Brazil’s former president Fernando Collor was arrested on Friday and ordered to begin serving an eight-year and ten-month prison sentence for corruption. Collor, who governed Brazil from 1990 until his impeachment in 1992, was convicted in 2023 for receiving approximately $3.5 million to facilitate contracts between BR Distribuidora, then a subsidiary of Petrobras, and construction firm UTC Engenharia. In exchange, Collor provided political backing for the appointment of executives favorable to these deals. His arrest took place in the northeastern state of Alagoas, his political stronghold. The order was issued by Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who emphasized that Collor’s legal team had exhausted appeals and engaged in procedural delays. Under Brazil’s judicial framework, cases involving senior officials are heard directly by the Supreme Court. De Moraes justified immediate imprisonment by citing precedents that allow for incarceration once appeals lack substantive merit. The full court is expected to vote to confirm the decision, but Collor is already in custody. His legal representatives have not yet issued a formal response. Collor’s political career has long been marked by scandal. As the first president elected by popular vote after Brazil’s military dictatorship, his fall from grace in 1992 set an early precedent for the country’s recurring struggles with high-level corruption. Following his impeachment, Collor returned to politics, securing a Senate seat in 2007. His conviction is tied to the broader Operation Car Wash investigation, which has implicated a wide range of political and business elites, including current President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who served prison time between 2018 and 2019. The case highlights Brazil’s enduring institutional challenges in confronting corruption among its political elite. Although Operation Car Wash initially raised hopes of greater accountability, subsequent events have exposed systemic weaknesses, including delayed trials and politically motivated legal maneuvering. Collor’s conviction and imprisonment are symbolically significant but also illustrate the slow pace and selective nature of Brazilian justice. As the Supreme Court seeks to reinforce its authority, Collor’s arrest signals an effort to reassert judicial credibility, yet public confidence in political accountability remains fragile. Without broader reforms to address entrenched legal impunity, such high-profile convictions are unlikely to produce lasting change in Brazil’s governance landscape.

Sudanese civilians are resorting to eating leaves and charcoal as they flee deadly violence near el-Fasher, Darfur, in what aid agencies are calling one of the worst humanitarian disasters in the world. According to the Norwegian Refugee Council, thousands displaced from the Zamzam camp are dying of thirst and exhaustion during the 40-kilometer journey to Tawila, where conditions are only marginally better. Aid workers report the presence of unburied bodies along the route and recount accounts of women and girls suffering repeated sexual violence before dying of their injuries. The paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), accused of perpetrating ethnic cleansing, attacked the Zamzam camp earlier this month, burning it to the ground and triggering mass displacement. Many of the camp's residents had already been displaced for over two decades, a testament to the cyclical nature of violence in Darfur. The attack has been described as a calculated assault on both civilians and humanitarian infrastructure, with aid facilities and homes systematically torched. The UN estimates that at least 481 people have been killed around el-Fasher since April 10, but the true toll is likely higher due to limited access and the collapse of medical and reporting systems. Volker Türk, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, warned that support systems for victims are near total collapse and that even water sources have been deliberately targeted. Widespread reports of sexual violence further underscore the brutality of the conflict. The RSF has denied committing atrocities, although it has admitted attacking the camp. The group has been repeatedly accused of targeting non-Arab communities in Darfur, reviving long-standing ethnic tensions. UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy stated on Thursday that these actions "display the hallmarks of ethnic cleansing" and may constitute crimes against humanity. The town of Tawila, where many have fled, is overwhelmed. It now hosts up to 150,000 people and lacks the resources to provide basic needs. Food, clean water, and medical services are almost nonexistent. Meanwhile, in West Kordofan, another RSF attack reportedly killed 74 people in the village of al-Za'afah. Despite the scale of the crisis, international aid efforts have been hampered by funding shortfalls, bureaucratic obstructions, and the lack of security guarantees for humanitarian agencies. The UN has reduced food aid delivery in areas facing famine, exacerbating already dire conditions. The situation reflects not only a military conflict but a systemic collapse of governance, infrastructure, and international protection. As famine spreads and civilians endure targeted violence, the limited international response has so far failed to match the urgency of the crisis. Without immediate and forceful diplomatic intervention and a major increase in humanitarian access and funding, the death toll will rise further and the humanitarian map of Sudan may soon be defined by starvation, displacement, and scorched earth.

Tensions between India and Pakistan have sharply escalated following a deadly attack in Pahalgam, Kashmir, where suspected militants killed 26 civilians earlier this week. In the days since the attack, the Indian and Pakistani armies exchanged sporadic fire across the Line of Control, breaking the relative calm maintained since their 2021 ceasefire agreement. The United Nations has urged both nuclear-armed countries to exercise restraint and avoid further destabilizing the region. Nevertheless, rhetoric from both sides has hardened, with Pakistan’s defense minister warning of the risk of "all-out war" and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi vowing to "hunt down terrorists to the ends of the earth." Indian authorities have launched a sweeping security crackdown in Kashmir. Police released sketches of suspected attackers and announced cash rewards for information leading to their capture. Armed forces have also conducted house-to-house searches in southern Kashmir and, in a controversial move, demolished the family homes of two men suspected of involvement. Such demolitions, historically used by Indian security forces as a punitive measure, are likely to further inflame tensions with the local population, many of whom view militants as part of a broader indigenous resistance rather than agents of Pakistan. While New Delhi has consistently labeled militancy in Kashmir as Pakistani-sponsored terrorism, Islamabad denies direct involvement and portrays the conflict as a legitimate Kashmiri struggle for self-determination. In a further sign of deteriorating relations, India announced it would scrap elements of a longstanding water-sharing treaty with Pakistan. Islamabad has warned that any attempt to alter water flows could be considered an act of war, highlighting the seriousness with which both sides view the situation. Historically, water rights have been among the most sensitive issues between the two countries, and any disruption risks triggering broader conflict. Indian domestic politics are also a driving factor behind the escalation. Modi’s government, facing domestic pressure from Hindu nationalist constituencies, has few incentives to show restraint ahead of key electoral contests. Several senior leaders of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party have openly called for military retaliation against Pakistan, adding to the sense of impending confrontation. Although analysts like Radha Kumar suggest that Modi's fierce rhetoric may be partly symbolic, the memory of previous Indian cross-border strikes into Pakistan, such as the Balakot airstrike in 2019, underlines the real risk of escalation. Critically, the latest developments reveal the fragility of diplomatic mechanisms between India and Pakistan. Despite the ceasefire agreement and periodic dialogue, both sides remain locked in a cycle where localized violence quickly spirals into strategic confrontation. International calls for restraint will likely have limited impact, as nationalist fervor and political calculations continue to outweigh incentives for compromise. The ongoing militarization of the Kashmir dispute not only perpetuates regional instability but also illustrates the broader inability of South Asia’s two nuclear powers to escape the logic of mutual suspicion and retaliation.

Turkey has significantly increased its military presence in Somalia following a surge in Al-Shabab activity near Mogadishu. In response to the group's territorial advances, Ankara has sent nearly 500 additional troops, doubling its previous deployment. The reinforcements are tasked with protecting key Turkish assets, including the Turksom military base and infrastructure at Mogadishu’s airport and port, and are also supporting expanded drone operations. Turkish commandos and drone teams are now joined by advanced Akinci unmanned aerial vehicles, which offer high-altitude, long-endurance surveillance capabilities, particularly effective against Al-Shabab’s nocturnal operations. Turkey's involvement in Somalia has deepened over the past decade, evolving from humanitarian outreach into a broad security and economic partnership. Turkish companies operate the country’s main logistical hubs, and Turkish state-owned energy firms are involved in exploration projects both onshore and offshore, supported by the Turkish Navy. Ankara has also committed to defending Somalia’s territorial waters and marine resources. Amid Al-Shabab’s recent gains, Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud met with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in a closed-door meeting. While the content of their discussion remains undisclosed, expectations of increased Turkish military assistance have grown. Turkish officials maintain that their forces in Somalia are strictly there to defend Turkish assets and train local troops. Direct combat with Al-Shabab is not currently planned, as such action would require approval from the Turkish Parliament. However, Turkish sources have indicated that they may offer more robust support if the situation continues to deteriorate. Coordination with the United States, which controls Somali airspace through Africa Command, has reportedly been smooth, with Turkish forces sometimes assisting in joint targeting operations. Though some reports claimed that Turkey had already delivered T-129 attack helicopters to Somalia, Somali sources have clarified that pilots are still in training and that helicopter deployment is expected later this year. Meanwhile, Turkish-trained Somali forces continue to arrive from military programs in Isparta and Izmir, and Qatar has recently supplied ammunition to bolster Somali defenses. Internally, Al-Shabab’s resurgence is attributed by some Ankara insiders to political divisions within Somalia. There is speculation that opposition elements are allowing the group to operate unchecked in order to weaken President Mohamud ahead of the 2026 election. Turkey’s expanding military footprint in Somalia is part of a broader pattern of global security engagements that reflects its evolving geopolitical ambitions. From Libya to Azerbaijan and now increasingly in the Horn of Africa, Ankara is positioning itself not only as a regional power but as an assertive international actor. This projection of military power is often paired with infrastructure development and commercial concessions, creating a model of soft-hard power hybridization. However, it also raises concerns about creeping militarism and a foreign policy architecture that lacks democratic oversight. Domestically, President Erdogan has consolidated power through constitutional reforms and the marginalization of opposition, a trend that mirrors the assertive, top-down decision-making driving Turkish foreign policy. The Somali deployment, while framed as counterterrorism support, also serves to entrench Turkey’s influence in fragile states where long-term governance partnerships remain undefined.

Iranian elites are showing increased support for renewed nuclear negotiations with the United States, driven by deepening fears of economic collapse and mounting political pressure. Iranian media outlets, including hard-line newspapers such as Javan and Hamshahri, have framed the talks positively, portraying them as a sign of Iran’s global influence rather than weakness. Analysts suggest that behind the nationalist rhetoric lies a growing internal consensus that securing sanctions relief through engagement with Washington must become a priority if Iran is to avoid further economic deterioration. The shift in elite opinion began following the election of President Masoud Pezeshkian, a relatively unknown reformist figure who has since aligned closely with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Years of punitive sanctions and more recent military escalations with Israel have reinforced the urgency among Iran’s military and political leadership to pursue diplomatic channels. While there remains an influential camp advocating regional escalation and confrontation with the United States, Khamenei appears to have adopted a mediating role, allowing negotiations to proceed while maintaining public skepticism of American intentions. This dynamic marks a significant change from the period preceding the 2015 nuclear deal, when Khamenei openly disparaged diplomatic efforts. The talks, which resume this weekend in Oman, are expected to tackle difficult technical issues, including restrictions on Iran’s uranium enrichment activities and expanded oversight of its nuclear program. In return, Iranian negotiators seek sanctions relief to address soaring inflation and the collapse of the national currency. Business leaders and ordinary citizens alike view the negotiations as a potential lifeline, but entrenched corruption fueled by sanctions has created powerful domestic interests opposed to normalization with the West. These factions, enriched through black market dealings and preferential government access, fear losing their privileged positions should sanctions be lifted. Despite the cautious optimism, the risks for Pezeshkian and Iran’s diplomatic team are substantial. Hard-line critics remain vocal, warning that negotiations are destined to fail and that further economic hardship will follow. If talks collapse without tangible economic improvements, the political balance could quickly shift back toward confrontation, empowering those who argue that engagement with the United States is both futile and dangerous. Critically, Iran’s current approach reflects a broader trend in its post-2020 strategy, where tactical pragmatism coexists uneasily with deep ideological mistrust of the West. The growing willingness to negotiate is less a sign of strategic realignment than an act of necessity born from economic desperation. Unless significant progress is achieved, the underlying political divisions within Iran are likely to resurface with renewed force, risking a return to escalation both regionally and in the nuclear domain. The outcome of these talks will not only shape Iran’s economy but also determine whether its leadership can maintain internal stability through diplomacy or whether it will revert to confrontation as its default mode of governance.

Paraguay has formally designated Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization, while also expanding its previous classifications of Hamas and Hezbollah to cover all branches of both groups. In a presidential decree issued Thursday, the Paraguayan government cited the IRGC’s systematic involvement in human rights abuses and global terrorist activities as the basis for its decision. The move was swiftly welcomed by the United States and Israel, who praised Paraguay for striking a blow against Iranian influence in Latin America. The US State Department commended Paraguay’s action as a “critical blow” to Iran’s terror network, particularly highlighting the strategic importance of the Tri-Border Area between Paraguay, Argentina, and Brazil, long suspected of hosting financial activities linked to Hezbollah. Israel’s Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar similarly applauded the decree, calling for more nations to blacklist the IRGC and emphasizing Iran’s role as a leading exporter of terrorism. President Santiago Peña framed the decision as part of Paraguay’s broader commitment to peace, international security, and human rights. In addition to targeting the IRGC, the decree broadened the scope of Paraguay’s previous sanctions on Hezbollah and Hamas, asserting that these groups fail to meaningfully separate their military operations from their political activities. While the United States designated the IRGC as a terrorist organization in 2019, marking the first time Washington applied such a label to an official branch of a foreign military, few other countries have followed suit. Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain have made similar moves, but within Europe, legal and diplomatic concerns have hampered action. Although the European Parliament passed a non-binding resolution in 2023 urging designation, the European Union has yet to officially blacklist the IRGC. Canada has designated the group since 2014, and discussions are ongoing in the United Kingdom. The IRGC’s Quds Force, responsible for external operations, remains accused by Western powers of orchestrating proxy conflicts and supporting groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, all of which are already widely sanctioned. Paraguay’s decision comes amid renewed indirect nuclear negotiations between the US and Iran, scheduled to continue this weekend in Oman, raising questions about the broader timing and potential diplomatic repercussions of such a designation.