The Ugandan army, which had offered to capture Iran’s capital within 72 hours for Israel earlier this year, is now readying a troop deployment to Gaza under US command.
Discussing the deployment, senior Ugandan military officers were at the US-led Civil-Military Coordination Center in Kiryat Gat on August 17. The town on the edge of the Negev desert – barely 25 km from the northern Gaza Strip – was established in 1955 after depopulating the Palestinian villages of al-Faluja and Iraq al-Manshiya during the Nakba.
Burundi’s military officials were also reportedly present at the meeting here, after which the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) gave them both a tour of the city of Rafa in southern Gaza as part of the “pre-deployment site survey.”
Burundi is yet to confirm the deployment of its troops. However, Uganda’s parliament, practically a rubber stamp with over 70% of the seats held by the ruling party, approved the deployment of its troops on August 6.
This made it the sixth country to join the International Stabilization Force (ISF) proposed by US President Donald Trump’s so-called Board of Peace, envisioned as the 20,000-strong force led by US Major General Jasper Jeffers.
The remaining five contributors of troops hold relatively diverse positions on the Israel-Palestine question. Indonesia has been a vocal critic of Israel, backing South Africa’s genocide case against it at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). It maintains no diplomatic ties with Israel. The largest contributor has reportedly put its 8,000 troop deployment on hold, although it hasn’t formally withdrawn from the ISF.
Kazakhstan, on the other hand, has maintained deep diplomatic ties with Israel since 1992. Morocco joined the Abraham Accords in 2020. Both have done so while mouthing the two-state solution for an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital as official state policy.
The remaining two European countries are staunchly pro-Israel. Albania has announced plans to open a commercial liaison office in Jerusalem. Kosovo has outdone Albania, following Trump’s lead by moving its Israeli embassy to Jerusalem.
The sixth country to come on board, Uganda, professes a commitment to Israel that dwarfs that of the European troop-contributors.
“Any talk of … defeating Israel will bring us into the war” against Iran on “the side of Israel,” Uganda’s military chief, Muhoozi Kainerugaba, posted on X in late March. He is the son and heir apparent of Uganda’s 81-year-old president, Yoweri Museveni, ruling the country since 1986.
After 40 years of rule, Museveni was handed a seventh term by the Electoral Commission in January, following an election marred by “widespread repression and intimidation against the political opposition, human rights defenders, [and] journalists,” according to the UN.
Soon after the results, Kainerugaba began hunting down Museveni’s political opponents, forcing his main challenger in the election, Bobi Wine, into exile, bragging about killing 30 of his party’s members, and swearing to “get them all.”
Israeli military technology, from weapons to surveillance equipment, has long enabled Museveni’s domestic crackdown. Recalling that Israel has supported his regime for decades, “Why wouldn’t we defend her now?” asked Kainerugaba. He added in a subsequently deleted post that the Ugandan military had offered to join the US and Israel in their war efforts against Iran, claiming, “We could have captured Tehran in 72 hours.”
This bold claim of being able to defeat the world’s 16th largest military power, with a military ranked 107 out of 145 countries, was gently mocked, even in the Israeli media at the time.
Nevertheless, barely five months later, Ugandan soldiers began uploading posts on social media, captioned, “Gaza, here we come,” filming themselves loading equipment onto planes – taking off and landing in undisclosed locations.
These posts by Ugandan soldiers began circulating on social media after the Ugandan parliament approved the troop deployment on August 6.
Addressing the parliament ahead of the vote, Maj Gen David Gonyi, parliamentary representative of the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF), explained the rationale of the deployment to the legislators: “Uganda submitted the name of a Ugandan [veteran diplomat, Olara Otunnu] to become Secretary-General of the United Nations. It would be like shooting ourselves in the foot to say that Uganda should not participate in [the] deployment in Gaza.”
Military deployment has long been a central plank of Ugandan diplomacy, currying favor of the Western countries by sending its soldiers to missions in Somalia, South Sudan, Equatorial Guinea, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
Its Somalia deployment has been especially crucial for the Ugandan army to receive training and support from the US Marine Corps and US Africa Command (AFRICOM).
Last November, Johan Borgstam, the European Union (EU) Special Representative for the Great Lakes Region, met Kainerugaba to propose expanding Ugandan troop deployment in DRC, on behalf of Brussels. Borgstam brought this proposal, despite the UN confirming the validity of the DRC’s accusation that Uganda is supporting the M23 armed group, a proxy of Rwanda which, along with its army, has occupied large swathes of the region in a war for DRC’s minerals.
Presenting this Western demand for Ugandan troops as a diplomatic success, Major General Henry Masiko, another parliamentary representative of the UPDF and the Joint Staff Political Commissar, told the legislators: “The UPDF is viewed as the anchor of stability in a sea of turbulence, regionally and now globally.”
He went on to add in his remarks to the parliament that the “doctrine of the force is that we go out not to dance but to confront threats against society and humanity,” in a thinly veiled reference to Palestinian resistance.
Opposition politicians have raised concerns that deploying troops when the Ugandan government has done little to conceal its neutrality may have consequences.
“Some [troops will] return in coffins,” warned Jamal Ayagalaki. “We need answers on who will pay the UPDF, what the terms and conditions of service will be, and what support will be available to soldiers and their families.” He further warned that Uganda’s involvement in a conflict “that is not ours” could expose the country itself to new security threats.
A more thorough criticism of the deployment came not from an opposition leader but from retired General David Sejusa, who had served Museveni as a senior presidential adviser and intelligence coordinator from 2005 to 2013.
The “parliament passed a resolution for peacekeeping, [but] what peace is [there] is Gaza?” he questioned, pointing to the lack of agreement between Israel and Hamas.
“The permanent decommissioning of weapons from non-state armed groups” – i.e. the Palestinian resistance – is one of the tasks the International Stabilization Force must carry out in coordination with Israel, according to the resolution adopted by the UN Security Council in November 2025, with abstentions from Russia and China.
Hamas has refused to hand over weapons to Israel or any foreign force. It has called for the creation of a Palestinian national committee, which will hold the weapons collected from Hamas and other resistance groups within Gaza.
This transfer of weapons, however, can only happen after Israel withdraws from Gaza, Hamas insists. Israel, on the other hand, has refused to withdraw from Gaza until the resistance is completely disarmed.
Therefore, in the absence of any “clear implementable political framework,” Uganda will be deploying troops in an “un-militarized active conflict area … where a belligerent state continues strikes on the occupied population,” Sejusa said. This, he warned, places Ugandan troops at the “risk of complicity in war crimes.”
Équipement-phare des armées de l'air américaine et israélienne, le chasseur F-35 développé aux États-Unis a été adopté par une vingtaine d'États, notamment en Europe, en dépit — ou à cause ? — de la dépendance qu'il impose à ses utilisateurs… En avance sur ses concurrents, ce chasseur furtif se distingue également par un prix prohibitif et des coûts d'exploitation faramineux.
Le 18 mars 2019, la ministre des armées française Florence Parly tançait un parterre d'experts de l'Atlantic Council, un cercle de réflexion américain, à propos des relations entre les membres de l'Organisation du traité de l'Atlantique nord (OTAN). « La clause de solidarité de l'OTAN est l'article 5, pas l'article F-35 », lançait-elle, au moment où Washington incitait fortement un nombre croissant de pays européens à acheter cet avion dernier cri. Depuis, le F-35 Lightning II, chasseur furtif de cinquième génération produit par Lockheed Martin, principal groupe d'armement mondial, est « entré en premier » dans les espaces aériens syrien et iranien sous bannière israélienne, puis lors des guerres israélo-américaines contre l'Iran en 2025 et 2026.
Mis en service en 2015 pour remplacer le F-16 vieillissant, le F-35 se présente comme le chasseur « le plus létal, le plus résistant et le plus connecté du monde (1) ». Il s'agit du plus vaste programme de défense des États-Unis : 72 milliards de dollars par an — soit plus que la totalité du budget du ministère français des armées. À eux seuls, l'US Air Force, l'US Navy et les marines en ont commandé 2 456 exemplaires. Lockheed en construit chaque année entre 170 et 190, mobilisant 1 500 entreprises et 250 000 travailleurs.
En dépit des dérapages financiers, l'appareil dispose de quelques atouts : unique sur le marché, il allie furtivité (peu ou pas détecté par les radars), polyvalence tactique (missions air-air ou air-sol) et versions adaptées (air, marine, et même décollage vertical). Ses concepteurs l'ont pensé comme une « centrale de connectivité » aux fonctions vitales contrôlées en permanence : renouvellement des « bibliothèques de menaces », mise à jour des standards et programmation de la maintenance, en lien organique avec la base de l'US Air Force d'Eglin, en Floride.
Les déficiences de jeunesse de l'appareil — visibilité, surchauffe, etc. — ont été partiellement corrigées au fil des années même si, en 2023, 873 restaient « non résolues ». Un rapport de l'organisme d'audit du Congrès américain paru en juin dernier pointe que les F-35 de l'armée de l'air n'ont été disponibles pour des missions opérationnelles complètes que 28,5 % du temps durant l'année 2025 (au lieu des 65 % initialement programmés par l'US Air Force), en raison de pénuries de pièces détachées, de l'insuffisance des stocks de moteurs, de la lourdeur des opérations d'entretien, de la complexité de l'architecture logicielle (2). La « cannibalisation » (3) de certains appareils a permis de sauver des heures de vol, mais a aussi contribué à désorganiser les chaînes de maintenance. L'OTAN, qui tablait sur une disponibilité de 60 à 70 %, a dû revoir ses plans. Pour tenter de rattraper ce retard, le Pentagone a lancé un programme de remise à plat évalué à 8 milliards de dollars. À l'usage, le F-35 a paru insuffisamment motorisé, peu adapté au combat rapproché (dogfight), limité en capacités de carburant, et donc en rayon d'action, ce qui nécessite de coûteux ravitaillements en vol. Initialement prévue pour 2026, l'évolution vers le standard « Block 4 », qui devrait remédier à certains de ces plafonnements, vise désormais l'année 2031 — au mieux. Mais on pardonne beaucoup à une machine aussi furtive (plusieurs fois moins repérable, par exemple, que le Rafale), conçue pour frapper l'adversaire avant d'être vue.
L'architecture globale de production et de gestion des appareils, à des fins de réduction des coûts, se révèle sensible aux chocs géopolitiques et au manque de certaines matières premières : la construction d'un seul F-35 nécessite en effet quatre cents kilos de terres rares. Installée au début des années 2000, la chaîne d'approvisionnement, qui associe des centaines d'entreprises dans la vingtaine de pays clients, encaisse mal les soubresauts de la mondialisation (tensions géopolitiques sur les métaux rares, tarifs douaniers…). À l'ère des drones et des missiles triomphants, le joyau de l'US Air Force semble parfois issu d'une autre époque.
Et d'une autre économie : son prix de vente varie de 80 à 130 millions de dollars, selon les versions. S'ajoutent entre 9 et 12 millions de dollars par an de mise en œuvre, et l'heure de vol dépasse les 40 000 dollars. Prévoyant des « cauchemars budgétaires », la Suisse, le Canada, l'Australie, et même le Danemark et l'Allemagne — inquiets de ces surcoûts incontrôlables ou échaudés par la géopolitique trumpienne —, ont dû réduire leurs commandes (4). L'Espagne et le Portugal ont même quitté le programme. Au sein de l'administration américaine, on estime ce dernier too big to fail (« trop grand pour échouer »). Sans pour autant oublier son surnom — « l'avion qui a dévoré le Pentagone » —, avec une dépense totale estimée à plus de 2 000 milliards de dollars d'ici à 2088 — date de fin de vie de l'appareil. Le « pire rapport qualité-prix de l'histoire militaire », selon M. Elon Musk, le patron américain de SpaceX et de Tesla.
Le succès du F-35 à l'international a eu pour effet de ponctionner les budgets des pays clients et d'ancrer une partie de leurs industries de défense dans la chaîne d'approvisionnement organisée par Lockheed Martin et le Pentagone, réduisant mécaniquement les possibilités de vente pour les appareils européens concurrents comme les Typhoon, Rafale ou Gripen. Quelques États, embarqués dans l'aventure dès le lancement du chasseur américain, en ont toutefois largement profité : le Royaume-Uni, seul « partenaire de premier niveau » ; les Pays-Bas et l'Italie, en second rang dans la chaîne de production ; ainsi que Singapour et Israël, en tant que membres de l'Agence américaine de coopération en matière de défense et de sécurité (DSCA). Israël jouit du privilège unique d'accéder à une partie des codes sources de l'appareil, afin d'intégrer ses propres armements et systèmes de guerre électronique, rebaptisant le F-35I « Adir » (puissant). L'armée de l'air israélienne avait été la première, dès 2018, à engager des F-35 — pour bombarder la Syrie et l'Iran.
Le centre névralgique d'Eglin a la main sur l'ensemble des capteurs du F-35. L'avion a ainsi acquis la réputation d'être désactivable à distance par un kill switch (« bouton d'arrêt ») dissimulé dans le maquis d'une dizaine de millions de lignes de codes. Démentie sans surprise par le Pentagone et Lookheed, cette possibilité d'un blocage sec — ou, à tout le moins, de pressions depuis les États-Unis (5) — ménage un espace d'incertitude chez des États clients : les F-35 danois se retrouveront-ils un jour neutralisés ou confrontés à ceux de l'exécutif américain, qui ne cesse de revendiquer sa souveraineté sur le Groenland ? Des pays d'Europe centrale ou de l'Est pourront-ils engager sans entrave leurs F-35 en défense ou attaque de forces russes si leur fournisseur et ex-protecteur américain privilégie une approche amicale avec Moscou ?
Grâce à son système de collecte centralisée de données, le F-35 fait figure de « facilitateur de l'implication stratégique américaine, dans une logique de protection et de dépendance consentie » de ses acquéreurs, estime le stratégiste Joseph Henrotin (6) : treize pays européens ayant lancé un renouvellement de leur flotte ont choisi le F-35, soit quelque six cents unités déjà en service ou livrables d'ici à 2035. La gestion américano-centrée assure un maximum d'interopérabilité pour cet appareil devenu de fait « l'avion de l'OTAN » ; mais elle corsète des pays qui croyaient s'assurer par ce coûteux investissement une protection américaine « automatique »… laquelle ne va plus de soi. Bien qu'échaudés, le Danemark, la Belgique, la Pologne ou l'Allemagne restent à bord du programme.
La vassalisation est à son comble lorsque, au titre de la « dissuasion nucléaire partagée » avec quatre armées de l'air ouest-européennes, Washington utilise cette coopération stratégique comme un vecteur de placement de son joyau volant. C'est en effet le seul appareil autorisé à emporter les bombes nucléaires américaines B61. Pour l'Allemagne ou la Belgique, les commandes de F-35 conditionnaient la continuité du lien organique au système de dissuasion américain, quelle que soit l'ampleur du découplage stratégique à l'œuvre entre Américains et Européens : la pleine mise en application de l'« article F-35 », dénoncée en son temps par Mme Parly…
D'autres acteurs, comme la Turquie, ont au contraire été écartés. Pour avoir osé se fournir en systèmes russes de défense antiaérienne S-400, cet État membre de l'OTAN, qui avait d'ailleurs participé à la conception du F-35 dès 2002, s'est vu interdit d'acquisition par M. Donald Trump en 2019. En marge du sommet de l'Alliance atlantique à Ankara en juillet dernier, le président américain a promis à son homologue turc Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, dont le pays est jugé « bien plus loyal que d'autres pays », de faire sauter un jour cet interdit — au risque d'entamer l'avantage stratégique offert par le Pentagone à ses alliés israélien et grec face à ce grand rival régional.
Malgré sa furtivité avancée et son label « avion de l'OTAN », le F-35 n'a pas totalement écrasé la concurrence européenne. Si leur conception remonte aux années 1980-1990, le Gripen suédois, l'Eurofighter anglo-italo-hispano-allemand ou le Rafale français demeurent sur le marché. Après un développement laborieux, ce dernier a finalement été adopté par neuf pays ; plus de cinq cent cinquante machines ont été placées. Plus polyvalent que le F-35, il assure pour le même prix une disponibilité de 80 %, avec une heure de vol à 20 000 euros, et — comme Paris a une maîtrise souveraine de l'ensemble de la chaîne technologique — offre une plus large autonomie stratégique, et donc un certain « non-alignement » politique : cette dernière dimension a convaincu l'Inde et l'Égypte et, en Europe, la Grèce, la Serbie et la Croatie.
Pour les États européens, la perspective d'un futur appareil de sixième génération, franchement furtif, bardé d'intelligence artificielle (IA), voire dronisé, paraît lointaine au moment où pointent déjà des chasseurs turcs, coréens ou chinois prometteurs. D'autant que le projet franco-allemand et espagnol de système de combat aérien du futur (SCAF), qui comprenait un chasseur de cinquième/sixième génération associé à des drones, a été officiellement abandonné en juin dernier. Paris et Dassault comptent s'en tenir à un « Super Rafale », probablement en partenariat avec l'Inde. Et Berlin rêve d'échafauder un nouvel attelage multinational dont il prendrait la tête et assumerait l'essentiel du financement.
Autre pari sur les années 2035-2040 : le Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP), lancé en 2022 par le Royaume-Uni, l'Italie et le Japon, et possiblement le Canada. Comme le défunt SCAF, il se veut un « système de systèmes » autour d'un chasseur de cinquième/sixième génération baptisé « Tempest », coordonnant sur un théâtre d'opérations des drones, radars, tirs, actions au sol et en mer, etc. Mais le projet souffre d'un retard de plusieurs années et déjà de surcoûts que les gouvernements hésitent à endosser… L'idée d'une fusion entre ces programmes-phares paraît peu partagée. Le chancelier allemand Friedrich Merz, occupé à construire l'armée « la plus puissante d'Europe (7) », a douché cet espoir : « Aurons-nous encore besoin dans vingt ans d'un avion de combat piloté ? »
(1) « The most advanced fighter jet in the world », site de présentation du F-35.
(2) « F-35 sustainment : Actions needed to ensure updated strategy improves persistent readiness challenges », Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC, 11 juin 2026.
(3) Le terme désigne dans ce contexte le dépiautage d'un avion ou d'un char immobilisé pour réparer d'autres appareils.
(4) « F-35, du plomb dans l'aile ? », Défense en ligne, 21 mars 2025.
(5) Suspension ou retard de mises à jour, modification des règles et tarifs d'abonnement, interruption de l'accès à des pièces détachées, blocage de la communication avec le renseignement aérien…
(6) Joseph Henrotin, Un avion pour les gouverner tous. Le F-35, prisme de la dépendance stratégique européenne, Éditions du Rocher, Monaco, 2026. Voir la recension de cet ouvrage dans le numéro de juillet 2026.
(7) Lire Pierre Rimbert, « Le retour du refoulé », dossier « Une Allemagne “prête à la guerre” ? », Le Monde diplomatique, septembre 2026.
In this edition: the cuckoo’s nest, fruitful work, keys and locks, commander in fief; perfect sound forever, and more.
In this personal essay at The New Yorker, Anna Holmes writes about growing up in Davis, California, a college town near Sacramento; the financial challenges her mixed-race family faced; and what it means to come from a family without the generational wealth that can make homeownership, and the financial security that comes with it, possible.
It’s hard to hear people who own property grumble about how little money they have. One friend who regularly moans about money has a four-bedroom home on the West Coast and a vacation house in New England. I’m unmoved by the financial lamentations of another friend, who owns a town house in New York with an apartment for a nanny or an in-law. Stuff like this makes me want to scream. Demonstrate some modicum of self-awareness! Read the fucking room! When a friend told me that her parents were going to help her buy a second home, I made a pointed remark that it must be nice to have access to that sort of capital. She conceded the point, graciously, and we moved on.
The truth is told very well with images. A picture says a thousand words, and memes a few more. These pages have lots of images and memes that focus on the truth. Click image to enlarge + use arrows to navigate.
In our relentlessly optimized world, Justin Neuman calls for more nothing. More time for both adults and kids to engage in free, unstructured play. More opportunities to play games without competition or scoring. More chances to do things without needing to produce outputs or achieve goals. More “transitional spaces” through which we can practice, imagine, and think.
For years, I’ve commuted on foot from Grand Central Station to 14th Street, 30 blocks, give or take. I told myself it was exercise, or that I was saving the subway fare, or that I liked the air. But the truth is I was thinking. Or rather, I was letting thinking happen. The lecture I couldn’t outline at my desk would assemble itself somewhere around 34th Street, the important points falling into sequence with my footfalls, the argument clarifying as if the motion itself were doing the editing. I wasn’t working on the lecture. I was walking in it, the way my kids were playing in Catan.
The truth is told very well with images. A picture says a thousand words, and memes a few more. These pages have lots of images and memes that focus on the truth. Click image to enlarge + use arrows to navigate.
The truth is told very well with images. A picture says a thousand words, and memes a few more. These pages have lots of images and memes that focus on the truth. Click image to enlarge + use arrows to navigate.
The truth is told very well with images. A picture says a thousand words, and memes a few more. These pages have lots of images and memes that focus on the truth. Click image to enlarge + use arrows to navigate.
Related:
The truth is told very well with images. A picture says a thousand words, and memes a few more. These pages have lots of images and memes that focus on the truth. Click image to enlarge + use arrows to navigate.
The European Commission wants to cut the EU’s public procurement rulebook from around 900 pages to 200, in a sweeping reform that aims to simplify tendering while giving governments greater scope to favour European economic and security interests, writes Catherine Feore.
Executive Vice-President Stéphane Séjourné held up the existing body of rules alongside its much slimmer replacement, to illustrate his point.
“These here are the European rules which currently govern public procurement in Europe: 900 pages,” he said. “And this is what we are proposing today… down to 200 pages.”
The proposed Public Procurement Act would replace three EU procurement directives with a single regulation, with a view to simplifying procurement provisions spread across 26 sectoral laws and cutting the number of procedures from five to three.
The Commission estimates the changes could save businesses and public authorities €650 million a year in administrative costs.
The reform matters because of Europe’s massive purchasing power involved. EU public procurement exceeds €2.5 trillion annually, around 15% of EU GDP, covering everything from trains and hospitals to energy infrastructure, schools and IT systems.
From lowest price to strategic purchasing
The proposal is not just about cutting red tape. Brussels wants governments to use their purchasing power more strategically.
The Best Price-Quality Ratio would become the standard method for awarding contracts, with quality normally accounting for at least 30% of the assessment and 50% for labour-intensive contracts. Authorities could consider environmental and social performance, innovation, security and resilience alongside price.
The commitment to a so-called European preference has been tempered by the EU’s international commitments, but access can be restricted when a country doesn’t reciprocate market access. Restrictions could also be imposed where reliance on foreign suppliers creates security-of-supply dependencies or threatens EU economic security.
“European public money should, wherever possible, create jobs, investment and opportunities in Europe rather than filling the order books of our competitors,” Séjourné said.
Five procurement procedures would become three: open, dynamic and innovation procedures. Each would allow negotiation between buyers and bidders.
The Commission also plans an integrated EU digital procurement marketplace connecting national e-procurement platforms. A company registered through one connected system should be able to bid elsewhere in Europe without repeatedly submitting the same documentation. This is intended to reduce bureaucracy and tackle one of the current system's weaknesses: too little competition, particularly from SMEs and companies bidding across borders.
National, regional and local priorities may appreciate this flexibility in theory, but constrained budgets often mean that price will remain the bottom line for many. This legislation offers greater freedom in determining needs, but it remains to be seen what its impact will be.
PHOTO CREDIT: European Commission Executive Vice-President Stéphane Séjourné says the rules reduced from 900 pages to 200 pages © European Union
The European Commission calls it the Affordable Housing Act and says it can “truly bring a change in people’s lives”. But how much will it actually do to make housing more affordable, asks Catherine Feore?
The tension at the heart of the proposal is that Brussels is making ambitious claims about tackling the housing crisis while simultaneously making clear that it is not imposing new housing policies on governments or cities.
Commission President Ursula von der Leyen says the measure fulfils a promise to tackle housing affordability, describing it as “one step in this direction” and declaring: “Today, we are delivering for all Europeans.” Housing Commissioner Dan Jørgensen went further, saying the Act gives governments and cities tools to “make more affordable homes available”.
Yet the proposed legislation itself is considerably more cautious.
The Commission acknowledges that insufficient housing supply is the structural cause of the affordability crisis. Short-term rentals, second homes and other non-primary uses are not the root problem, although they can exacerbate shortages and push up prices in already constrained markets.
Housing stress test
The Act principally delivers a common legal framework for authorities that choose to intervene.
Central to this is a new EU test for housing stress. An area would normally qualify where an average home costs at least eight years of disposable per-capita income, that ratio has increased over the previous decade, and pressures are unlikely to ease over the next three years. At a ratio of ten or more, the historical deterioration test is dropped. Population dynamics, housing supply and demand must also be assessed.
Authorities could then restrict short-term rentals outside a host’s primary residence or tackle second homes, prolonged vacancy and certain other non-primary uses. But there is no obligation. They must also demonstrate that the activity has significantly harmed housing affordability or availability for at least three years, and any restriction must be targeted, necessary and proportionate. This seems to set a high bar of evidence for most local authorities.
Currently, local authorities must notify the Commission of short-term rental restrictions under the Services Directive. That notification requirement will no longer be required. Cities can use the new framework without seeking prior Commission approval, although measures must be published and remain open to legal challenge. Officials argue this will remove a burdensome procedure and make intervention easier.
But the Commission is equally explicit about what it is not doing. The Act does not regulate rents, harmonise housing policy, give Brussels new housing competences, dictate taxation, inheritance or planning, or require, recommend or encourage authorities to impose restrictions. Housing policy choices “remain national, regional and local”.
Executive Vice-President Teresa Ribera says that when markets fail to provide affordable homes, “public authorities have a responsibility to act”. But the Act does not compel that action; it provides a stronger legal framework if authorities choose to act independently.
Its impact could be real in tourist hotspots where non-primary housing use is demonstrably worsening shortages. But it cannot itself build a home or lower a rent. The question is whether a clearer legal toolbox matches the expectations created by the Commission’s promise to tackle Europe’s housing crisis. When asked to quantify how much of a difference the new provisions could make, the Commission couldn’t give precise figures, saying that it would depend on the measures adopted.
PHOTO CREDIT: Teresa Ribera, Executive Vice-President of the European Commission for a Clean, Just and Competitive Transition, and Dan Jørgensen, European Commissioner for Energy and Housing, give a press conference on the affordable housing Photographer: Jennifer Jacquemart © European Union
The truth is told very well with images. A picture says a thousand words, and memes a few more. These pages have lots of images and memes that focus on the truth. Click image to enlarge + use arrows to navigate.
The truth is told very well with images. A picture says a thousand words, and memes a few more. These pages have lots of images and memes that focus on the truth. Click image to enlarge + use arrows to navigate.
by Fabio Giuseppe Carlo Carisio – Gospa News founder and director
UPDATE ON SEPTEMBER, 7, 2026
«The Iranian judiciary has released the initial findings of an investigation showing that weapons used in a US bombing attack earlier this week on a wedding ceremony in the south of the country were American-made», Iranian Press TV Reported yesterday.
The head of the Iranian judiciary’s local branch in the southern province of Hormozgan said on Saturday that projectile fragments scattered around the site of a wedding ceremony on September 1, killing five people including a children, had been examined as part of the investigation, showing they were manufactured by US company Raytheon.
“The nature of the weapons used in the terrorist attack on civilian gatherings in Kohestak, Sirik, has been fully documented using advanced technical analysis tools and image data processing,” said Mojtaba Ghahremani.
Ghahremani said investigators had carried out a meticulous examination of the inscriptions, barcodes, and other details engraved on the projectile remains, leaving no doubt that the munitions belong to the US military.
He said the type of military thermal battery used in the ammunition revealed that it is from a series of high-voltage batteries used exclusively in the flight guidance systems of precision-guided bombs operated by US military forces.
The official said a military identification code, CAGE Code: 96214, registered on the projectile fragments directly links it to the weapons company Raytheon Missiles & Defense, a major US defense contractor and industrial corporation that manufactures weapons as well as military and commercial electronics.
Much more important than official release is the image and the video from wreckage that at first had induced the experts to identify the weapon as am AGM-84H SLAM-ER cruise missile (read below).
On the tiny identification plate there is in fact the writing AGM – I 154 C-I which corresponds to the glide-bomb AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW) produced by Raytheon under the stamp NAVAIR which is the matrix of the American weapons used in the joint activity formed by the US Navy and US Air Force.
The AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW) is a glide bomb that resulted from a joint venture between the United States Navy and Air Force to deploy a standardized medium-range precision-guided weapon, especially for engagement of defended targets from outside the range of standard anti-aircraft defenses, thereby increasing aircraft survivability and minimizing friendly losses.
It is intended to be used against soft targets such as parked aircraft, trucks, armored personnel carriers (APCs), and surface-to-air missile sites (SAMs). Prior to launch, it is given a destination through either a predesignated waypoint or a point marked through a targeting pod. It glides, using two wings that pop out for added lift, to the marked destination and dispenses submunitions in a short, roughly linear pattern.
The designation of the Joint Standoff Weapon as an “air-to-ground missile” is a misnomer, as it is an unpowered bomb with guidance avionics, similar to the older GBU-15.
But in this specific case, a more sophisticated weapon was used for the attack on the wedding ceremony…
The AGM-154C uses an Imaging Infrared (IIR) terminal seeker with autonomous guidance. The AGM-154C carries the BROACH warhead. This two stage 225 kg (500 lb) warhead is made up from a WDU-44 shaped augmenting warhead and a WDU-45 follow through bomb. The weapon is designed to attack hardened targets. It entered service with the US Navy in February 2005.
The use of this projectile minimally mitigates the implications of the attack ordered by the US Navy by US President Donald Trump; in fact, autonomous guidance oriented by the target’s heat source implies the possibility of an error that the SALM-ER guided cruise missile does not allow.
Below is a live-fire video released by the Royal Australian Air Force demonstrating the actual use of an AGM 154-C glide bomb
But at the same time, it appears to be a completely disproportionate weapon to hit a transmission tower, which, according to leaks from US officials, was the target of the attack (read detaisl below).
Therefore, the hypothesis of a targeted bombing to destroy a civilian home, as on Qeshm Island, remains valid.
This is why Iran has filed an international complaint for war crimes…
Iran’s Red Crescent Society (IRCS) has called on the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate a US missile attack on a wedding reception in the country’s southern province of Hormozgan, which killed at least five people and wounded 68 others.
The deadly incident occurred when shrapnel from a US attack struck a residential building where a wedding reception was being held in the city of Kouhestak, in Hormozgan’s Sirik County on Tuesday.
In a letter to the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor, the IRCS said the attack raised serious concerns under international humanitarian law and warranted an independent, impartial, thorough and effective investigation.
“Given the reported civilian character of the location as the venue of a family wedding ceremony, as well as the presence of civilians at the site, the incident raises serious concerns under international humanitarian law and warrants an independent, impartial, thorough, and effective investigation,” the organization said.
The IRCS said preliminary information initially indicated that four people had been killed and 67 others wounded. Iranian health officials later raised the toll to at least five fatalities and 68 injuries, with a child among those killed.
The IRCS warned that the number of casualties could rise because some of those wounded were in critical condition.
FIRST POSTED ON GOSPA NEWS ON SEPTEMBER, 4, AT 7,28 AM GMT + 2 (Italy)
A US-made AGM-84H SLAM-ER cruise missile has been identified among the wreckage following the American strike on a wedding ceremony in Sirik, southern Iran, late Tuesday, adding further evidence of the US military’s role in the attack that killed and wounded civilians.
Weapons analyst Trevor Ball identified the remnants as belonging to the SLAM-ER, a precision-guided, air-launched cruise missile manufactured by Boeing, according OsintWarfare which posted on X the first video of wreckage and was quoted by Al Mayaeedn English Lebanese TV.
Boeing describes the SLAM-ER as being the most accurate air-launched munition in the US Navy’s arsenal;
Trevor Ball, a former US Army explosive ordnance disposal technician who now works as a weapons technical analyst for Armament Research Services, was among the experts asked by Reuters to examine the photographs and video.
“The damage seen appears to be from a munition which detonated on contact with the roof, or just above the roof,”he said, adding it was apparently a direct hit.
VIDEO LEGEND:
1st footage – The US-made AGM-84H SLAM-ER cruise missile has among the wreckage following the American strike on the wedding cerimony
2nd footage – Children’s slippers lie scattered in the aftermath of the US aggression at a wedding in Sirik, where civilians, including children, were killed and dozens more were injured. Footage from the scene shows slippers belonging to women and children amid the destruction.
After this initial analysis, both Iranian and international sources tried to identify the weapon, with some ballistics experts even launching the bizarre hypothesis that it was a ricochet shot, a hypothesis considered unlikely by most, however.
But one thing seems certain…
«A US munition struck a home hosting a wedding celebration in southern Iran directly, rather than ricocheting from another target, weapons experts who reviewed images and video verified by Reuters revealed» Al Mayadeen reported.
The strike in the small town of Kuhestak on Tuesday killed five people and injured at least 70 others.
So on Thursday, US Vice President JD Vance he was induced to declare that Washington was investigating the incident, despite the initially Pentagon deny of any responsibility…
“We’re investigating it because obviously we care. We want to know,”Vance said during a White House press briefing.
«Four military weapons experts who checked visual material told Reuters that the damage was consistent with a direct strike rather than secondary damage caused by a munition ricocheting from another target. Three of the experts stressed that the weapon was likely American rather than a misfired Iranian air defense missile» Al Mayadeen added many hours after its and our first articles posted on September 4, at 7,28 AM GMT + 2 (Italy)
Two US officials, speaking anonymously, said the US military had conducted strikes near Kuhestak on Sept. 1, with the town’s telecommunications tower as a specific target.
Satellite imagery places the tower about 135 meters from the wedding site. Iranian media reported that the tower was struck at about 9:30 pm local time.
But the same expert Trevor Ball debunked US Official speculation…
“The visible blast damage could not result from fragments from the nearby strike on the communications tower striking the area,” he stressed.
AGM-84H SLAM-ER cruise missile is a weapon designed for precise strikes and can be retargeted during flight by a human operator.
Therefore, if it were confirmed that this very powerful rocket, the wreckage of which was found on site, was used, the issue would take on an unprecedented gravity.
Boeing describes the SLAM-ER as being the most accurate air-launched munition in the US Navy’s arsenal; therefore, it can be inferred that it was deliberate, adding to a long list of US strikes on civilian gatherings in West Asia that we summarized in a Gospa News exclusive investigation, focused above all on the previous massacres in Minab school and island of Qeshm, where Trump’s Military used a bunker-bomb of 1ton.
Which is the Trump’s goal of these henoisou war crimes even vs children?
Simple: Terrorize the Iranian population by fomenting a revolution, as attempted in January 2026 by the counter-strategies of the CIA (USA) and MOSSAD (Israel), through the infiltration of well-trained ISIS jihadist mercenaries who used Israeli projectiles, leaving clear evidence of the plot.
The mad ambition of the Zionist terrorist who leads the United States thanks to the votes of the Zionist Lobby is to split the Iranian authorities, as happened in Venezuela, in order to stage a coup like the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.
But in Tehran, there is a very serious religious theocracy, armed above all with hypersonic missiles, and perhaps even nuclear ones, donated by Russia, China, or North Korea…
Speaking about the attack, Head of Iran’s Expediency Discernment Council Sheikh Amoli Larijani said, “The crime in Sirik and the killing of unarmed women and children embody the savage nature and deceptive self of the United States, and expose the falsehood and audacity of those who trade in human rights.”
A four-year-old child was among four people laid to rest in the southern Iranian city of Kuhestak on Thursday, as grieving families and residents gathered to bid farewell to loved ones killed in a US attack on the area, Al Matadeen Lebanese TV reported.
The funeral ceremonies in Kuhestak, in Sirik County of Hormozgan Province, began at 4 pm from a street at the city’s entrance, with mourners walking together toward the city’s Martyrs’ Cemetery, where the victims were laid to rest.
The authorities identified the four victims as four-year-old Amirali Karimi, 16-year-old Mohammad Mollahi, 43-year-old Kolthoum Mollahi Nezhadnia, and 50-year-old Zarkhatoun Taheri.
According to the announced figures, the US aggression left 68 people injured, several of whom remain under medical treatment. Al Mayadeen’s correspondent reported that the death toll from the US aggression targeting the wedding ceremony in Sirik had risen to five.
Iran has called on the UN Security Council to condemn an unprovoked and deadly US attack on a residential home hosting a wedding ceremony in southern Islamic Republic that led to the martyrdom of five civilians, including a four-year-old child, and injured more than 70 others.
Gholamhossein Darzi, the Islamic Republic’s ambassador and chargé d’affaires to the United Nations, made the appeal in a letter addressed to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and the president of the Security Council on Wednesday following a new wave of such American strikes targeting southern Iranian cities, which together claimed the lives of at least 18 people and wounded 108 others.
The chief commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) has said that the blood of those killed in a US attack on a wedding ceremony in Kouhestak, Hormozgan Province, “will never go unanswered” and that it will ultimately “catch up with those who ordered and carried out this heinous crime.”, Iranian Press TV wrote.
State media reports debris recovered from a home attacked in southern Iran during a wedding celebration was “most likely” from a US-made, AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon – a guided-glide munition, also Al Jazeera reported before the exatly identification as pieces of a US-made AGM-84H SLAM-ER cruise missile
Broadcaster IRIB said images released by US Central Command of attacks in southern Iran showed a F/A-18 Super Hornet loaded with a similar munition.
The targeted house was 200 metres (650 feet) from a communications tower, and the strike could not have been an error given the munition’s accuracy, reports said.
The Sirik strike came amid a renewed wave of US aggression against Iran, with American forces targeting sites across the country’s southern provinces.
Iranian authorities reported attacks on Bandar Abbas, Jask, Minab, Chabahar, Konarak, Lengeh, Qeshm Island, and other areas, including communications and service infrastructure.
The escalation prompted Iran to launch retaliatory missile and drone strikes against US military positions across the region, including bases in Jordan, Bahrain, Kuwait, the UAE, and Erbil, in which several US troops lost their lifes in the name of Trump’s Zionist.
The heinous Trump’s Military strikes on civilians in Iran caused a genocide of more than 7 thousand people.
by Fabio Giuseppe Carlo Carisio – Gospa News founder and director
RELATED POSTS
In mid-August, The New York Times lost a defamation lawsuit in Alabama. It’s the first such case the paper has lost in more than half a century. Back in 2023, the Times reported that a University of Alabama basketball player named Kai Spears was at the scene of a fatal shooting—information that turned out to be false, and based on a single anonymous source. A jury found the paper liable for damages to the tune of $9.25 million. Ryan Phillips, the only reporter to attend the duration of the defamation trial, describes the experience:
Chief among the post-publication issues was the Times‘ reluctance to issue a correction or retraction when it became immediately clear that Witz’s anonymous source had been wrong in their assertion that Spears was in Miller’s car during the shooting.
The jury heard lengthy testimony about how the newspaper published “updates” in the form of “Editor’s Notes” to the online story to reflect each new denial coming from the University of Alabama, UA Director of Athletics Greg Byrne, Spears’ father, and then the Alabama walk-on himself in an Instagram post.
Apart from the updates, which the Times argued were tantamount to a correction when applying Alabama law to the evidence, the story remained unchanged until an official correction was eventually published by The New York Times on June 3, 2023.
Login