Brazilian progressive leader and incumbent president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva made history last night, defeating far-right Flávio Bolsonaro of the Liberal Party in the second round after coming in second in the first round.

The results were awaited with bated breath after a judge ordered polls to be open for two more hours following complaints from voters who claimed they had been unable to reach polling places due to transportation problems. First the Workers’ Party (PT), and then the Liberal Party (PL), requested the extension, which paused the vote count until 7:00 pm in Brasília, the capital.

With 51.79% of the valid votes, the former union leader, metalworker, and head of the Workers’ Party staged a historic comeback against Bolsonaro, who lost the initial momentum he had in the first round and barely reached 48.21%. This is the first time a candidate who finished second in Brazil’s first round has staged a comeback and won the election in the runoff.

Bolsonaro entered the runoff with a relative – though significant – lead following his victory in the first round of voting on October 4, where he received 47.03% (approximately 56,104,503 votes), while Lula, to the surprise of many, came in second with 45.16% (53,879,538 votes).

In other words, there was a gap of nearly 3 million votes between the two candidates that seemed very difficult for Lula to overcome, especially considering that the remaining votes were split among candidates who were mostly from the right and center-right – a fact that led many to believe that Bolsonaro, the son of former president and currently imprisoned Jair Bolsonaro, would win the runoff.

But Lula, a true legend of Brazilian politics (a labor leader during the dictatorship who won the presidency three times), achieved the unthinkable. Between the first and second rounds of voting, he managed to gain more than 10 million votes compared to the first round – an astronomical figure, considering that Bolsonaro barely managed to gain some 3.7 million votes.

Lula’s victory

After it was clear that Lula’s victory was irreversible, the Brazilian streets were filled with people wearing the traditional red of the Workers’ Party. However, the victory was celebrated by a sort of broad coalition that had formed to overturn the result – one that spanned the political spectrum from classical left-wing parties and movements, to progressive liberals, and even some center-right groups that saw Bolsonaro as a threat to democracy.

In his speech marking his fourth presidential victory, Lula said: “I want to thank the Brazilian people – those who have stood by me for so long – and express my gratitude for the generosity of Brazil’s young people … We are going to change the way this country is governed … we are going to involve the people more. Digital communication will play a very significant role in this administration. I will deliver the best presidential term this country has ever seen.”

“Following our victory, we will have to discuss a new way of governing this country. The people’s participation in this campaign – the students, women, and workers who took to the streets – will compel us to find a new way of governing. This country will never be the same again,” said the reelected president.

Lula also stated that the debates against Bolsonaro and the PL campaign were riddled with lies and “denialism”: “I never thought a person could lie so much in this country, with such brazenness, as if there were not a single shred of humanity within him.”

Finally, he also addressed the problems his campaign faced regarding the dissemination of its messages on social media. The PT repeatedly denounced that the major social media platforms hindered or outright prevented the spread of its political messages, while Bolsonaro’s messages faced no such issues.

Is Meta meddling in Brazil's elections? With Sunday's runoff neck and neck, new reporting raises serious questions.

The pattern is hard to ignore: Lula's campaign was blocked from boosting Instagram posts for nearly 24 hours, his ad account was previously restricted, and… pic.twitter.com/DVjDWJa7Xw

— BreakThrough News (@BTnewsroom) October 23, 2026

Hence, he suggested placing limits on the power of the major corporations behind social media platforms – a stance he has taken on other occasions and which has caused friction with tech giants: “We cannot fail to recognize that a crime in the digital world must be treated the same as a crime in real life. We cannot have monstrous companies of this size – which make billions without paying taxes to our country – trying to alter election results,” Lula said in his victory speech.

Bolsonaro’s reaction

For his part, far-right politician Flávio Bolsonaro said he “rejects” the election results and announced that he will seek to have the election annulled: “We are going to consult with our legal team; we are going to request that these elections be annulled. I will not accept that the rules of the game have been changed in the middle of the game – once again – by Lula’s friends on the Federal Supreme Court.”

Bolsonaro, who delivered his speech to his supporters, was referring to the extension of voting hours. According to his team, the extension was ordered after the polling stations had closed, which, they claimed, violates Brazilian electoral rules – even though the PL itself had also requested the extension.

This is not the first time that Bolsonaro’s supporters have rejected Lula’s victory. In 2022, it was Jair Bolsonaro who refused to acknowledge his defeat. Months later, during Lula’s inauguration, hundreds of Bolsonaro supporters violently stormed several government buildings, after which investigations were launched into an alleged attempted coup d’état. One of those found guilty in the case was Jair Bolsonaro himself, who is currently serving a sentence for that crime.

However, it will be difficult for Bolsonaro’s allegations to gain traction in Brazil’s immediate future. With the exception of Argentina’s far-right politician Milei, South American countries – through their heads of state and foreign ministries – have publicly congratulated Lula on his victory, which amounts to a de facto recognition of his win.

However, the Bolsonaros still have the Trump administration as a last resort, as it has publicly supported the PL candidate, just as it did with his father in the past. This is the first time since Trump began his second term that a candidate he supported in a Latin American country has failed to win, which still raises questions about what Washington’s stance will be regarding Lula’s historic victory – a victory in which, against all odds, he managed to defeat Washington’s candidate and thus halted a wave of far-right victories in Latin America.

On October 25, an election list formed after two years of student-led protests in Serbia toppled Aleksandar Vučić and the Serbian Progressive Party (SNS). The announcement was met with street celebrations that continued throughout the night, recognizing the outcome as a chance to break with 12 years of the former president’s anti-people policies. 

Election turnout surged to almost 70% of registered voters. The Student List secured roughly 53% of the vote and the SNS came in second with close to 39%. The two options are set to be the only forces in parliament except for minority representatives.

“These results have shown that a genuinely homegrown – even if heterogeneous – movement can articulate social discontent with SNS rule, provided it makes a decisive break with the baggage of the pro-Western opposition,” the Party of the Radical Left (PRL) wrote in a reaction on Monday.

The Students List ran on a platform titled “Serbia or the Mafia,” consisting of anti-corruption promises and plans to tackle the political establishment’s capture of the media sector. It also included a call for more transparency in public procurement and recruitment in the public sector. The platform promised to limit import monopolies, lower drug prices, and make healthcare more accessible.

From the Novi Sad canopy collapse to the ballots

Sunday’s results were made possible by months of demonstrations and public assemblies triggered by the canopy collapse in Novi Sad in November 2024. Sixteen people died in the event. In the aftermath, students across the country threw their energy into a campaign demanding accountability for the tragedy. 

From the beginning, protesters insisted the Novi Sad disaster was a consequence of the SNS’s way of doing politics, marked by widespread corruption, nepotism, and disregard for the public interest. During his tenure as prime minister and president, Vučić attempted to cast himself as a supporter of multilateralism and a political figure critical of the West, yet his actions exposed this as a more rhetorical than anything else.

These actions included supporting extractive deals with British-Australian mining company Rio Tinto – which the European Union included on its strategic projects list despite risks posed to communities in Jadar and mass mobilizations against the project – as well as the launch of a drone factory in cooperation with Israeli arms producer Elbit Systems. In fact, despite the former SNS leader’s efforts to present him as neutral, Serbia’s involvement in arms trade to Israel has been such to warrant notes of particular concern by UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese.

Locally, Vučić’s rule was marked by violent crackdowns on activists and campaigns, from the most recent student campaigns to Palestine solidarity. There was no substantial reaction to these reports from other European countries or the EU.

On the other hand, while very heterogeneous in character, the student movement aligned itself clearly against the Gaza genocide. Some local groups made solidarity with Palestine a central issue in their mobilizations. They also mobilized against projects associated to US interests, including the redevelopment of the former General Staff complex – a Belgrade landmark damaged in the 1999 NATO bombardment of the city – into a luxury hotel by Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of US President Donald Trump. This project was also brokered while the SNS was in power.

Progressives within Student List face difficult task ahead

The student campaign grew in significance through decentralized plenums and consultations across the country. This approach was not abandoned even during the formation of election lists – leading to a roster of new candidates, previously largely unknown to the public. University staff and other education workers who had supported the mobilization from the early days figured prominently on this list.

The success of the Student List represents an extraordinary achievement, especially considering the movement faced obstructions at every turn. These included police violence and institutional intimidation over the past two years, as well as schedule provisions that jeopardized voting rights in the diaspora. 

“The progressive elements within the Student List and the movement now face a difficult task: to resist the forces of the establishment within their own ranks,” the PRL emphasized after the election.

Earlier on, the party and other progressive voices expressed “critical support” for the Student List, recognizing the elements of social justice incorporated in its platform – but also noting aspects belonging to a technocratic vision of governance. 

Read more: Albania’s protests show no signs of backing down

“When it comes to the published program, the measures set out in the ‘Serbia or the Mafia‘ plan are not enough to eradicate the structural injustice that has taken root in Serbia over thirty years of privatization, ‘structural adjustment’ to the Euro-Atlantic regime, and the weakening of public institutions – and their systematic incapacitation from carrying out their mandated functions and protecting the public interest against the arbitrary power of capital,” the PRL stated in September.

Despite such reservations, the hope embedded in the movement surrounding the Student List is clear. The PRL observed: “Beyond the mass politicization of students and the raising of awareness on many key social issues – and despite pressure from ‘opposition’ politicians who would rather keep all these topics quiet […] we consider the following to be progressive developments: the construction of a directly democratic movement that antagonizes both the government and the parliamentary opposition in practice […] open communication and cooperation with trade unions, which gave rise to the first mass protest-based May Day commemoration in many years […] and cooperation with informal labor and professional collectives, which gave rise to a new organization – the Social Front.”

The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the Alliance of Sahel States (AES) have opened talks to establish a framework for cooperation, marking a new attempt to rebuild relations following years of political tensions over sovereignty, military coups, and regional sanctions.

The two blocs held their inaugural ministerial dialogue in Dakar, Senegal, on October 17, 2026, where they agreed to establish joint thematic working groups to develop a Cooperation Framework Agreement. The meeting brought together representatives of ECOWAS and the AES Confederation, comprising Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger.

In a joint communiqué issued after the meeting, both sides welcomed the “spirit of fraternity, mutual respect, and openness” that characterized their discussions, recalling the historical, sociocultural and economic ties that unite the peoples of West Africa.

The parties also agreed that their future relations should be guided by “good neighborliness, respect for sovereignty, dignity, and the well-being of West African populations.”

The dialogue marks a significant diplomatic development following the deterioration of relations between ECOWAS and the three Sahelian countries, whose military-led governments have pursued a political course centered on national sovereignty and a rejection of established Western influence.

Political tensions to dialogue

Relations between the two blocs deteriorated following military coups in Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger between 2020 and 2023. ECOWAS imposed sanctions and threatened further measures in response to the military takeovers, while the governments of the three countries increasingly challenged the regional organization’s authority.

In January 2024, the three countries announced their intention to withdraw from ECOWAS, their withdrawal formally took effect on January 29, 2025, opening a new chapter in regional relations.

The AES had been established in September 2023, initially creating a mutual defense framework among Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger. The three countries subsequently deepened their cooperation, formally establishing the Confederation of Sahel States in July 2024.

Throughout the confrontation, the Sahelian governments maintained that their decisions reflected the right of their peoples to determine their own political and economic futures. ECOWAS sanctions, particularly those imposed on Niger following the July 2023 coup, generated considerable opposition within the country and wider debate over the consequences of regional punitive measures for ordinary people.

For many supporters of the AES, ECOWAS’s response to the coups reinforced the perception that the organization was protecting Western, particularly French, strategic interests rather than defending the sovereignty of West African peoples. 

A framework for cooperation

According to the joint communiqué, the Dakar meeting followed earlier consultations held on May 22, 2025, in Bamako, Mali. The latest session allowed the parties to exchange views on areas of common interest and discuss how future negotiations could be structured.

Both sides expressed their willingness to pursue a cooperation framework that is “balanced, realistic and preserves the interests of their peoples.”

The communiqué further states that joint thematic working groups will undertake technical consultations towards developing a formal Cooperation Framework Agreement. Their findings will be submitted to the ministers for consideration before the next session.

The agreement to establish these working groups is an initial step towards institutionalizing dialogue between the two organizations. However, the communiqué does not specify a final agreement, a timetable for completing negotiations or detailed commitments in individual policy areas.

The discussions nevertheless provide an opening for the two blocs to address practical questions arising from their separation, including the maintenance of cross-border relations and the interests of communities whose economic and social lives extend across national boundaries.

Despite their institutional differences, the populations of the two blocs remain connected through trade, migration, family ties and shared cultural histories. The three AES countries are landlocked, and their economic relationships with neighboring West African states remain important to regional commerce and livelihoods as it defends its sovereignty.

The week before October 25 in Brazil was frenetic. It appeared that every one of the over 200 million Brazilians had a political opinion about the presidential election. The country was fundamentally polarized. Polls showed that the vote was going to be tight, with most polls favoring the challenger Flávio Bolsonaro, son of the former president Jair Bolsonaro, and the standard bearer of the far right of a special type. But the incumbent Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, known as Lula and president of Brazil from 2003 to 2011 and then since 2023, would not allow the polls to stop him. He traveled the length and breadth of the country, holding massive and energetic rallies to mobilize people to vote. In the first round, 21% of the voters did not turn out in a process that is otherwise compulsory (and a large section who did vote left the presidential section either unmarked or spoiled). Only 2.2 million ballots separated Bolsonaro (who won 47% in the first round) from Lula of the 158.7 million registered voters. To win between October 4 (first round) and October 25 (second round), Lula had to either attract people who had voted for Bolsonaro or those who had not voted or spoiled their ballots. No other candidate had turned around such a deficit in Brazil’s modern history. But Lula did it.

Streets

In the three weeks between the first and second rounds, Lula and his team motivated millions of people onto the streets in the large cities of Brazil, but also in several smaller, but significant towns. These enormous mobilizations created a sense that Lula would overcome the mathematical disadvantage presented by the voting numbers after the first round. All psephological analyses showed that Bolsonaro would cruise through in the second round, which would have indicated the impossibility for Lula. But the left did not rest on this handicap but went on the offensive.

In the first round, Bolsonaro finished 2.22 million votes ahead, but in the runoff, Lula finished with 4.43 million votes ahead. The margin moved by 6.66 million votes. These votes came from the large cities: the 319 cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants, home to 57% of Brazil’s population, delivered 3.89 of the 6.66 million of the turnaround. Lula’s vote grew more in municipalities that are more evangelical, richer, whiter, more schooled, and more urban. This meant that he ate substantially into Bolsonaro’s base, which was something that surprised even the Lula team. The key to the turnaround was the mass mobilizations driven by the social movements, with the Landless Rural Workers’ Movement (MST) in the lead.

Advances

Across his three terms, Lula has presided over an extraordinary advance in the social conditions of the Brazilian people. Bolsa Família, increases in the minimum wage, the expansion of public universities, and support for family farming brought food, income, and opportunity into households that the ruling class had long treated as disposable. These achievements changed millions of lives and established that poverty could be confronted through public action. Yet the political formula that made these advances possible has reached its limits. Lula sought to improve the lives of the poor while accommodating the power of finance, agribusiness, and the dominant sections of Brazilian capital. During his first two terms, favorable international conditions created room for this accommodation. But redistribution without a corresponding transformation of economic power left the foundations of inequality intact, allowing the beneficiaries of the old order to retain the means to obstruct change and reverse its gains.

In his third term, fiscal restrictions, expensive credit, and dependence on conservative parliamentary forces have narrowed the space for reform. Social programs remain indispensable, but they cannot by themselves overcome insecure employment, household indebtedness, inadequate public services, or the concentration of land and wealth. The exhaustion lies in a governing strategy whose compromises increasingly obstruct the fulfilment of its promises. Lula’s personal authority cannot indefinitely bridge the distance between popular expectations and the concessions demanded by the powerful. A renewed project will require the organized strength of workers, peasants, and residents of the urban peripheries, the very people who form Lula’s base, with an agenda of agrarian reform, public investment, industrial development, and democratic control over finance. The movements that filled the streets must acquire greater power to shape the government’s direction. Defeating the far right opens that possibility, but securing the social gains of the Lula years will require confronting the structures that continually threaten them.

Defeat of Trump

US President Donald Trump, his vice president JD Vance, and members of the Brazilian diaspora in Miami put an immense amount of effort into defeating Lula. Brazil, which makes up half the landmass of South America, and is the largest economy in Latin America, stands out against the wave of far-right governments that now dominate the Americas. Interference in the Brazilian elections is now an acknowledged fact, with Meta cutting off Lula’s accounts at a crucial stage of the contest and other reports of funding and social media intervention.

Trump had hoped that Bolsonaro would win in Brazil so that he can then strengthen his Shield of the Americas process that began in Miami in March 2026. This process was presented by Trump as an institutional form to coordinate security but also for the suffocation of the popular movements and the left. Lula’s victory has blocked Trump’s path to exercise the Monroe Doctrine. It has also meant that Trump will not be able to so easily access the critical minerals in Brazil or to dominate the new oil find in the basin of the Amazon delta.

Despite the obstacles faced by Lula, his victory has been able to show that the far right is not invincible.

Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian and journalist. He is the author of forty books, including Washington Bullets, Red Star Over the Third World, The Darker Nations: A People’s History of the Third World, The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South, and How the International Monetary Fund Suffocates Africa, written with Grieve Chelwa. He is the executive director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research, the chief correspondent for Globetrotter, and the chief editor of LeftWord Books (New Delhi). He also appeared in the films Shadow World (2016) and Two Meetings (2017).

This article was produced by Globetrotter.

For several years now, politicians, influencers, and intellectuals from Latin America’s new radical right have been speaking about the importance of the “cultural battle” to recover a sort of perspective lost in the past and to underpin a civilizational project that prioritizes the individual, individual freedom, and the free market above all else.

Probably the first to insist on this idea in the media was Javier Milei, the current president of Argentina, who initially made a name for himself as an economist who had no problem insulting his opponents and defending orthodox neoliberal thought.

At that time, Milei, along with his intellectual allies, called for a stand against a purported culture imposed by so-called left-wing elites who had tarnished common sense, Christian morality, and individual freedom, among many other things.

A few days ago, Colombian President Abelardo de la Espriella called for a radicalization of his “cultural battle” and ordered the removal of dozens of works of art from various museums in order to restore a culture that has been held captive by the left, Marxism, and other dark (or, as Milei himself puts it, “demonic”) forces.

In reality, the move isn’t particularly original. Back in the United States, Pat Buchanan (a close advisor to Nixon and Reagan) had already advocated for and encouraged inflammatory rhetoric to wage a “culture war” and thus defend a culture tarnished by social change. Among the major intellectual inspirers of this doctrine are the American Sam Francis and the Frenchmen Alain de Benoist and Guillaume Faye (albeit with their well-known differences). Even some Germans in the 1930s attempted to make what they called “cultural Bolshevism” the scapegoat for all their ills.

But the push for a “cultural battle” in Latin America had a more interesting rationale. And it is not so much due to a supposed pragmatic interpretation of Antonio Gramsci’s concept of hegemony – which has been distorted by the new radical right, as well as by much of liberalism and social democracy, which understand it solely as “cultural hegemony.”

No, in reality, the intention behind invoking a “culture war” against feminism, abortion rights, progressive governments, left-wing artists, revolutionary intellectuals, etc., is more of a strategic nature.

For those who are actually, as ideologues, behind the “culture war” projects are not Buchanan, Francis, De Benoist, or Faye, but Hayek, Friedman, and the rest of the neoliberal economists.

The truth is that neoliberalism in Latin America during the late 20th and early 21st centuries was both a resounding failure and a magnificent victory. This apparent contradiction is resolved depending on which social class we are discussing. During that time, the most powerful social classes, economically speaking, managed to accumulate an enormous amount of power and resources, the likes of which have rarely been seen in Latin American history.

But such a level of accumulation in societies subjugated by a global imperialist order (such as those in Latin America) necessarily drives the working classes into conditions of material precariousness that are almost unbearable. Mass migration, uprisings, deaths, the loss of a lifetime’s savings, rising crime, and so on were just some of the devastation left in the wake of the neoliberalism driven by the Washington Consensus during that period.

In response to the crisis, several centrist, center-left, and even leftist leaders won elections in the region in quick succession: Chávez in Venezuela, Morales in Bolivia, Fernández in Argentina, Correa in Ecuador, Lula in Brazil, Bachelet in Chile, Mujica in Uruguay, etc. They sought to resolve a capitalist economic crisis within the framework of capitalism itself, resorting to approaches that combined Keynesian measures with legislation designed to protect and expand rights, especially for the most marginalized sectors.

These were times when (not without contradictions with other political forces, including those of a more traditional left) the economies of these countries improved, thanks in part to high commodity prices on the global market. And with public policies that, in many cases, focused on providing aid and social programs, the situation of millions of Latin Americans clearly improved. Between 2000 and 2012 alone, 56 million Latin American citizens managed to rise out of poverty.

Once the storm of discontent against neoliberalism had passed, the ruling classes decided they’d had enough of progressive governments. But to regain absolute control (since they had always maintained the necessary share of power to influence national decisions), they needed to win back the governments, and to do so, they found themselves at a crossroads.

They knew that the central argument against center-left governments could not be based solely on the economic downturn that followed the end of high prices for Latin American natural resources, but that it had to be grounded in something more – something that would come across as novel, radical, and a sort of conservative revolutionary ideology.

And that is how they found in the “culture war” a niche for ideological propaganda that has had a historic impact on Latin America. In addition to the aforementioned criticisms, they succeeded (through their intellectuals, politicians, influencers, media outlets, social media, and so on) in creating a perceived link between progressivism and corruption, between progressivism and organized crime, and, finally, between progressivism and an alleged erosion of individual freedom.

But the truth is that these kinds of strategies can cause political upheaval like that seen in the region in recent years, during which (thanks to the support of national and international tycoons, as well as support from Washington and other governments such as Israel’s) there has been a string of victories for the radical right, which could complete its winning hand next Sunday in Brazil.

But in the long term, neoliberalism cannot (nor does it intend to) overcome the contradiction inherent in an economy of this nature in countries with clear relationships of international domination. Thus, at the height of this new wave of neoliberal right-wing movements, the first cracks in ideological stability are already beginning to appear, precisely in the face of a material reality that offers no respite from political rhetoric.

The situation of millions of Latin Americans (especially the poorest) is rapidly being complicated by a radical increase in the rate of inequality. The promises made by the new right-wing movements to defeat organized crime show no signs of being a reality or of bringing about clear regional change. Perhaps this is what Nietzsche, another great reactionary, meant when he acknowledged that culture is merely the veneer of something deeper. And that veneer is beginning to wear away very slowly – a process that is nonetheless noticeable if one pays attention.

Some 850 smallholder farmers from across mainland Tanzania and Zanzibar met in Morogoro from September 29 to October 1 for the National Smallholder Farmers’ Conference and the 31st Annual General Meeting (AGM) of MVIWATA, the network of Tanzania’s smallholder farmers’ groups. The theme was “Towards Food Sovereignty: Land Security, Agroecology and Economic Justice for Smallholder Farmers” (“Kuelekea Uhuru wa Chakula: Uhakika wa Ardhi, Kilimo Ikolojia na Haki Uchumi kwa Wakulima Wadogo”).

The AGM is MVIWATA’s highest body. Founded by farmers in 1993, the organization interacted directly with 58,916 farmers last year, 57% of whom were women, according to its own count. Two days of conference debate precede the AGM, allowing members to debate policy before coming together to decide the way forward. For this year’s AGM, MVIWATA farmers took up the key issues of land, markets, seed and, for the first time, carbon trade.

Dr Bashiru Ally, Tanzania’s Minister of Livestock and Fisheries, opened the meeting, saying he had come to listen rather than lecture. He turned quickly to land: conflicts between peasants and pastoralists, he said, had killed at least fifteen people across five regions in September alone. He asked MVIWATA to help the government end the land conflicts.

Guests included the ambassadors of Cuba and Palestine, the Eastern and Southern Africa Small-Scale Farmers’ Forum, the Tanzanian Socialist Forum, and Pan Africanism Today, which delivered a message of solidarity on behalf of more than seventy movements and organizations in Africa. MVIWATA also read its statement of solidarity with Palestine and Cuba.

Land discussions dominated the first day. Delegates said the courts were out of reach for most peasant farmers. MVIWATA’s chairperson, Apollo Chamwela, told those attending the AGM that in Magungu village in Kiteto, more than sixty farmers had lost their land when it was allocated for grazing. Subira from Msomero and Salum from Rudewa, both in Kilosa district, described village land taken by outsiders with the collusion of the local officials who should have prevented it. “How can the government take the side of the minority against the majority?” Subira asked. “Where should we run to cry?”

The second day of the AGM focused on markets: not markets in the abstract, but the system through which smallholders are made to sell their crops. Under Tanzania’s warehouse receipt system, farmers deliver produce to licensed warehouses, usually through cooperative unions, and it is sold by digital auction on a government-controlled exchange rather than at the farm gate. Delegates described a system in which farmers have little say over the floor price, and in which middlemen registered as farmers, “ghost farmers” in the words of MVIWATA Executive Director Stephen Ruvuga, sit where prices are set and gain at the real farmers’ expense.

Officials on the platform conceded that small producers outside the cooperative unions are “falling between the cracks.” The session on seeds addressed the regional seed law before the East African Legislative Assembly. The carbon session, the most heated of the three days, heard delegates from Dodoma, Katavi and Kagera describe companies counting trees and signing open-ended contracts with individual farmers who were given no opportunity to understand or scrutinize what they were signing.

On the final day, the conference resolutions were adopted by acclamation. MVIWATA will compile its members’ land grievances and submit them to the government through Dr Bashiru Ally, as he had offered. It will expand its legal aid and follow up on cases stalled with officials. It will document flaws in the crop-marketing system, present them to the authorities, build a seedbank dedicated to indigenous seeds, convene an inclusive forum on carbon trade, and track, analyze and critically engage carbon projects and their effects on farmers.

The AGM then turned to the organization’s future. Its strategic plan for 2027–2031 will put agroecology first, keep land access as a priority and make a farmers’ bank the next major task, starting with TZS 20 million raised from members themselves. Self-reliance ran through the proceedings: members debated doubling their own annual fee, and left energized to prioritize instruments through which farmers can continue to defend themselves. The meeting closed with the election of the board that will lead MVIWATA for the next three years.

In its 33rd year, MVIWATA left Morogoro with a sharper agenda: a dossier of land grievances to present to the government, a seed bank and a farmers’ bank to build with members’ own resources, and a public position on carbon trade. The new leadership’s first test will be whether the government acts on the dossier, and whether members fund what they voted for.

Jonis Ghedi-Alasow is the Coordinator of the Pan Africanism Today Secretariat. 

Two Palestinian men carried out a shooting attack, targeting a group of Israeli soldiers near the Farsh al-Hawa military checkpoint in the southern West Bank governorate of Hebron on Friday, October 23.

According to media reports, the attackers were assassinated by the Israeli forces after engaging in an exchange of fire for about 20 minutes. They were later identified as Firas al-Ju’ba and Hamoudah al-Ju’ba.

The attack also resulted in the killing of two Israeli soldiers and the injury of three others.

Netanyahu announces refugee-camp model campaign in Hebron and broader West Bank operation

In response to the attack, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared a full lockdown in the West Bank and a large-scale operation that will start from the city of Hebron and the neighboring city of Halhul, and further expand to the entire occupied territory.

Wearing a bulletproof vest, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu threatened from Hebron that the Israeli military will apply the “successful and aggressive model” that the Israeli forces used in the Palestinian refugee camps in the north.

The operations in those refugee camps already resulted in the displacement of tens of the thousands of Palestinians, the killing of hundreds, the arrest of over 1,000, and severe damage and destruction of residential buildings, infrastructure, and properties.

“We will evacuate the residents, we will go house to house, remove the weapons there, and all terrorist infrastructure will be dealt with and destroyed,” Netanyahu threatened.

The Israeli military already began to demolish buildings and homes in Hebron shortly after the attack was carried out.

Referring to the West Bank as Judea and Samaria, Netanyahu continued:

“The defense minister and I have seen plans for a very extensive IDF operation in Judea and Samaria, the likes of which have not been carried out since the Six-Day War.”

The Six-Day War was a brief, intense conflict fought between Israel and a coalition of Arab states, primarily Egypt, Syria, and Jordan in 1967.

As a result of the war, Israel occupied Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, Syria’s Golan Heights, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. It also forced 300,000 Palestinians and 100,000 Syrians to flee into neighboring countries. 

It is worth noting that Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz have already threatened a possible war in the West Bank in the last couple of weeks.

These threats came hand in hand with an unprecedented escalation of settler violence under the protection of Israeli forces across the occupied territory, alongside intensified military raids. 

Over 79 Palestinians have been killed in the West Bank in 2026, and more than 1,870 others have been injured since the beginning of 2026.

Analysts suggest that the escalation in the West Bank aims to push Palestinians towards a confrontation with the Israeli military, a few days before Israel’s legislative elections, scheduled for October 27.

The months-long protests in Albania have reached a new escalation, with university students strengthening their mobilization since mid-October.

Concerns about study expenses, poor employment prospects, and low wages have added impetus to a movement that has demanded the resignation of Prime Minister Edi Rama and urgent action on the widespread corruption weighing on the country.

“Students have brought the Flamingo Revolution into a new phase,” wrote the Solidarity Albania platform. “In a capital where living costs devour 170% of the median net wage, public universities are starved to force youth into economic exile.”

“When a generation rises for its basic rights, the only legitimate response is total solidarity,” they added.

“Tirana’s struggle stands shoulder-to-shoulder with student strikes in France and India, and with liberation struggles in Palestine, Sudan, and the Congo, and elsewhere.”

Police violence brings comparisons to protests in France

Mass mobilizations against elite tourism projects, the devastation of Albania’s natural resources, and corruption have been ongoing since May this year – evolving in what was dubbed the Flamingo Revolution. 

For the past months, demonstrations have continued on a daily basis, Enriko Peçuli from the progressive party Lëvizja Bashkë told BreakThrough News. “Some days you saw more people on the streets, sometimes a bit less, but gatherings continued basically every night: the energy was there.”

On October 13, when the latest upsurge began, “you could sense in the city that something was going to happen,” Peçuli adds. When students assembled in large numbers near the Ministry of Education and part of the building caught fire, police violence erupted, Peçuli says – and has continued for ten days in a row.

Read more: Protests banned and curfews declared ahead of next major mobilization in France

The authorities’ violent response has drawn comparisons to the institutional response to youth mobilizations in France, yet it represents a new element in local mobilizations. During other significant demonstrations, including the student protests in 2018, it was not as pronounced, Peçuli says – possibly indicating Rama’s worsening position. 

Ever since the beginning of the protests, the prime minister has tried to deflect responsibility and avoided the protesters’ core demand: his resignation.

When the Flamingo Revolution started, Peçuli describes, Rama tried to blame it on foreign powers. He has named the governments of Greece, Iran, and Russia as culprits for the mobilizations. “It’s only gotten worse with time,” the activist points out. “He’s becoming more and more arrogant, he uses a language of violence.”

“Rage is pushing people into the streets”

After the escalation of the past days, Rama attempted – in a way – to establish dialogue with the students. This was resolutely rejected, as Peçuli notes that protesters will not agree to anything less than the government’s resignation.

“It’s spontaneous rage pushing people into the streets,” he said, nodding to the events’ decentralized character that some have credited for at least part of the demonstrations’ longevity.

“We don’t have trade unions or big student movements [like the ones in France], society is generally not organized in the same way,” Peçuli points out – but there’s no sign of backing down. 

“Rama might have offered dialogue, but it’s difficult to take that seriously after the past 10 days. After you’ve sanctioned breaking people’s heads, your right to call for dialogue is a bit limited.”

Thousands of protesters marched to the headquarters of the Election Commission of India (ECI) in Delhi and to other government offices in several cities across India on Friday, October 23, as part of the ongoing nationwide demonstrations against alleged electoral fraud and manipulations.

Protesters in Delhi carrying the national flag shouted slogans against the election fraud and the attacks on people’s right to vote, right to protest, and basic democracy in the country. They were stopped by the security forces deployed in large numbers who had barricaded all the routes leading to the ECI office hours before the protests began. Some of the protesters were also detained.

Similar protests were held across different parts of the country on Friday and earlier this week. The protests in Delhi were called by People Against SIR, a group of over 300 organizations formed recently to coordinate ongoing protests. The group includes major trade and farmers unions, student and youth movements, and other sections of civil society. 

A large number of farmers also participated in the protests which have been ongoing since the beginning of the month and are expected to intensify in the coming days as all opposition parties and civil society groups have already called for a large demonstration in Delhi on November 1 over the failure of the government to respond to their demands so far.

The march on Friday was converted to a public meeting after it was stopped by the security forces. Several people addressed the protesters, pointing out the complete disregard to the basic rights of citizens by the Narendra Modi-led government.

Some of them also questioned the legitimacy of the ultra-right-wing government, claiming it was a result of a stolen mandate.

Undeclared emergency

The Narendra Modi government has imposed an undeclared emergency in the country by making it an offense to wave the national flag, arresting activists, and letting the police and pro-regime thugs repeatedly attack protesters, women and journalists, People Against SIR said in a press release on Thursday.

The failure of the constitutional institutions, including the Supreme Court of India to intervene against the blatant misuse of state power and their failure to protect the basic rights of the people confirms the state of democracy in the country, it underlined.

Two leaders of the CJP were sent to seven days of judicial custody after they tried to unfurl the national flag in central Delhi last week in an attempt to resist the government’s clampdown on the protesters.

Hundreds of people, mostly young activists, have been detained, and beaten by the security forces since the beginning of the protests. Several of the women protesters and journalists have complained about police and pro-government thugs molesting and beating them during the protests.

The government has repeatedly used sections of the law to restrict movement and barricaded the central parts of the capital city for weeks now.

India cannot be allowed to become a police state

The protesters decried the restrictions imposed by the government against protests in the capital and other places, calling it a violation of the right to peaceful protest. They announced that they will not let India become a “police state.”

The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is an ongoing process initiated by the ECI to revise the electoral rolls in the country. The opposition has alleged that the process was illegal and was initiated with the intention to manipulate elections to benefit the ruling ultra-right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which has been in power since 2014.

Several reports in the local newspapers have also claimed the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar violated established legal procedures and made changes in the SIR process arbitrarily on several occasions to benefit the ruling party.

Over 130 million voters, around 14% of all registered electorates in the country as per the 2024 data, have been removed from India’s decentralized electoral rolls since the process began last year. In some states a quarter to half of all electorates were removed.

The number is significant especially given the fact that in India’s First Past the Post system, the victory margins in elections are often very small.

Some have claimed that many of the voters removed from the roll were from religious minority communities or sections of the working class which have generally voted against the BJP. 

One of the major demands of the ongoing protests is the removal of the SIR process altogether. Protesters have also demanded the removal of the sitting CEC and for legal action to be taken against him, as well as the re-inclusion of all the people whose names have been removed from the electoral rolls.

Benjamin Netanyahu will almost certainly stay as prime minister after Israel’s elections on Tuesday, Miko Peled predicts – but he argues it won’t really matter if he doesn’t.

The Israeli-American author, activist and founder of Palestine House of Freedom in Washington, DC tells Rania Khalek and Zoe Alexandra who wins control of Knesset doesn’t really change things for Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank; with challengers like Gadi Eisenkot, the ex-army chief behind the Dahiya doctrine of flattening civilian neighborhoods, and ex-premier and settlement champ Naftali Bennett who vows to block a Palestinian state, the war machine stays the same. But Peled says the ultra-Orthodox fight over the military draft and growing demands for an October 7 investigation are tearing Israeli society apart.

He explains why settler attacks on Washington Post photographer Heidi Levine and Congressional candidate (and liberal zionist) Brad Lander show the state’s true face, pointing out “it’s all settler violence, because they’re all settlers.” Peled warns that a new Israeli attack on Iran could finally test the limits of Tehran’s restraint – and that if Netanyahu falls, Democrats may rush to re-embrace Israel ahead of the midterms, but the honeymoon won’t last. Watch full episodes of BT Live, join breakthroughnews.org as a member today! #breakthroughnews

Hundreds of thousands are set to take to the streets in cities across France on Saturday, October 24, once again protesting austerity and the cost of living crisis. Demonstrations are set to go ahead despite an extremely repressive response from the government and local authorities, including curfews and bans.

Over the past couple of days, a growing number of cities and regions have announced protest bans, drawing criticism from trade unions and progressive groups. “The government has banned demonstrations on Saturday in Lyon, Marseille, Rouen, Grenoble, Le Havre, Bourg-en-Bresse, Le Mans, Toulon, Chambéry, Perpignan,” wrote Clémence Guetté of La France Insoumise on October 22. “New bans are coming down every hour. Is this what democracy looks like?”

Many of the bans are being contested in court, with the final outcome yet to be determined.

Read more: Italian government to deploy troops to Milan after anti-austerity protests

French President Emmanuel Macron failed to revise his stance on the protests in the same period, announcing that only trade union mobilizations will be allowed on Saturday. “Where they are not organized by trade unions, we will ban them wherever we can,” Macron stated.

The government announced the intention of deploying troops to “guard” the demonstrations. The idea was announced after nationwide protests on October 17 – attended by roughly 800,000 people – turned into riots against the erosion of education services and overall living standards.

A securitization strategy tested in Kanaky

This institutional response has been heavily criticized by progressive forces that joined students on the streets. As Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu’s administration insisted on framing the mobilization exclusively as a security issue, including in meetings with political parties, left forces denounced the strategy for failing to address concrete issues.

Paul Vannier of La France Insoumise said the government was engaging in “a strategy of letting the situation rot,” insisting that it should instead shape a solution to students’ demands. This would include freezing prices, increasing wages, making higher education more accessible, and allocating €10 billion for the education system.

Read more: Students in France are fighting for stronger public education

The French left has also sounded the alarm about the long-term consequences of the violent repression of the protests: thousands of youth were arrested during the mobilization, and dozens were injured – some of them very seriously.

While alarming, this course of events is not surprising, La France Insoumise pointed out. The party compared the repression observed in French cities to the one witnessed during protests in Kanaky in 2024: “a state of emergency, extended curfews, a general ban on demonstrations, the blocking of TikTok, nearly 3,000 security personnel deployed with army support, armored vehicles, and the massive use of LBD launchers and grenades.”

“What the state tested in 2024 in Kanaky, it is now applying in 2026 to its own youth, with the same men in charge,” the media outlet L’Insoumission wrote.

Trade unions’ support continues

It is in this context that progressive forces in France have reiterated calls for the public to respond to the students’ call and protect their right to protest on Saturday. “On October 24, we once again call on all activists to put on their red [trade union] vests so that young people and workers can exercise their right to demonstrate and to make their demands heard,” the General Confederation of Labour (CGT) wrote.

“We are witnessing an authoritarian shift that goes hand in hand with the government’s stubborn refusal to own up to its record and to call into question its unjust policy in favor of the wealthiest,” dozens of trade unionists, advocates, and cultural workers wrote in an appeal, calling for support for the protests.

“This choice is irresponsible and dangerous for democracy, and for the physical integrity of those who defend it without the framework of these mobilizations,” they stated. “It paves the way for the far right to come to power.”

Booker Ngesa Omole, general secretary of the Communist Party Marxist–Kenya (CPM-K), has been acquitted by the Mavoko Law Courts in Machakos County, ending a prosecution that the party has described as politically motivated since his arrest in February 2026.

In a statement issued on October 22, the party’s Central Organizing Committee welcomed the ruling as a victory for democratic rights and called for accountability over what it described as Omole’s abduction, torture, and political persecution.

Speaking outside the court after the ruling, Omole said the verdict confirmed the party’s position that the charges against him were intended to target his political activities.

“With finality, the court sitting today at Mavoko Law Courts has clearly indicted the current Ruto regime,” he said. “It has corroborated what we have told the Kenyan public, that framed-up charges against politicians and revolutionaries cannot endure in any competent court.”

Omole said the judiciary had a responsibility to act as a check on state power and defend “the people’s democracy and freedom.” He accused the state of using criminal proceedings to pursue political opponents, adding that it “continues to fail to indict us on criminal charges but wants to persecute us politically.”

“The acquittal is not for Booker only,” he said. “It is for the Communist Party and for all other people who want change in this country. I did not go to jail for nothing. I went to jail to make a statement, and today we prosecuted the case both in the court of public opinion and in Mavoko Law Courts.”

From arrest to acquittal

According to the party’s statement, Omole was abducted by armed men in plain clothes in Isiolo on February 24, 2026, and transported towards Nairobi before being detained at Mlolongo Police Station. The party says that he was tortured while in custody, sustaining injuries to his arm and tooth, as well as cuts to his fingers.

The party further alleges that Omole was detained for more than four days before subsequent court proceedings and his eventual release on bail. He faced criminal allegations involving firearms, ammunition, drugs, and assaults against police officers.

The prosecution case was subsequently weakened after the complainant and a prosecution witness, submitted a sworn affidavit on March 9 seeking to withdraw his complaint and earlier statements.

The court acquitted Omole on all counts on October 16, 2026. It also ordered the immediate return of the party’s property held by police, according to the Central Organizing Committee.

The acquittal brings the criminal proceedings against Omole to an end, but the party says it will continue pursuing accountability for the events surrounding his arrest and detention.

Party demands investigation and accountability

In its statement, CPM-K called for an independent investigation into the alleged abduction and torture, as well as the conduct of the police officers involved. 

The party also demanded full compliance with the court order to return its seized property and called for an end to what it describes as the criminalization of communist and revolutionary political activity.

“The court has acquitted our General Secretary. The state must now answer for what was done to him,” the statement declared.

CPM-K argued that the case should be understood within the broader political and economic conditions confronting Kenya, accusing the government of using state institutions to intimidate those organizing workers, poor peasants, students, and other oppressed groups.

The party said the acquittal would not end its political activities or its demands for accountability. Instead, it called on its supporters and international communist and workers’ organizations to intensify solidarity efforts and defend democratic freedoms.

Read more: CPM-K officials survive assassination attempt in Kenya

Omole has faced threats and arrests before. In April 2025, a car carrying him and other activists was shot at. In September 2024, he was arrested during a wider crackdown on leftist activists. He also survived an assassination attempt on his life while at his residence last year.

Trita Parsi puts the odds of a new round of US-Israeli war on Iran at 90% – and it could start as soon as this weekend. The US and Israeli militaries have plans for renewed strikes after the midterms, the New York Times reports; three aircraft carriers are en route to the region, and Netanyahu, trailing ahead of Tuesday’s elections, says he’s ordered Israel’s military and Mossad to topple Iran’s government. Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, tells Rania Khalek and Zoe Alexandra why Trump’s third round will be far worse than the first two.

Parsi argues that Trump, initially driven by hubris, is now out for revenge against a Tehran he believes is deliberately dragging out the war to destroy his presidency. He explains why time is on Iran’s side; how Washington is spinning the war of attrition in the Strait of Hormuz; why soaring gas prices make the war impossible to tune out; and why even European conservatives say the protests sweeping the continent are fueled by the war’s economic fallout. Parsi warns Netanyahu may see escalation as the Hail Mary pass he needs to lock in his legacy, and says that if Democrats take control of Congress, they’ll have the power to stop this – and will be complicit if they don’t.

Watch full episodes of BT Live, join breakthroughnews.org as a member today!

#breakthroughnews
******
Rough transcript follows:
[Interviewer:]

It’s very difficult to see this war lead to a scenario in which the impact on the global economy is sufficiently insignificant for it not to translate to any political changes. If you look at the polls right now, the top issues motivating people in this election are inflation and gas prices. That’s all due to the Iran war. Nearly eight months ago, the US and Israel launched a very destructive war on Iran, killing the Supreme Leader and disrupting global oil markets. Trump wanted a quick knockout, but instead, he got a war he can’t contain, a stalemate that nobody seems able to break, and a deal to end it that looks further away than ever.

Somehow, this war has become background noise in the US, and the next round may already be on the calendar. The New York Times reports that the US and Israeli militaries have drawn up plans for renewed strikes on Iran after the midterms. This campaign would hit energy infrastructure, nuclear sites, and Iran’s missile and drone arsenal. They came close to doing this earlier this month before Trump pulled the plug at the last minute. Now, three aircraft carriers and thousands of Marines are on the way. Netanyahu, trailing in the polls ahead of next week’s elections in Israel, says he’s ordered the military to prepare for preemptive action and to topple the regime. Iran’s intelligence assessments suggest strikes could come even before Israel votes on Tuesday. The White House says nothing happens before the midterms. Meanwhile, the State Department has ordered non-emergency staff and their families out of Saudi Arabia, and the AFP cites a diplomatic source saying families of embassy staff in the UAE, Jordan, Qatar, and Bahrain have been ordered out as well.

Netanyahu is making big threats a week before elections. Trump says this time the fight will be neither quick nor limited, with no restraints. So what breaks this stalemate? Is escalation the only way out? And who can last longer, Iran or Washington? Joining us now to discuss all of this is Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute. Trita, welcome back to BT Live.

[Trita Parsi:]

Good to be with you.

[Interviewer:]

You are putting the odds of a new round of war at 90%. That’s quite high. The New York Times says the plans are drawn up and carriers are on their way. Why are you and the New York Times so confident? Some US planners think that three days of intense strikes will manage to break Iran’s economy and force concessions. Is that a serious theory?

[Trita Parsi:]

First of all, it’s kind of insulting to say that the New York Times and I are on the same page on this. I’m just kidding. But look, I’ve been warning about this for more than five weeks now that a third round was extremely likely because of a couple of factors. What we’re seeing now is more the motions necessary to bring about this disastrous third round being put in place. The signs and the logic as to why we were going in this direction were clear to me several weeks ago because Trump, at the end of the day, his psychology does not allow for him to lose. He is willing to sacrifice everything to win.

Earlier on, he thought that the MOU and a diplomatic deal could end the story in a way that made the war look worth it or at least acceptable. But he had a bad experience with the MOU. He got attacked for it by Democrats, Republicans, the pro-Israel crowd, everyone. He realized the political cost was very high. So now he thinks diplomacy won’t end it acceptably. Blockade won’t end it acceptably, even though they’re putting forward this mythology that they’re winning on the blockade. And the limited amount of war he’s had won’t do it. So now the only thing he hasn’t tried is this all-out war that he threatened several times but never did—taking out Iran’s oil infrastructure, energy infrastructure, desalination plants, critical infrastructure. He avoided that, knowing it would lead to massive retaliation by the Iranians against GCC infrastructure, which would throw the global economy into a depression. But now he doesn’t seem to care. The midterms are over, and he’s just looking to do something that brings this to an end on his terms.

There’s another element that makes matters worse now, which is last time he went in with hubris. He thought he could do this in four days. The Israelis had sold him that mythology. He had managed to do Venezuela quickly, so he was very confident. This time, it’s not hubris bringing him back; it’s vindictiveness. He’s very angry about the war’s outcome so far. He believes the Iranians deliberately dragged things out to destroy his presidency, and to a certain extent, they have. Now there’s this new element of revenge. So we may very well go towards a third disastrous round of war, not because of a flawed geopolitical miscalculation, but because of one man’s desire for vengeance.

[Interviewer:]

It’s truly tanking the global economy, putting tens of thousands of lives at risk because of vengeance. Trump has previously vetoed a major return to combat, including at the last minute earlier this month. He’s pulled back from major threats repeatedly. The White House says no strikes before midterms. Iran’s intelligence says it could come before Israel votes on Tuesday. Which clock is correct? If the Republicans lose Congress, can Democrats stop a possible escalation? Will they?

[Trita Parsi:]

Unfortunately, not to the extent that they should be. It’s perhaps a different political calculation before the midterms versus after. But with the MOU, there were Democrats who should have known better, who played a fantastic role in the JCPOA, who now returned a favor to the Republicans by doing bad faith attacks against the MOU. It contributed to the MOU collapsing. It’s not the only reason, but it contributed to Trump’s conception that a deal with Iran is not a win because of the high political price, a conception every previous American president has had. It’s interesting that Trump didn’t have it. It’s part of why he was willing to strike a deal with Iran, willing to strike a deal with North Korea because he was immune to the idea of a political cost for such an agreement. But that’s changed, and the Democrats contributed to it.

After the midterms, it will be critical for Democrats to do everything they can, from using the power of the purse to other means, to put an end to this war. Once they’re in control of the House and particularly if they also control the Senate, they’re no longer bystanders. They’re complicit if this is allowed to continue because they will have the power to stop it.

[Interviewer:]

There’s so much damage incurred from this war, obviously not as much as the Iranian side, but it still stands to be seen just how deep that damage can go. Iranian officials are now talking about expanding targets to data centers and undersea internet cables. Iran analysts floated hitting Saudi refineries like Aramco to spike oil prices. A top adviser to Ghalibaf called the idea of that 72-hour war a fantasy. What does the next round look like from Iran’s side? How much more can they escalate? Why do you think Iran has decided to wait out Trump rather than cut any more deals?

[Trita Parsi:]

I spoke to a senior advisor to a European president who’s no longer in office, not particularly unsympathetic to Trump. I asked him about the protests around Europe, not just in France, but in many other countries. How much of that is driven by the economic consequences of this war? To my surprise, he said overwhelmingly, a lot of it has to do with the economic consequences of this war. The focus is often on immigration, but it’s not the driving force. Even someone from the right, more on the anti-immigrant side, said what we’re seeing in Europe is largely driven by the economic consequences of this war. The global repercussions so far, in the first two rounds, are going to be benign compared to the third round, which will become overwhelming.

The other part of your question, if you could repeat?

[Interviewer:]

I was wondering why Iran has decided to wait out Trump rather than cut any more deals.

[Trita Parsi:]

That’s a very good question. In this war of attrition, the Iranians have been comfortable—not in the sense that they’re not hurting, but because they believe time is on their side. The Trump administration is putting forward a different story, saying they’re winning. They won the battle of Hormuz, more volume is coming out of the Strait of Hormuz, and they’re winning the war of attrition. Yet, it’s the US and Israel about to start this war, which tells you something about who actually is winning that war of attrition. The administration has been successful not because of their brilliance but because of the lack of brilliance in the media and analytical core. They said focus only on the volume of oil coming out, not the cost or oil prices. The impression was that the war of attrition is being won by the American side, and if anyone wanted to escalate, it would have been the Iranians. But reality seems to be the opposite.

Israel goes to vote on October 27th. If Netanyahu loses, he’ll be a caretaker, and technically, it would be hard for him to launch a war. Some analysts think he could use the threat of an imminent strike to force his rivals into a unity government. Are these threats about Iran or about keeping his job, or is that essentially the same?

[Trita Parsi:]

I think they’re pretty much one and the same. I’m not convinced that being a caretaker would make it more difficult for him to start. There will be resistance from within the security establishment, but the resistance may be higher because they’re worried he’ll start this war to impact the elections or force their postponement. The chief of staff of the army has publicly said this. Once the elections are over, and it’s in the process of forming a coalition, I’m not convinced he won’t have the ability to start a war, and certainly not convinced he wouldn’t want to. If he feels he’s about to lose the coalition, this would be his last chance for his legacy to do what his secretary of defense said is the Israeli objective: bomb Iran back to the stone age, shift the balance of power in the region so dramatically that Israel will no longer have a problem with Iran providing any deterrence against Israel. That has been the Israeli objective, and the Israelis are so openly talking about it, yet it almost never translates to any real conversation in Washington.

[Interviewer:]

Lastly, before we let you go, this war has really fallen off the front page. It’s become so normalized, like background noise. Do you think there’s a risk that opposition to this war fades because it’s becoming a kind of forever war that people just tune out, or is it too damaging to the global economy to stay a forever war?

[Trita Parsi:]

Part of the reason the US could have forever wars was because the political cost of ending the war was higher than the political cost of continuing a losing war, which was because the cost of continuing the war was relatively low. In Afghanistan, it was not good, but as long as casualties were low, the anger never reached a critical mass. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had no significant impact on the economy or oil markets in the manner that this war has had. It’s difficult to see this war lead to a scenario where the impact on the global economy is insignificant enough not to translate to political changes. If you look at the polls, the top issues motivating people in this election are inflation and gas prices, all due to the Iran war. Corruption ranks even higher, but both sides believe the other is corrupt, whereas with the Iran war, there’s no debate about who started it and why. The risk of escalation is far greater than the opportunities for de-escalation, which does not lend itself to an endless, low-intensity war that just continues. It could be a long war with highs and lows, still costly, but not just simmering in the background.

[Interviewer:]

Real quick, put a number on it. You believe there’s going to be another round starting this weekend. Since you like percentages, put a percentage on it.

[Trita Parsi:]

I put it at 90%. It could only change if Trump changes his mind. He’s been on the point of approving something and changed his mind seven times. We can’t have a situation like this continue without him agreeing at some point. That’s why the odds are the way they are. He’s not going to constantly back off last minute. At some point, he’s going to say yes, go through with it, and all of us are going to pay the price for it.

[Interviewer:]

Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, always appreciate your analysis. Thank you so much for joining us.

[Trita Parsi:]

Thank you so much. Appreciate it.

Iran is ready to face any new aggression and will take the war to new levels, Iran claimed on Wednesday, October 21, after reports indicated the resumption of joint US-Israeli strikes on the country’s nuclear sites and other targets is imminent.

Several reports appeared on Wednesday and Thursday pointing towards the end of an undeclared ceasefire since July and growing possibilities of fresh US-Israeli strikes on Iran.

AFP reported on Thursday, that the US has asked its embassy staff and their family members in Saudi Arabia and family members of the embassy staff in several other countries in the region to leave.

Drop Site News has reported on Thursday that the US was currently involved in large-scale preparations, including the deployment of new warships and around 10,000 additional sailors and marines in the region.

The US preparations are largely linked to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s attempts to push a fresh offensive against Iran, Drop Site claimed. It cited both the Iranian and US officials that the US-Israeli joint strikes against Iran may begin probably before the Tuesday Israeli elections.

Last week there were reports about Netanyahu pressing Trump to re-start the bombing of Iran, as it may boost his chances of winning the elections which he is reportedly trailing at the moment.

Read more: Netanyahu presses Trump to renew aggression on Iran ahead of Israeli elections

On Wednesday, Netanyahu again, without any evidence, alleged that Iran was developing nuclear weapons. He claimed he has directed the Israeli military and Mossad, its secret agency involved in various covert operations, to “topple the regime in Iran.”

An unnamed Iranian official also confirmed to Drop Site that the country has received an intelligence assessment about the resumption of joint US-Israeli bombing of the country’s strategic sites before Tuesday.

The Iranian official reportedly also claimed that the US may also carry out a “token” strike on Iran’s nuclear site such as the Pickaxe Mountain, to claim “victory.”

Though White House deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly denied these reports, claiming there will be no fresh strikes at least before the Midterm elections, an unnamed official told Drop Site that US President Donald Trump has “backed off” from major combat operations against Iran at least seven times since July, claiming he could start the war anytime.

Trump’s vindictiveness may cause the resumption of the war

Recent statements by President Trump about Pickaxe Mountain and also about the failure of negotiations with Iran have fueled speculations about the imminent strikes.

On Wednesday, Trump told the press that the US is not negotiating with Iran and “something one way or the other” will happen “fairly soon.”

Reacting to the developments, Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute, however, dismissed Israel’s centrality in these affairs, despite claiming similarities in circumstances between now and February, when the US launched an unprovoked war against Iran in collaboration with Israel.

Rather, he pointed out Trump’s “vindictiveness” as the main reason for the fresh overtures of war, claiming Trump blames Iran for “ruining his presidency” and the humiliation his Republican party may face in the upcoming Midterm elections.

Iran will respond with a “broader plan”

Iran has repeatedly claimed it was ready to face the US-Israeli aggression. The head of its Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Mohsen Rezaei claimed on Wednesday that Iran will face the “next stage” of the war with a “broader plan” and respond in ways not seen before.

In the event of fresh aggressions, Iran will expand the war and target all kinds of US assets in the region including its communication cables, and AI data centers, Rezaei claimed in dialogue with Drop Site.

Rezaei also warned the regional countries to not participate in the US aggression in any way if they want to avoid Iranian retaliation, claiming “those governments should not assume they can participate in warfare against Iran without putting themselves at risk.”

At least seven vessels attacked for violating restrictions

Meanwhile, the naval wing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) claimed on Thursday that it targeted four vessels in the northern Persian Gulf for violating its restrictions on “unauthorized routes.” The vessels caught fire and were burning, Press TV reported.

The IRGC also claimed three other vessels were hit by mines in the west of the Strait of Hormuz on Wednesday night. It claimed these vessels were forced by the US, despite Iran’s warnings, to cross the Strait of Hormuz through the “unauthorized route.”

The number of vessels hit after trying to cross the Strait of Hormuz has increased many fold this week, despite the repeated claims made by the US about it being in full control over the waterway.

The US has also claimed that the shipment of oil through the Persian Gulf has returned to the pre-war level and that the Iranian blockade was ineffective.

However, Iran has repeatedly denied the US claims. On Thursday, the IRGC also warned that if the US continues to force more vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, it will be forced to carry out retaliatory strikes against its bases in the region.

Days before Israel’s legislative elections, scheduled for October 27, Israeli forces escalated military activities across the West Bank. Observers speculate that the Israeli government may carry through with its threat to escalate its assaults on Palestinians in the occupied territory.

These speculations are apparently based on the results of the early polls, which showed the bloc of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a tight race with its competitors and facing a likely political deadlock.

On Tuesday, October 20, the Israeli military announced a 24-hour military drill across the West Bank that involved gunfire, explosions, and increased movements of soldiers, aircraft, and military vehicles.

Concurrently, security measures against Palestinians and their supporters have been further tightened. On Tuesday, October 21, the Israeli forces briefly detained 80 US, British, and Israeli volunteers assisting Palestinians harvesting olives west of the southern West Bank governorate of Bethlehem.

The detainees included the New York Democratic congressional nominee Brad Lander, a group of rabbis, and Israel’s former deputy attorney general.

Commenting on the incident, Lander wrote in a post on X:

“I’ve been detained by the IDF, along with a group of rabbis & volunteers. We were simply harvesting olives in a grove near Nehalim in the West Bank.”

“The occupation is a crime under international law. Harvesting olives isn’t a crime under any law I know,” the congressional candidate continued, although he calls himself a “liberal Zionist.”

The Israeli military stated that the mass detention of activists was carried out because they did not submit requests to the relevant authorities in advance for necessary coordination “to ensure the security of the area and maintain public order.”

Settler violence

The incident occurred amid an unprecedented escalation of settler violence in the West Bank, particularly during the olive harvest season.

The last couple of weeks saw horrific settler attacks carried out under the protection of the Israeli forces. Those attacks caused injuries not only to Palestinians, but also international activists, journalists, and diplomats from other countries.

Damage to Palestinian agricultural lands and the looting of crops has also been reported over the same period.

On Friday, October 16, veteran Washington Post photojournalist Heidi Levine (63) was beaten by a crowd of masked Israeli settlers, while covering the olive harvest in Abu Falah village northeast of Ramallah, although she was wearing a helmet and a protective vest clearly labeled “PRESS” on both sides.

One day later, a delegation of European diplomats was attacked by a group of masked colonists in the village of Taybeh, east of Ramallah, during a visit to the area to support Palestinian farmers harvesting olives.

The Israeli forces also intensified military raids in different parts of the West Bank in recent days, detaining Palestinian traffic police for hours. 

Many believe the incident aimed to break the morale of the Palestinian people by exposing the helplessness of the Palestinian security apparatus in the face of Israel as an occupying power. 

Meanwhile, others viewed it as a provocation of the Palestinian Authority and its security forces, in a bid to push them for an armed confrontation with the Israeli forces. A scenario that the Israeli government has already laid the groundwork for as per recent statements from Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz.

Health workers, activists, and access to medicines advocates have gathered in Frankfurt on October 22-23 for the 2nd Public Pharma Conference. The event builds on roughly two years of work by the Public Pharma for Europe Coalition, which aims to construct an alternative vision for the region’s pharmaceutical landscape – and to strengthen the links needed to turn that vision into reality.

“When we had the first conference in 2024, we realized there are many people practically working on this topic who shared a similar vision and a similar goal,” Frauke Heller from medico international told BreakThrough News. 

The new conference aims to open the space to even more advocates, she added, in a region where the Big Pharma lobby remains extremely influential.

Read more: Public pharma infrastructure could give the world access to a treasure trove of medicines

The first day focused on the coalition’s expansion and the shifting global landscape it faces, including growing concerns about the availability and affordability of medicines across Europe. 

Speakers – including commons activist Gaëlle Krikorian, Tim Joye, president of Medics for the People (MPLP-GVHV), researcher Tineke Kleinhout-Vliek, and Jan Wintgens, coordinator of the People’s Health Movement (PHM) Public Pharma program in Europe – detailed how a system reliant on Big Pharma is deepening these access problems.

Their interventions also highlighted that alternatives already exist. Kleinhout-Vliek pointed to dozens of existing examples of drug research, development, and innovation projects in Europe alone that are supported by the public sector in different ways. “This used to happen only in ‘market-failure’ areas, but it’s now moving into profitable drugs too,” she pointed out.

Austerity is exacerbating access to medicines issues

The conference recognized that rising drug prices in Europe have sharpened the visibility of this issue compared to earlier years, when social security systems were still able to secure access to medicines for patients in the region. That is less the case today, as Big Pharma companies set exorbitant prices for new products – and social security systems themselves are undermined by austerity.

The effects are felt across the region, with Joye and Krikorian turning to examples from Belgium and France. In Belgium, Joye said, the case of a family forced to fundraise close to €2 million for a spinal muscular atrophy injection for a baby reinforced MPLP’s efforts to envision a different pharma system. In France, current drug prices have been driving both patients and pharmacists “out of their minds,” Krikorian emphasized, prompting them to become more critical of the whole system.

Read more: Listening through the social stethoscope: MPLP’s health workers redefine care in Belgium

These developments cannot be separated from the situation affecting the world today, related to the weakening position of the United States, speakers and participants seemed to agree.

“If we compare the world in March 2024 to today, the difference is enormous,” Joye said, citing a recent decision by drug giant GSK to cut 1,200 jobs from its 8,000-strong operations in Belgium. “This is not a company in financial difficulties: they’re cutting jobs because they’re planning to shift part of their operations to the US under the influence of the Trump administration.”

People in Europe are growing increasingly scared of war, due to their governments’ arms race, he added, but also of losing their jobs. “Politicians using this fear to increase the power of the multinationals instead of changing the system.”

Experiences from socialism and the Global South

As the European Public Pharma coalition continues to grow its ranks, it remains attentive to experiences from the past, including the public production of vaccines in formerly socialist states of Eastern Europe – as presented by David Franco from Public Pharma for Europe and Goran Jeras from the Cooperative for Ethical Financing.

But the platform is also looking toward practical examples of orienting pharmaceutical research and production away from a profit-making model. This includes the work of Cuban scientists, who have achieved groundbreaking breakthroughs despite the ongoing blockade imposed by the US, as well as medical research institutes in Brazil and efforts to establish public production of therapies in Canada.

Gerardo Guillén from the China-Cuba Biotechnology Innovation Center linked the island’s breakthroughs – including interferon therapy, innovative treatments for diabetic foot, and COVID-19 medicines – to the people-centered healthcare erected following the revolution. 

Cuba’s persistent research and innovation cannot be separated from Fidel Castro‘s appeal for a science-based revolution – a science that serves the needs of the people – Guillén pointed out.

Read more: Humanity owes Cuba: unilateral coercive measures and the politics of punishment

Another example came from Martin Häuer of the Open Source Imaging Initiative (OSI²), who walked participants through existing efforts to build MR imaging machines using open-source tools. For now, the project team was able to assemble functioning prototypes for around €20,000 – with reassembly in low-income health systems like Ghana’s projected at around €24,000.

This amount represents roughly 10% of the standard market price of an MRI: significantly increasing the chance of the technology becoming more widely accessible and showing how significant the impact of these initiatives can be globally.

People’s Health Dispatch is a monthly bulletin published by the People’s Health Movement and Peoples Dispatch. For more articles and to subscribe to People’s Health Dispatch, click here.

Former President Rafael Correa (2007–2017) posted on X in the early hours of the morning in Ecuador that Luisa González, a two-time presidential candidate (2023 and 2025) for the Citizen Revolution (RC) party, had been arrested. “They arrested Luisa González. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!” wrote the former progressive leader.

The National Police confirmed this to the media outlet PRIMICIAS. González was reportedly arrested on suspicion of money laundering. The National Prosecutor’s Office also confirmed this, reporting that the arrest is related to alleged irregularities in political financing and campaign spending in 2023.

González, who advanced to the runoff in both elections and lost both times to the current president, right-wing candidate Daniel Noboa, has repeatedly claimed that the legal proceedings against her are part of a broader campaign of political persecution targeting anyone who criticizes the current government.

A few hours after his arrest, González wrote on X: “We have reached an untenable situation. Noboa’s dictatorship has not only led our beloved country into economic disaster, with rampant violence and corruption, but attacks on civil liberties and political persecution are a constant reality. The dictatorship’s political prisoners are being mistreated and tortured.”

She added: “Today it is my turn to be arrested on an absurd charge. I will respond with the dignity of Ecuadorians who owe nothing and who are committed to securing Ecuador’s freedom and a better future for the country.” 

A flood of legal proceedings against González

In January 2026, the prosecutor’s office and the police raided Luisa González’s home as part of the case known as “Caja Chica,” which was investigating an alleged money laundering offense. The prosecutor’s office claimed there was evidence of money flowing in from Venezuela to fund González’s 2023 election campaign.

In August, González said she had been notified of a preliminary investigation into the alleged crime of demanding acts that entail receiving undue benefits.

In September, González was again notified by the Prosecutor’s Office of her inclusion in a preliminary investigation into an alleged crime of failure to report a crime due to her profession, position, or occupation – that is, for allegedly failing to report a crime in the course of her professional duties.

In all three cases, the former presidential candidate and leader of the largest opposition party has denounced these actions as political persecution carried out through the judicial system: “The harassment and persecution don’t stop, but neither does my hope for a better country. Giving up is not an option.”

Political persecution or enforcement of the law?

In addition, González, who intended to run for the office of prefect of Manabí in the upcoming regional elections in November, was unable to register her candidacy due to a refusal by the electoral oversight bodies, citing alleged mismanagement of administrative matters.

The RC once again denounced this obstacle as part of a broader campaign of political persecution aimed at preventing opposition candidates who might win their positions in the elections from participating, whether through administrative sanctions or criminal proceedings.

Thus, according to these allegations, the government has managed to co-opt several oversight institutions with the power to impose sanctions—such as the prosecutor’s office and the electoral courts – and is using them to persecute and prevent the participation of opposition politicians who have a chance of challenging the executive branch for power.

For his part, Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa has repeatedly denied that his administration has been behind the accusations, sanctions, and arrests targeting his opponents, and he asserted that these are proceedings carried out by institutions independent of his government. “We do not target individuals; we have no interest in targeting individuals – we pursue criminals. There is no political persecution of any kind here,” the Ecuadorian president said in early 2026.

Despite these statements, the opposition remains steadfast in its accusations against the Ecuadorian president, especially following cases in which mayors of the country’s largest cities – Guayaquil, Cuenca, and Quito, the capital – have faced imprisonment, criminal proceedings, and ongoing judicial investigations.

The most notorious case in Ecuador involves the mayor of Guayaquil (the country’s most populous city), opposition figure Aquiles Álvarez, who was arrested and imprisoned in a maximum-security prison several months ago on charges of illegal hydrocarbon trafficking and organized crime.

Similarly, in June 2026, the then-mayor of Cuenca, Cristian Zamora (also a member of the opposition) was suspended by the Contentious-Electoral Court over an alleged case of political violence. For its part, the prosecutor’s office requested that charges be filed against him in September of that same year for an alleged crime of illicit enrichment.

And while there are other high-profile cases in Ecuador, the RC has stated that there is a concerted effort to prevent the current mayor of Quito, Pabel Muñoz (who is seeking reelection) from participating in the electoral process at all costs. Muñoz has so far managed to evade the sanctions and constant accusations against him, but on October 21, the prosecutor’s office and the police raided the mayor’s offices as part of an investigation into an alleged embezzlement offense.

This has led several politicians to believe that the raid is a new ploy to prevent Muñoz—who leads in the polls – from participating in the elections and, even more so, to imprison him, as was done with his party colleague, Aquiles Álvarez. This is what the Prefect of Pichincha, Paola Pabón, said: “People’s lives do not improve by imprisoning opponents; citizens’ circumstances change for the better when there is a political class committed to the common good.”

Drone strikes in war-torn Sudan have killed hundreds in just three days. Most of the deaths were in West Kordofan state, including in an area contested with South Sudan, sparking fears of a spillover of the war.

The paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) reportedly killed 41 people by striking a gathering of Internally Displaced People (IDPs) near Sudan’s southeastern border with Ethiopia in the Blue Nile state last Friday, October 9.

Later on Sunday, October 18, air defenses of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), which heads the government, intercepted multiple suicide drones launched by the RSF. The drones targeted Upper Atbara and Setit dam complex in Gedaref state, and the Khashm El-Girba dam in neighboring Kassala.

The following day, on October 19, the RSF launched a wave of drones toward the airport in the national capital, Khartoum. While the air defenses intercepted most of them, one drone struck near the airport, killing four people, including three children.

The RSF took over the capital soon after starting this war in April 2023 against the SAF, the national army with which it had ruled as part of a military junta. The SAF regained control of the capital in March 2025.

In the meantime, later in October 2025, the RSF consolidated control over most of Sudan’s vast western region of Darfur, overrunning the SAF’s last holdout, El Fasher, and depopulating the city in a campaign deemed genocidal by a UN investigation. 

Read more: A bloodbath visible from space: RSF’s massacres in Sudan’s El Fasher   

After thus taking over Darfur – except for some SAF small holdouts on the border with Chad – the RSF has since been pushing eastward toward Khartoum. The Kordofan region in between, comprising three states, has since become a main front of this war.

Here, on October 18, in West Kordofan’s RSF-controlled town of al-Dabba, SAF struck a transport hub that was crowded on a market day, killing 80 people on the spot. 30 others later died in hospital. Another SAF drone also struck a market in the Al-Mujlad town.

Then, on the morning of October 19, SAF drones struck yet another market it suspected to be a source of fuel supply for the RSF, killing 153 people in Abyei, an area disputed by Sudan and South Sudan, ever since the latter seceded from the former in 2011.​

This area in the Nile oil basin has over 4,000 UN peacekeepers and is jointly administered by Sudan and South Sudan. South Sudan’s government summoned Sudan’s ambassador to protest this strike.

A spillover of Sudan’s war into South Sudan could have dire consequences, especially since South Sudan, the world’s youngest country, is itself at a heightened risk of slipping back into its own disastrous civil war, which had claimed up to 400,000 lives between late 2013 and mid-2015.​

The death count of the war in Sudan has been lost after exceeding 150,000 as early as June 2024. By the time the war entered its fourth year in April 2026, drone strikes had become the main driver of civilian casualties in this war, causing 80% of all the civilian deaths in the first four months of this year, killing at least 880 people.  

“We are alarmed by the continued deadly drone strikes across the country that are killing civilians, including children, and that are disrupting essential services,” UN Spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric said on October 19.

​Read more: The war in Sudan is “between two wings of a comprador parasitic capitalist class”

Last March, the US justice system reopened a case regarding the alleged responsibility of former Cuban President Raúl Castro in the shooting down of small planes belonging to the organization Brothers to the Rescue in 1996.

Cuba has categorically rejected the US accusations. The Caribbean nation argues that the accusation is a distortion of the truth, given that Brothers to the Rescue is considered an organization linked to acts of terrorism and provocation against the country’s government.

According to Havana, the aircraft were conducting illegal flights over Cuban airspace. They were reportedly asked repeatedly to refrain from entering Cuban airspace, but these requests were ignored, according to the Cuban justice system. Furthermore, according to the Cuban Foreign Ministry, Havana asked Washington on 25 occasions to prevent these illegal flights. Subsequently, with no response from Washington or Brothers to the Rescue, Cuba proceeded to fire upon the aircraft flying over its territory.

However, the US justice system denies Cuba’s version of events and has sought a conviction for these acts. That is how, on October 19, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier succeeded in having his state issue an arrest warrant for Raúl Castro, then Cuba’s Minister of Defense.

“Raúl Castro ordered the cold-blooded murder of four Florida residents, and the state will never stop pursuing accountability for that communist conspiracy,” Uthmeier said regarding the arrest warrant.

But the Cuban government maintains that Brothers to the Rescue had a different mission than the one it claimed. Cuban Deputy Gerardo Hernández stated: “Although [Brothers to the Rescue] was founded to spot and report the location of rafters to the US Coast Guard in the 1990s, its role shifted toward provocations following the change in immigration policies agreed upon between Washington and Havana in 1995, with the intention of hindering any diplomatic rapprochement and normalization of relations between the two countries.”

For his part, Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel condemned the Florida court’s decision: “The reprehensible action taken against the Army General this morning in a pathetic Miami circus, with an electoral agenda, has no legal basis whatsoever – nor will it ever have one – much less a practical one… In the face of every affront, [Raúl Castro] will always find the determination of a people to defend the Revolution.”

He added: “That maneuver, cloaked in legal pretense and orchestrated by anti-Cuban politicians against Raúl and against Cuba, deserves our firm condemnation. It is part of their aggressive agenda and a response to their failures in attempting to justify the Embargo and the collective punishment against our people.”

For its part, the Mexican government characterized the arrest warrant issued against one of the historic leaders of the 1959 Cuban Revolution as an “electoral maneuver.” This was explained by President Claudia Sheinbaum, who linked the judicial decision to the upcoming midterm elections: “The arrest warrant against Army General Raúl Castro, attributed to the Florida prosecutor’s office, seeks to win the support of segments of the US electorate.”

Russia also condemned the arrest warrant against Raúl Castro, calling it “baseless and false,” and linked it to a powerful political group in Florida: “[It is] revenge by the anti-Cuban lobby in Miami,” said the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The decision is part of a series of measures by the Trump administration against the revolutionary government in Havana, which the US president himself has said he would like to see fall and has on some occasions suggested he might launch a military attack on Cuba.

Trump has imposed economic and trade sanctions that add to the historic economic and trade embargo the United States has imposed on the island for more than 60 years – an embargo that has caused losses amounting to tens of billions of dollars for a country with a population of just 10 million.

Added to this is the recent oil embargo imposed by the United States on the Caribbean island. As a result, throughout 2026, only one oil tanker entered Cuba, which has brought much of the country’s production, transportation, and electricity generation to a standstill. This has led to an increase in mortality rates and reduced access to basic services for the civilian population.

Iran demanded Israel’s expulsion from the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia (CICA) for its crimes against Palestinians and other countries, calling it “the most important source of insecurity and instability” in the region.

“If the international community does not stop America and Israel today, their aggression will spread to all independent countries … it is time for this [Zionist] regime to be expelled from the CICA mechanism,” Iran’s deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said during its meeting on Thursday, October 15.

The seventh summit of the 29 member CICA process, formed in 1999 as an inter-governmental forum for establishing peace, security, and stability in Asia was held in Baku, Azerbaijan on Thursday.

Prior to Iran putting its demand for Israel’s expulsion, representatives of almost a dozen countries including Iran, Turkiye, Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh, and Egypt walked out of the meeting once the Israeli President Isaac Herzog started speaking.

This was the second time this year that a top Israeli official faced mass boycott on international forums. Last month, when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was addressing the annual session of the UN General Assembly, delegates from 77 countries boycotted his speech over the genocide in Gaza and other wars in the region.

Representatives from Kuwait also joined the walk out on Thursday, contradicting recent reports in Israeli and US media about it being one of the probable countries to join the so-called Abraham Accords, devised by US President Donald Trump during his first term in office to end the isolation of Israel in the region. 

Despite the Trump administration’s push, so far only the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco have joined the accords.

Israel is the threat to regional peace

Gharibabadi mentioned how Israel has been involved in two illegal wars against his country within 16 months from its continued “occupation of Palestinian territories, violation of the rights of Palestinian people, and the escalation of tensions in Lebanon, Syria, as well as other parts of the region,” the IRNA reported.

Gharibabadi claimed that his country believes that “one cannot speak of sustainable security in Asia while remaining indifferent to occupation, aggression, military threats, and violation of the rights of the Palestinian nation.”

He also pointed out the broader challenges to regional and global peace and stability, claiming that the CICA meeting was held at a time when the international order is facing “one of its most significant challenges, namely; the “normalization of the use of force, alongside attempts to impose its political will upon independent nations through military aggression, sanctions and threats.”

Gharibabadi highlighted the combined role of Israel and the US, claiming each of the Israeli crimes against the Palestinians and other countries in the region is committed with the support provided by the US who acts as a “big brother” to the Zionist regime.

Answering the concerns raised by several delegates in the meeting, Gharibabadi underlined that peace in West Asia and safe navigation through the waterways in the region is only possible if there is a permanent end to all kinds of aggression and war and there is respect for its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The CICA conference ended with the adoption of the Baku Declaration, which highlighted the need to address growing military, political, economic, and environmental risks.