Anti-Tourism Activists Protest against Bezos-Sánchez Wedding in Venice
Rana Atef
Billionaire Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and his fiancée, Lauren Sánchez, prepare to get married in Venice, Italy.
However, their celebrations have reportedly been impacted by protests, which see the event as a sign of commodification of a fragile city.
Anti-tourist activists from several movements, such as Greenpeace Italy and the U.K. group "Everyone hates Elon" are among those protesting against the wedding ceremony, saying city authorities were prioritizing tourism over resident needs, according Reuters.
Protesters argue the city is being overrun with tourism while steadily depopulating, and needs public services and housing, not over-tourism.
Amid ongoing protests, multiple media outlets, such as CNN and BBC said that there were reports about the wedding celebrations moving outside the city which led protesters to claim victory.
read more
Gold prices rise, 21 Karat at EGP 3685
NATO's Role in Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
US Expresses 'Strong Opposition' to New Turkish Military Operation in Syria
Shoukry Meets Director-General of FAO
Lavrov: confrontation bet. nuclear powers must be avoided
News
Iran Summons French Ambassador over Foreign Minister Remarks
News
Aboul Gheit Condemns Israeli Escalation in West Bank
News
Greek PM: Athens Plays Key Role in Improving Energy Security in Region
News
One Person Injured in Explosion at Ukrainian Embassy in Madrid
News
China Launches Largest Ever Aircraft Carrier
Sports
Former Al Zamalek Player Ibrahim Shika Passes away after Long Battle with Cancer
Videos & Features
Tragedy Overshadows MC Alger Championship Celebration: One Fan Dead, 11 Injured After Stadium Fall
Lifestyle
Get to Know 2025 Eid Al Adha Prayer Times in Egypt
Business
Fear & Greed Index Plummets to Lowest Level Ever Recorded amid Global Trade War
Arts & Culture
Zahi Hawass: Claims of Columns Beneath the Pyramid of Khafre Are Lies
News
Flights suspended at Port Sudan Airport after Drone Attacks
Videos & Features
Video: Trending Lifestyle TikToker Valeria Márquez Shot Dead during Live Stream
News
Shell Unveils Cost-Cutting, LNG Growth Plan
Technology
50-Year Soviet Spacecraft 'Kosmos 482' Crashes into Indian Ocean
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al-Ahram Weekly
35 minutes ago
- Al-Ahram Weekly
ANALYSIS: Will the fragile ceasefire between Iran and Israel hold? One factor could be crucial to it sticking - Region
After 12 days of war, US President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire between Israel and Iran that would bring to an end the most dramatic, direct conflict between the two nations in decades. Israel and Iran both agreed to adhere to the ceasefire, though they said they would respond with force to any breach. If the ceasefire holds – a big if – the key question will be whether this signals the start of lasting peace, or merely a brief pause before renewed conflict. As contemporary war studies show, peace tends to endure under one of two conditions: either the total defeat of one side or the establishment of mutual deterrence. This means both parties refrain from aggression because the expected costs of retaliation far outweigh any potential gains. What did each side gain? The war has marked a turning point for Israel in its decades-long confrontation with Iran. For the first time, Israel successfully brought a prolonged battle to Iranian soil, shifting the conflict from confrontations with Iranian-backed proxy militant groups to direct strikes on Iran itself. This was made possible largely due to Israel's success over the past two years in weakening Iran's regional proxy network, particularly Hezbollah in Lebanon and Shiite militias in Syria. Over the past two weeks, Israel has inflicted significant damage on Iran's military and scientific elite, killing several high-ranking commanders and nuclear scientists. The civilian toll was also high. Additionally, Israel achieved a major strategic objective by pulling the United States directly into the conflict. In coordination with Israel, the US launched strikes on three of Iran's primary nuclear facilities: Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. Despite these gains, Israel has not accomplished all of its stated goals. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had voiced support for regime change, urging Iranians to rise up against Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's government, but the senior leadership in Iran remains intact. Additionally, Israel has not fully eliminated Iran's missile program. (Iran continued striking to the last minute before the ceasefire.) And Tehran did not acquiesce to Trump's pre-war demand to end uranium enrichment. Although Iran was caught off-guard by Israel's attacks — particularly as it was engaged in nuclear negotiations with the US — it responded by launching hundreds of missiles towards Israel. While many were intercepted, a significant number penetrated Israeli air defences, causing widespread destruction in major cities, dozens of fatalities and hundreds of injuries. Iran has demonstrated its capacity to strike back, though Israel has succeeded in destroying many of its air defence systems, some ballistic missile assets (including missile launchers) and multiple energy facilities. Since the beginning of the assault, Iranian officials have repeatedly called for a halt to resume negotiations. Under such intense pressure, Iran has realised it would not benefit from a prolonged war of attrition with Israel — especially as both nations face mounting costs and the risk of depleting their military stockpiles if the war continues. As theories of victory suggest, success in war is defined not only by the damage inflicted, but by achieving core strategic goals and weakening the enemy's will and capacity to resist. While Israel claims to have achieved the bulk of its objectives, the extent of the damage to Iran's nuclear program is not fully known, nor is its capacity to continue enriching uranium. Both sides could remain locked in a volatile standoff over Iran's nuclear program, with the conflict potentially reigniting whenever either side perceives a strategic opportunity. Sticking point over Iran's nuclear program Iran faces even greater challenges when it emerges from the war. With a heavy toll on its leadership and nuclear infrastructure, Tehran will likely prioritise rebuilding its deterrence capability. That includes acquiring new advanced air defence systems — potentially from China — and restoring key components of its missile and nuclear programs. (Some experts say Iran has not used some of its most powerful missiles to maintain this deterrence.) Iranian officials have claimed they safeguarded more than 400 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium before the attacks. This stockpile could theoretically be converted into nine to ten nuclear warheads if further enriched to 90%. Trump declared Iran's nuclear capacity had been 'totally obliterated', whereas Rafael Grossi, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog chief, said damage to Iran's facilities was 'very significant'. However, analysts have argued Iran will still have a depth of technical knowledge accumulated over decades. Depending on the extent of the damage to its underground facilities, Iran could be capable of restoring and even accelerating its program in a relatively short time frame. And the chances of reviving negotiations on Iran's nuclear program appear slimmer than ever. What might future deterrence look like? The war has fundamentally reshaped how both Iran and Israel perceive deterrence — and how they plan to secure it going forward. For Iran, the conflict has reinforced the belief that its survival is at stake. With regime change openly discussed during the war, Iran's leaders appear more convinced than ever that true deterrence requires two key pillars: nuclear weapons capability, and deeper strategic alignment with China and Russia. As a result, Iran is expected to move rapidly to restore and advance its nuclear program, potentially moving towards actual weaponisation — a step it had long avoided, officially. At the same time, Tehran is likely to accelerate military and economic cooperation with Beijing and Moscow to hedge against isolation. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi emphasised this close engagement with Russia during a visit to Moscow this week, particularly on nuclear matters. Israel, meanwhile, sees deterrence as requiring constant vigilance and a credible threat of overwhelming retaliation. In the absence of diplomatic breakthroughs, Israel may adopt a policy of immediate preemptive strikes on Iranian facilities or leadership figures if it detects any new escalation — particularly related to Iran's nuclear program. In this context, the current ceasefire already appears fragile. Without comprehensive negotiations that address the core issues — namely, Iran's nuclear capabilities — the pause in hostilities may prove temporary. Mutual deterrence may prevent a more protracted war for now, but the balance remains precarious and could collapse with little warning. *Ali Mamouri, Research Fellow, Middle East Studies, Deakin University **This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Follow us on: Facebook Instagram Whatsapp Short link:
Egypt Independent
2 hours ago
- Egypt Independent
Iran-Israel conflict: Is that it? Probably not
Brett McGurk is a CNN global affairs analyst who served in senior national security positions under Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Joe Biden. CNN — After 12 extraordinary days in the Middle East, the crisis that began with Israel's military and intelligence operations inside Iran and culminated with U.S. military forces targeting Iran's main nuclear facilities, now appears to be receding. President Donald Trump last night announced a 'ceasefire' later endorsed by both Israel and Iran, albeit not without final attacks by both countries and infliction of casualties. Trump this morning expressed the frustration of many Middle East negotiators, saying neither country at this point knew 'what the fuck they were doing' and calling on both to adhere to his ceasefire plan. The precondition for this fledgling ceasefire was the direct US military attack against Iran's nuclear facilities. As I've been discussing over the past week on CNN, to avoid mission creep and a meandering military campaign without clear objectives, it was important before Trump ordered an attack to be on the same page with Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel — to make clear that an American attack was aimed to mark the beginning of the end of the crisis as opposed to the start of a new phase — and to effectively deter potential Iranian responses. That appears to be precisely what has happened. Iran's response to the first-ever direct US military attack into the heart of Iran — long predicted to be ferocious — was meager: about a dozen missiles telegraphed in advance with most shot down by US and Qatari defenses. It is hard to understate the significance of this now broken taboo of US policy, with Iran now understanding that the United States can and will reach deep into its territory when necessary to defend its personnel and its interests. Iran has long believed that its reliance on asymmetrical proxy warfare would avoid blowback inside its own borders. That belief is now shattered. Over 12 days, Iran lost all its air defenses, most of its missiles, the launchers it needs to deploy them and the plants it needs to build them; the echelon of its military command; and its crown jewel nuclear facilities together with its leading nuclear scientists. Iranian leaders who are still alive know that is so only because Israel and the United States chose to keep them around, to include Iran's Supreme Leader, as Trump even said over the course of the crisis. This satellite image provided by Maxar Technologies shows the Fordow enrichment facility in Iran before and after US strikes. Editors' note: Satellite photo above was rotated by Maxar Technologies, the source of the image, to show the original orientation of the moment the image was taken. Maxar Technologies If nothing else, this has been a remarkable feat of Israeli military and intelligence proficiency, together with American military power that is unmatched globally. The question now is whether this tactical success will translate into strategic gains, which I'd define as threefold: An Iran 1) that will never again dare lurch toward a nuclear weapon or stockpile highly enriched uranium with advanced centrifuges beyond any conceivable civilian-use case; 2) that will never again rebuild a massive missile arsenal to threaten Israel and US personnel throughout the Middle East; and 3) a weakened Iran that is unable or unwilling to rebuild and support its terrorist proxies across the region, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, which has been defeated and notably sat out this recent crisis. As for 'regime change' in Tehran, that is ultimately up to the Iranian people. We can support them through means of communication such as Starlink and Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), but this should not be a declared military objective of the United States, or of Israel for two reasons. First, it is an objective beyond our means to deliver, and with unintended consequence as we have seen elsewhere over the last 20 years. Second, such a declared objective may rebound against the Iranian people most opposed to Iran's repressive regime, enabling further crackdowns and human rights atrocities. Iran's regime after 46 years may well fall into the dustbin of history, as I believe it ultimately will, but that's not what this crisis was about. The United States together with Israel should continue to remain focused on tight and achievable goals — missiles, military capacity and nuclear enrichment. So, what should we watch for over the coming weeks? Israel is likely to retain air supremacy After Hamas' attacks on October 7, 2023, Israel's national security doctrine is to act on any threat before it can gather. That explains its degradation of Hezbollah in Lebanon and its declared policy to never again allow Hamas to control Gaza. It also explains the logic and momentum behind Israel's historic campaign against Iran over the last 12 days. The seeds of that campaign were planted when Iran made the fateful decision shortly after October 7 to join the war and support a multifront campaign against Israel. The corollary to this doctrine is that once Israel gains an advantage over an adversary, it will not easily relinquish such advantage. That means Israel insists on retaining freedom to act against threats — even where (as in Lebanon with Hezbollah) there is a negotiated ceasefire in effect. We should presume that the same will apply in Iran and that Israel will continue to monitor threats and act against them whenever it deems necessary inside a country long dedicated to Israel's destruction. Smoke rises from a location allegedly Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' Sarallah Headquarters north of Tehran on June 23. Elyas/AFP/Etty Images If Iran seeks to reconstitute its strategic air defenses or missile production capacity, or — the most serious case — its nuclear enrichment capacity, then we can assume Israel will act militarily against such reconstitution just as it does in Lebanon and elsewhere. This new equation in the Middle East is the result of the coordinated assault against Israel over the last 20 months, and Israel will insist on it regardless of what the US or anyone else might say or recommend as to how Israel should continue to defend itself. This new equation will hinder Iran's ability to recover from what has been its greatest military setback since the Iranian revolution that brought this regime to power 46 years ago. As noted, it's hard to understate the unprecedented nature of such a visible setback to Iran's revolutionary system, which continues to be nurtured in hostility to its declared Great Satan (the United States) and Little Satan (Israel). Iran may still want a bomb Victory laps in the Middle East can come back to haunt any president and Trump should be wary of declaring an irreversible success. No doubt, this short crisis was well managed and well handled by Trump and his national security team, but the ultimate judgment is far from rendered. The Trump team also had a lot going for it here, including strike options for Iran that had been developed and refined over the last four presidential administrations, as well as an Iran that was already in its weakest position historically by the time of Trump took office this year. But even after 12 days of operations inside Iran, it has not 'unconditionally surrendered' — as Trump had earlier demanded — and it may well retain some of its nuclear capacity. Iran also retains its hardline regime led by an isolated leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has never traveled outside its borders and is likely sheltered without credible information or his most trusted advisers, many of whom are dead. There is a risk that in the aftermath of historic setbacks on his watch, Khamenei chooses to order clandestine efforts to produce a nuclear weapon, viewing such a weapon as now essential for the survival of his regime. This satellite image shows an overview of Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center after it was hit by US airstrikes on June 22. Maxar Technologies That would be far more difficult for Iran to do if US military strikes eliminated or significantly degraded Iran's enrichment capacity and the cascades needed to produce weapons-grade uranium, as the Trump administration claims. It would also be hard to keep a secret. But it would not be impossible. Over the coming days and weeks, we will likely learn more about what remains of Iran's nuclear capabilities. This will be an intensive area of focus for American and Israeli intelligence professionals, and we may not know the results for some time. It's important to allow these professionals to do their work without political interference or pressure from Washington or Jerusalem. To ensure the tactical successes of this week translate into strategic gains, we must know and deal with whatever is left of Iran's program. Iran may also begin to have an internal debate about whether to reconstitute its nuclear enrichment capacity — at massive expense even while the country remains desperately poor — and perhaps move to restore its weaponization program. That would be a serious mistake, with risk of an Israeli and/or American re-attack and crippling international sanctions, but Iran has already made a series of strategic mistakes and miscalculations particularly from October 7 onward, so it's something to consider and warn against. Diplomacy needs a deadline Ultimately, the only way to fully ensure Iran never moves toward a bomb is extensive intelligence work and a diplomatic arrangement to ensure full access for inspectors and strict limitations on any nuclear activity that is not strictly for civilian use. Without a deal of some kind, Iran's activities will proceed in the dark. Before this crisis, there was an American-backed deal on the table that reportedly would have permitted Iran to retain very low enrichment capacity in aboveground facilities for a temporary period as an international consortium was established to cooperatively enrich fuel with full transparency and monitoring. Iran did not take that deal and what it might get now will surely be far worse from its vantage point — to include no enrichment at all inside Iran, even for a temporary period as had been proposed. Iran will balk at this, but it has lost most of its leverage. In addition, the French and the UK have the authority under UN Security Council Resolution 2331, which endorsed the Obama-era nuclear deal, known as the JCPOA, to 'snapback' all international sanctions on Iran if diplomacy fails, thereby retuning Iran to the multilateral sanctions regime it confronted before the JCPOA. Iran has made clear that it's deeply concerned over such a possibility, and it has even threatened — before this crisis — to leave the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty if snapback is invoked. This snapback authority, however, expires in October and needs to be executed before then to take effect. Thus, the end of August has always been seen as the deadline for diplomacy. It's my understanding that London and Paris are committed to this snapback procedure as it offers an important form of leverage and a natural end point to the diplomacy that's likely to begin soon. So, look for diplomacy on what's left of Iran's nuclear program to heat up this summer and reach a point of decision before Labor Day weekend. Don't forget Gaza There is also a deal on the table for a 60-day ceasefire in Gaza with an aim to secure a permanent end to the war if Hamas will release half the living hostages (10 out of 20) that it still holds. Hamas rejected this deal, choosing to remain in its tunnels as civilians suffer above and to holdout for its ultimate demand, which has remained the same since October 7: agreement by Israel that Hamas remains in power in Gaza. Such an agreement from Israel will never come. That is why Washington, across two administrations, has sought a phased process whereby the fighting stops and hostages come home as negotiations proceed about the ultimate resolution of the war with a new Palestinian-led political and security structure in Gaza. Palestinians standing atop a building after an Israeli strike west of Jabalia in the northern Gaza Strip on June 23. Bashar Taleb/AFP/Getty Images After the events of the last 12 days, is that even possible? Yes, and perhaps more so. Hamas cut the three-phase ceasefire deal in January after Hezbollah, with its leadership eliminated, succumbed to pressure and its own ceasefire deal with Israel. With Iran — the ultimate benefactor for these terrorist groups — now under unprecedented pressure as well, and most of Hamas' leadership now dead, the table is set for a restored ceasefire in Gaza. Hamas has sent a delegation to Cairo to discuss the current proposal once again, and sources tell me a deal is close. Israel may even join the talks soon. For everyone who wants this war in Gaza to stop, there should be a resounding call on Hamas to release 10 hostages. If it does so, the war stops immediately. There is no shortcut beyond the deal now on the table, and closing it should remain a priority of US diplomacy with support from allies and partners. A new Middle East? A 60-day ceasefire in Gaza together with an intensive period of diplomacy on whatever is left of Iran's nuclear program carries potential to resolve the regional crisis that Hamas unleashed 20 months ago and to do so in a manner that neither Hamas nor Iran intended. Israel with US support has emerged over this period as the regional power that Iran had long sought — but failed — to become. Resolving the Gaza crisis would open space for the Saudis to again consider establishing diplomatic ties with Israel together with a peace process between Israelis and Palestinians. That is a central demand of Riyadh's and conceivable in exchange for the Saudi deal, especially if Israel over the coming year forms a broader and more centrist governing coalition following elections that could be held soon and no later than next year. But this is the Middle East. Nothing will move in a linear direction. Optimists will be disappointed. But the last 12 days proved the usual pessimists (with predictions of all-out war) wrong as well. The future is likely in the middle, between new and real potential, and always-present peril. How and whether the White House follows through on the opportunities at the end of this crisis presents will determine where we land.
Al-Ahram Weekly
2 hours ago
- Al-Ahram Weekly
Egypt will exert all efforts to sustain Israel–Iran ceasefire: El-Sisi to Iranian counterpart - Foreign Affairs
Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi pledged to continue efforts to uphold the ceasefire between Israel and Iran during a phone call with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Wednesday, according to a presidential statement. El-Sisi welcomed the ceasefire, announced by US President Donald Trump early Tuesday, marking what Trump called the end of 'the 12-day war.' He stressed the need to preserve the ceasefire amid a dangerous regional escalation that had pushed the Middle East to the brink of wider conflict. El-Sisi also condemned Iran's recent missile strike on Qatar, describing it as a violation of state sovereignty and reaffirming Egypt's rejection of attacks on fellow Arab and Islamic nations. On Monday, Iran launched missiles at Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar in retaliation for US airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities the previous day. Those US strikes followed Israel's initial attacks on Iran, which triggered the conflict on 13 June. The call reviewed Egypt's diplomatic efforts to de-escalate tensions, particularly with the US. Both presidents emphasized the urgency of resuming nuclear negotiations between Tehran and Washington. They reiterated support for a weapons-of-mass-destruction-free zone in the Middle East. El-Sisi and Pezeshkian agreed that the region needs comprehensive political solutions for its complex security dynamics. Pezeshkian thanked El-Sisi for Egypt's stabilizing role and efforts to prevent further bloodshed. Ceasefire faces early violations The truce has already come under strain, with breaches by both sides within hours of its announcement. On Tuesday, Iran launched ballistic missiles at the Israeli city of Beersheba, killing at least five people and injuring 20. Israel responded with airstrikes on northern Iran, including residential areas in Gilan province. On Wednesday, Iran executed three men—two Iranians and one Iraqi—accused of spying for Israel and smuggling assassination equipment. According to IRNA, six people have now been executed for espionage since 16 June. The conflict has so far killed at least 28 people and injured over 1,000 in Israel. Iranian casualties have reached the hundreds, according to official figures and the Washington-based Human Rights Activists group. Follow us on: Facebook Instagram Whatsapp Short link:
