leg injury, with some reports indicating the possibility of amputation. These accounts remain difficult to independently verify, as Iranian authorities have released no recent images or video of the leader since his appointment in early March.

Despite the injuries, insiders claim Khamenei remains conscious and engaged in state affairs, reportedly participating in high-level military and diplomatic discussions through secure audio communications. However, conflicting intelligence assessments have fueled uncertainty, with some reports suggesting periods of incapacitation or limited ability to govern.

The lack of transparency has intensified speculation both داخل Iran and internationally. Analysts note that his prolonged absence from public view—combined with inconsistent official statements—has raised questions about the true extent of his injuries and the stability of Iran’s leadership during an ongoing regional conflict.

The strike that injured Khamenei was part of a broader U.S.-Israeli campaign targeting Iran’s command structure, reportedly timed to coincide with a high-level meeting of senior officials. The operation marked a significant escalation in the conflict and triggered a rapid succession crisis within Iran’s political system.

Khamenei’s condition now carries major geopolitical implications. With negotiations underway and tensions across the Middle East still high, uncertainty over the Iranian leader’s health has added another layer of volatility to an already fragile situation.

Iranian state media has yet to formally confirm the severity of his injuries, referring only to his status as a war-wounded figure, while continuing to project an image of continuity in leadership.

Tehran, April 6 — Majid Khademi, the head of the Intelligence Organization of Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), has been killed, according to reports from Iranian state media.

Details surrounding Khademi’s death remain limited, with authorities yet to provide an official account of the circumstances or location of the incident. Initial reports did not specify whether his death resulted from an արտաքին attack, internal security breach, or other causes, leaving significant uncertainty about the broader implications.

Khademi was a senior figure within the IRGC, overseeing intelligence operations considered central to Iran’s internal security and regional strategy. The Intelligence Organization of the IRGC plays a critical role in counterintelligence, surveillance, and managing perceived threats to the Islamic Republic, both domestically and abroad.

The killing of such a high-ranking intelligence official is likely to raise concerns within Iran’s security establishment and could signal potential vulnerabilities at the upper levels of the country’s powerful military apparatus. Analysts note that the IRGC operates as a parallel force to Iran’s regular military and holds significant influence over political and economic affairs.

There has been no immediate claim of responsibility for the killing, and Iranian officials have not publicly attributed the incident to any foreign or domestic actors. However, similar past incidents involving Iranian security figures have often heightened tensions between Tehran and its regional adversaries.

The development comes amid an already volatile regional environment, with ongoing disputes involving Iran, the United States, and several Middle Eastern states. Observers say further details from Iranian authorities will be critical in assessing whether Khademi’s death could trigger a broader security or political response.

State media indicated that additional information may be released following internal investigations.

The decision by the Democratic Republic of the Congo to accept third-country deportees from the United States under a new bilateral arrangement raises serious legal, ethical, and geopolitical concerns. While framed as a pragmatic agreement tied to broader diplomatic cooperation, it reflects a troubling pattern: African states are increasingly being positioned as external processing zones for migrants who have no connection to the continent.

At its core, this policy undermines fundamental principles of sovereignty and international responsibility-sharing. Deportees being sent to countries such as Congo are neither citizens nor residents of these nations. In many cases, they may have no linguistic, cultural, or familial ties to the receiving country. This raises immediate concerns under international law, particularly regarding non-refoulement and the obligation to ensure that individuals are not transferred to environments where their rights, safety, or due process protections may be compromised.

The justification that such arrangements come at “no cost” to host governments is, at best, incomplete. While the United States may finance the logistical aspects, the long-term social, political, and security implications fall squarely on the receiving country. The establishment of detention or accommodation facilities near Kinshasa is not merely a technical measure—it is the creation of a parallel system that could strain local governance, create public resentment, and introduce new vulnerabilities in already fragile environments.

Moreover, this agreement must be viewed within the broader context of transactional diplomacy. The timing—coinciding with U.S. efforts to broker peace between Congo and Rwanda and secure access to critical minerals—suggests that migration policy is being leveraged as a bargaining chip. This dynamic risks reducing African sovereignty to a negotiable asset in exchange for security guarantees or economic cooperation.

Equally concerning is the growing list of African countries—such as Ghana, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, and Eswatini—reportedly participating in similar arrangements. This trend points to a fragmented continental response, where individual states engage in bilateral deals without a unified framework or collective bargaining power.

This is where the silence of continental institutions becomes particularly glaring. The African Union, which is mandated to promote unity, sovereignty, and human rights across Africa, has not articulated a clear position on the externalization of migration policies onto African soil. Similarly, the Economic Community of West African States has remained largely absent from the discourse, despite the involvement of member states like Ghana.

This lack of coordinated response weakens Africa’s negotiating position globally. It signals that the continent can be approached piecemeal, with individual governments incentivized to accept arrangements that may not withstand broader scrutiny. In effect, it erodes the principle of collective agency that organizations like the African Union were designed to uphold.

There are also reputational risks. Accepting deportees from third countries—particularly under opaque agreements—may reinforce harmful narratives that Africa is a default destination for displaced or unwanted populations. This not only affects diplomatic standing but could also have implications for tourism, investment, and regional stability.

Critics, including legal scholars and human rights organizations, have already warned that such policies may violate international norms. Without transparent legal frameworks, independent oversight, and guarantees of due process for deportees, these arrangements risk becoming extrajudicial mechanisms that bypass established asylum and immigration systems.

African governments must therefore reassess the long-term implications of these agreements. Economic incentives or diplomatic concessions should not come at the expense of legal integrity, human rights, or continental solidarity. At a minimum, there should be clear public disclosure of terms, robust legal safeguards for deportees, and meaningful engagement with regional bodies.

The African Union and ECOWAS, in particular, must move beyond silence. They should convene member states to establish a common position, develop guidelines on third-country deportation agreements, and ensure that Africa is not treated as an extension of other nations’ immigration enforcement systems.

Absent such leadership, the continent risks normalizing a precedent that may prove difficult to reverse—one where Africa becomes a convenient endpoint for policies conceived elsewhere, with consequences borne locally.

A Ukrainian military strike on a coal mine in Russian-controlled eastern Ukraine has left 41 workers trapped underground after critical infrastructure at the site was damaged, according to a report by Reuters.

The strike targeted the Bilorichenska coal mine, located in the Luhansk Oblast, a territory that has remained under Russian control amid the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia.

According to initial reports, the attack hit a power substation servicing the mine, disrupting electricity supply and leaving dozens of miners stranded below ground. The loss of power has raised immediate concerns about ventilation, communication, and the ability to evacuate those trapped safely.

Emergency response efforts are reportedly underway, though details remain limited due to restricted access to the region and the complexities of operating in an active conflict zone. It is not yet clear whether there have been casualties or injuries among the trapped workers.

The incident underscores the growing risks to civilian infrastructure and industrial sites as the war continues to intensify. Coal mines, energy facilities, and transportation networks have increasingly become vulnerable to strikes, exacerbating humanitarian and safety concerns in contested regions.

Neither Ukrainian nor Russian officials have immediately provided detailed public statements regarding the strike or the status of rescue operations.

The situation remains fluid, with further updates expected as more information becomes available.

The United Nations General Assembly has overwhelmingly adopted a resolution recognizing the enslavement of Africans during the transatlantic slave trade as “the gravest crime against humanity,” marking a significant moment in ongoing global debates over historical accountability, justice, and reparations.

The measure, introduced by Ghana, passed with 123 votes in favor, while three countries—the United States, Israel, and Argentina—voted against it. Fifty-two nations, including the United Kingdom and several European Union member states, abstained.

Although resolutions of the General Assembly are not legally binding, they carry considerable symbolic and political weight as expressions of international consensus.

Call for Reparations and Historical Recognition

The resolution urges member states to formally acknowledge the transatlantic slave trade’s legacy by considering public apologies and contributing to reparations initiatives. While it does not specify financial figures, it encourages the establishment of funds to support education, skills development, and community advancement for affected populations.

Addressing the assembly ahead of the vote, Ghana’s President John Dramani Mahama emphasized the moral significance of the resolution.

“Let it be recorded that when history beckoned, we did what was right for the memory of the millions who suffered the indignity of the slave trade and those who continue to suffer racial discrimination,” he said. He added that the resolution serves as both “a safeguard against forgetting” and a challenge to the enduring consequences of slavery.

Ghana’s Foreign Minister Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa reinforced the country’s position, clarifying that the push for reparations is not about financial gain for governments but about justice for victims and their descendants. He highlighted proposals for educational endowments, training programs, and cultural restoration initiatives.

Persistent Legacy of Slavery

Between the 16th and 19th centuries, an estimated 12 to 15 million Africans were forcibly transported across the Atlantic, with over two million dying during the journey. The resolution underscores that the consequences of this system continue to manifest in structural inequalities, underdevelopment, and racial discrimination affecting people of African descent globally.

Backed by regional blocs such as the African Union and the Caribbean Community, the measure reflects growing international momentum behind what is increasingly described as “reparatory justice.” The African Union has designated reparations as a central theme for 2025, while Commonwealth leaders have also called for dialogue on the issue.

Opposition and Legal Concerns

Countries opposing or abstaining from the resolution raised concerns about its legal framing and implications. The United Kingdom acknowledged the profound harm caused by slavery but argued that the resolution’s wording presents challenges under international law. Its UN ambassador, James Kariuki, stated that no single set of historical atrocities should be elevated above others.

Similarly, the United States rejected the notion of a legal obligation to provide reparations for actions that were not prohibited under international law at the time. Its UN representative, Dan Negrea, also questioned the practical implementation of reparatory justice, including identifying eligible beneficiaries.

Cultural Restitution and Broader Impact

Beyond financial reparations, the resolution calls for the return of cultural artifacts taken during the colonial period. Ghanaian officials stressed that such items hold deep historical, cultural, and spiritual significance and should be restored to their countries of origin.

The vote highlights a widening global divide over how to address historical injustices, particularly as debates over racial equity, historical memory, and cultural restitution intensify. While not enforceable, the resolution signals a growing willingness among a majority of nations to formally confront the enduring legacy of the transatlantic slave trade.

Ukraine launched its most significant drone campaign against Russia this year, striking multiple regions overnight between Tuesday and Wednesday and igniting a large fire at a crucial energy facility in the country’s northwest.

Regional officials reported that the assault caused a fire at the Baltic Sea port of Ust-Luga, a major export terminal with the capacity to process approximately 700,000 barrels of oil per day. Leningrad region Governor Alexander Drozdenko stated that emergency responders were working to contain the blaze, but did not specify the extent of the damage. He noted that no casualties had been recorded.

A source cited by Reuters said several oil storage tanks at the site were set ablaze. The terminal—an important hub for exporting oil, coal, grain, and fertilizers—was reportedly shut down as a safety measure.

The scale of the operation highlights Kyiv’s growing emphasis on long-range drone warfare aimed at penetrating deep into Russian territory, particularly focusing on infrastructure tied to Moscow’s war economy.

Despite Russian air defenses intercepting dozens of drones—56 over the Leningrad region alone—damage was still reported. In Vyborg, roughly 100 kilometers north of Ust-Luga, a residential building was hit. Unverified images shared online appeared to show the structure engulfed in flames.

Further incidents were reported in Kronstadt, where local authorities said homes and vehicles sustained damage. The area is also home to Russia’s Baltic Fleet, adding to its strategic importance.

The strikes follow an earlier reported attack on the Primorsk port, one of Russia’s largest oil export terminals, which was temporarily forced to suspend operations. Industry sources suggested Ust-Luga may have also been impacted during that episode, although officials have not confirmed this.

The effects of the attacks extended beyond Russia. In Estonia, a drone reportedly struck a power facility after entering from Russian airspace, while another crashed in Latvia. Authorities in Riga indicated the latter may have been a Ukrainian drone that deviated from its intended course.

Russia’s Defense Ministry said it intercepted a total of 389 Ukrainian drones across several regions, including annexed Crimea. The Bryansk region reportedly faced the heaviest wave of incoming drones, days after a Ukrainian missile strike on a microchip plant there killed seven people.

In Belgorod, officials said strikes on energy infrastructure left approximately 450,000 residents without electricity, underscoring the broader impact on civilian systems.

The escalation reflects an intensifying pattern of cross-border attacks. Ukrainian authorities have consistently described such operations as retaliatory actions in response to Russia’s ongoing invasion and occupation.

In recent weeks, Kyiv has increasingly targeted Russia’s energy sector, seeking to disrupt a critical revenue stream supporting the Kremlin’s military operations.

The developments come at a time of heightened volatility in global energy markets. Ongoing tensions involving the United States, Israel, and Iran have driven oil price fluctuations and raised concerns about supply stability, amplifying the international significance of strikes on key export infrastructure such as Ust-Luga.

New York, March 25, 2026 — Ghana’s President, John Dramani Mahama, has issued a pointed critique of the United States government, accusing it of fostering an environment that risks diminishing the recognition of Black history.

Speaking in New York City on Tuesday, Mahama expressed concern over what he characterized as a growing normalization of policies and narratives that sideline or erase key aspects of Black historical contributions. While he did not cite specific legislation, his remarks underscored broader anxieties about cultural and historical representation.

Mahama warned that such developments in the United States could have consequences beyond its borders. “When major global powers begin to reinterpret or minimize historical truths, the effects are rarely confined domestically,” he suggested, emphasizing the potential for similar trends to emerge in other regions.

The Ghanaian leader framed the issue as one of global importance, particularly for nations with deep historical ties to the African diaspora. He highlighted the need for vigilance in preserving historical narratives that accurately reflect the experiences and contributions of Black communities worldwide.

Mahama’s comments come amid ongoing debates in the United States over how race, history, and identity are taught and represented in public institutions. These discussions have drawn international attention, with leaders and scholars alike weighing in on their broader implications.

Reaffirming Ghana’s position, Mahama called for a collective commitment to safeguarding historical integrity. He stressed that acknowledging the full scope of history is essential not only for education but also for fostering mutual understanding and social cohesion across nations.

Nairobi, Kenya — Kenya has dispatched its first shipment of agricultural products to China under a newly implemented zero-tariff trade arrangement, marking a significant step in efforts to expand exports and address a longstanding trade imbalance.

The shipment follows recent trade facilitation measures agreed upon between Nairobi and Beijing, designed to grant Kenyan agricultural goods duty-free access to the Chinese market. Officials in Kenya have framed the development as a strategic move to unlock new demand for key exports such as avocados, tea, coffee, and fresh produce.

For years, Kenya has run a substantial trade deficit with China, importing large volumes of manufactured goods and infrastructure-related materials while exporting comparatively little. The zero-tariff framework is expected to improve market access for Kenyan farmers and agribusinesses, potentially increasing foreign exchange earnings and supporting rural livelihoods.

Trade analysts note that while the policy opens new opportunities, its success will depend on Kenya’s ability to meet China’s strict phytosanitary and quality standards, as well as scale production to meet demand. Logistics, certification processes, and supply chain efficiency are also likely to play critical roles in determining the long-term impact of the agreement.

The initiative aligns with broader economic cooperation between Kenya and China, which has expanded in recent years through infrastructure investments and trade partnerships. Kenyan authorities have expressed optimism that increased agricultural exports could gradually rebalance trade flows and strengthen bilateral economic ties.

Further shipments are expected in the coming months as exporters adapt to the requirements of the Chinese market and seek to capitalize on the tariff-free access.

Ghana is poised to become the first African nation to formalize a security and defence partnership with the European Union, a move that analysts say could reshape regional security dynamics and influence broader geopolitical alignments.

The announcement, made by EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, places Ghana at the center of a new phase in Europe’s external security strategy—one that extends beyond the continent and into strategically significant regions such as West Africa.

The partnership is expected to enhance Ghana’s military capacity through training, intelligence-sharing, and logistical support. As one of the region’s most stable democracies, Ghana has increasingly been viewed as a reliable partner in addressing cross-border threats, particularly as instability deepens across the Sahel.

Countries such as Mali and Burkina Faso have faced persistent insurgencies in recent years, raising concerns about the potential spread of extremist activity դեպի coastal West Africa. Strengthening Ghana’s defensive and intelligence capabilities could position it as a frontline buffer against that expansion.

Beyond land-based threats, the agreement is also expected to address growing concerns in the Gulf of Guinea, a key maritime corridor plagued by piracy, illegal fishing, and oil theft. Increased cooperation with the EU could lead to expanded naval patrols and improved surveillance systems aimed at securing vital shipping routes.

At the regional level, the partnership may bolster the broader security framework of ECOWAS, which has faced internal divisions and mounting pressure in responding to political instability and military takeovers in parts of West Africa.

However, the development also introduces a new layer of geopolitical competition. External actors such as Russia and China have expanded their footprint across Africa in recent years, particularly in security and infrastructure sectors. The EU’s deeper engagement in Ghana may be interpreted as part of a broader effort to reassert influence in a region where global powers are increasingly active.

For the United States, the agreement presents both an opportunity and a strategic consideration. While Washington and Brussels share common goals—such as counterterrorism and regional stability—the EU’s growing role could gradually shift the balance of influence in West Africa. At the same time, the partnership may open the door for closer coordination through institutions like AFRICOM, particularly in joint training and intelligence-sharing initiatives.

Ultimately, the Ghana–EU security pact reflects a broader trend in which African nations are diversifying their international partnerships amid evolving global risks. As the agreement moves toward formalization, its impact is likely to extend beyond Ghana’s borders, shaping the future of security cooperation in West Africa and redefining the role of external actors on the continent.

Iran has appointed Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr as its new top security official, replacing Ali Larijani, who was killed in a U.S.–Israeli airstrike last week, marking a significant shift in Tehran’s national security leadership amid escalating regional tensions.

The appointment was confirmed on Tuesday, with Zolghadr—a former deputy commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and a prominent hardline figure—assuming the role of secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council.

In a post on X (formerly Twitter), Al Jazeera reported: “Iran has appointed Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr, a former IRGC deputy commander and hardline figure, as its new security chief, replacing Ali Larijani, who was killed in a US-Israeli strike last week.”

Larijani, one of Iran’s most influential political figures, was killed on March 17 in what has been described as a targeted strike in Tehran during the ongoing conflict involving the United States and Israel. His death followed a broader campaign of high-level assassinations aimed at Iran’s leadership structure.

Zolghadr brings decades of military and political experience to the role. A brigadier general in the IRGC, he previously served in senior positions within Iran’s interior ministry, judiciary, and the Expediency Discernment Council. His appointment signals continuity in Iran’s hardline security posture at a time of heightened confrontation with Western and regional adversaries.

The Supreme National Security Council, which Zolghadr now leads, plays a central role in shaping Iran’s defense and foreign policy strategy, coordinating between military, intelligence, and political institutions.

Analysts view the leadership change as part of Iran’s effort to rapidly stabilize its command structure following a series of high-profile losses, while maintaining a firm stance in the ongoing conflict.