Iraq sets election date and US-Russia embassy talks take place
Iraq has set the date for national parliamentary elections this year. The US and Russia are meeting in Istanbul for embassy talks. The number of millionaires living in Dubai has doubled in the past decade, making it one of the world's fastest-growing wealth hubs.
On this episode of Trending Middle East:
Iraq to hold parliamentary elections on November 11
US and Russian officials to meet for second round of embassy talks in Istanbul
A UK tax rate of 67% makes Dubai move the obvious choice for the non-domiciled
This episode features Sinan Mahmoud, Iraq Correspondent; Lizzie Porter, Turkey Correspondent, and Tariq Tahir, Senior Investigations Correspondent.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Dubai Eye
10 hours ago
- Dubai Eye
Russian drone on Ukraine kills 5, injures 23
A Russian drone attack damaged apartment buildings in Ukraine's second-largest city of Kharkiv, injuring 17 people, while killing 5 and injuring 6 in the northern town of Pryluky on Thursday. On the Telegram messaging app, Kharkiv Mayor Ihor Terekhov said the strikes, around 1 a.m., damaged seven apartment buildings, with direct hits on two. Kharkiv has been a frequent target of Russian drones and missiles in the more than three-year-old war. "It flew into our neighbours' apartment next door, and my child and I managed to run out into the hallway," said a resident, Anastasiia Meleshchenko, adding that the ceiling began to crumble after a blast. Emergency services said at least four children were among the injured in Kharkiv. In the town of Pryluky, a one-year-old child and two women were among those killed, Viacheslav Chaus, the regional governor of Chernihiv, said on Telegram, with initial details showing six more injured and hospitalised. At least six drones were used in the overnight attack that damaged buildings in the town's residential area, Chaus said. Reuters could not independently verify the reports. There was no immediate comment from Russia. Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, tens of thousands of people have been killed, with large areas of eastern and southern Ukraine destroyed, and millions forced to flee their homes.
Gulf Today
a day ago
- Gulf Today
Putin is doing to Trump what Trump does to everyone else
John M. Crisp, Tribune News Service Russian President Vladimir Putin did something odd on May 24: He launched 367 drones and missiles against a number of Ukrainian cities, including Kyiv. At least 12 people were killed, including children, and dozens were injured. I'm calling this odd—hold that thought for a moment—but there's nothing unusual about it. The only person who appears to be surprised by another Russian attack on Ukrainian civilians was President Donald Trump, who said, 'I've always had a very good relationship with Vladimir Putin of Russia, but something has happened to him. He has gone absolutely CRAZY!' Trump added that Putin is 'needlessly killing a lot of and drones are being shot into Cities in Ukraine, for no reason whatsoever.' Trump gets the 'needlessly killing a lot of people' part right. He seems to be discovering what everyone already knows: Putin is a killer. He's not just an indifferent perpetrator of collateral damage in an unjust war, he's a murderer who doesn't hesitate to use violence to eliminate political enemies. This is the man that Trump calls 'a strong leader.' But Trump also seems to recognize the odd part of Putin's attacks on Ukrainian civilians, calling them 'Not necessary, and very bad timing.' Putin is winning the war in Ukraine. His most decisive victory occurred on Nov. 5, 2024, when Trump was elected president. The coalition organized by former President Joe Biden to resist Putin's unprovoked attack on Ukraine was seriously undermined by the election. Trump has not only threatened to cut off American aid to Ukraine and alienated Europeans who support Ukraine, but he has suggested a false, sickening equivalence of blame for this war. Putin is still a long way from his goal, which is complete control of Ukraine and, at least, some of the Baltic states. But the 'peace' plan that would be acceptable to Trump and Putin—Ukraine is a different matter—would provide the pause in the war that would allow Putin to consolidate his gains, reconstitute and rearm his military and plan his much-desired reestablishment of some version of the sphere of influence that the Soviet Union enjoyed. So why, with this tactical victory within reach, would Putin commit war crimes against Ukrainian civilians, risking a reawakening of American resistance to his war on Ukraine or, more likely, strengthening European resolve, in lieu of help from the United States, to preserve the liberal world order established after World War II? Here's my theory: Interactions among nations are often driven by rational motivations that emerge from competing economic interests. Nations tend to fight over resources. Sometimes conflicts develop over rival ideologies, but even they often have economic foundations. But sometimes wars are initiated and prolonged by the personalities and temperaments of national leaders, which helps explain why we fought so long in Vietnam or invaded Iraq, at all. Putin is a cruel criminal. But he's also a bully, a warped alpha male. He knows he's got the upper hand in Ukraine, but it's not enough just to win, he has to humiliate and dominate. To rub his opponents' noses in their defeats. Killing a few civilians without any useful military purpose is a small price for Putin to pay in order to demonstrate his dominance. And nothing gratifies an alpha male more than humiliating another alpha male. Compared to Putin, Trump is an amateur. Still, Trump is in a position to have an appreciation for some of Putin's motivations: Just winning is never enough for Trump, either. Civilization faces two daunting crises, compared with which all others—immigration, the global economy, the commercialization of the presidency—are insignificant. Climate change is a genuine threat to civilization or, at least, to the sort of life that we've grown to enjoy. The other great crisis is the ideological battle between the values that the US cultivated and nurtured after World War II—democracy, freedom of speech, rule of law, tolerance, legitimate elections—and the opposite values largely embraced by our adversaries. That conflict is being played out in Ukraine. Unfortunately, the outcomes of both crises are in considerable doubt.
Arabian Post
a day ago
- Arabian Post
Zelenskyy's Reckless Gambit: A Tactical Masterstroke That Threatens Strategic Collapse
M A Hossain By any military measure, Ukraine's 'Operation Spider Web' was an astonishing success. In a meticulously planned operation, Ukrainian drones struck deep into Russian territory, obliterating at least 40 military aircraft—including nuclear-capable Tu-95 and Tu-22M3 bombers—in a single, devastating blow. The attack revealed not only meticulous Ukrainian planning over 18 months but also the glaring vulnerabilities of Russia's so-called impenetrable airspace. It was a coup de main that will be studied in military academies for decades. But as history too often reminds us, tactical brilliance can be the prelude to strategic disaster. The world now holds its breath, waiting to see what comes next. The immediate question is not whether Russia will respond—it will—but how. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy must now reckon with that distinction. Launched on the eve of scheduled peace talks in Istanbul, Spider Web didn't just dismantle a third of Russia's strategic bomber fleet—it may also have dismantled the fragile architecture of diplomacy that remained. If this was a calculated move to strengthen Ukraine's bargaining position, it was cynically timed and perilously shortsighted. It risks transforming what was still, however tenuously, a brutal regional war into an epoch-defining catastrophe. ADVERTISEMENT We've seen this before. In 1914, the assassination of an Austrian archduke triggered a cascade of commitments, mobilizations, and miscalculations that led to a global conflagration. In 1941, Japan, feeling cornered by U.S. embargoes, attacked Pearl Harbor—a masterstroke of surprise that ultimately led to its own annihilation. And in 1962, the Cuban Missile Crisis brought the planet within inches of nuclear oblivion, saved only by backchannel diplomacy and the mutual recognition of unacceptable costs. Ukraine's gamble did not occur in a vacuum. It came at a time when President Trump has been seeking to limit American exposure and end the war, while Europe is increasingly divided over how far to support Kyiv without inviting catastrophe. It also came amid a U.S. political landscape reshaped by Donald Trump's return to the White House, a president who has made clear his disinterest in 'forever wars' and who, notably, has remained silent on this latest escalation. The American public, too, seems less inclined to bankroll Kyiv's ambitions, particularly when those ambitions risk dragging NATO into a direct confrontation with a nuclear adversary. Zelenskyy's supporters will argue this operation was necessary—a bold stroke to jolt Russia from its entrenched positions and to demonstrate Ukraine's capability for long-range asymmetric warfare. They will say it sends a signal to Moscow: Ukraine cannot be intimidated and has the resolve to strike at the heart of Russian military power. They may even compare it to Israel's 1981 strike on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor—a preemptive blow to degrade a long-term threat. But the analogy doesn't hold. Israel acted in secrecy against a latent, undeclared threat. Ukraine struck openly, on the record, against a nuclear-armed power just hours before peace talks. Worse, it struck not against fielded forces in battle, but strategic nuclear bombers inside Russia, a move that risks prompting a doctrinal response from Moscow. Since its updated nuclear posture last year, Russia allows for nuclear use in response to conventional strikes that threaten its strategic deterrent—exactly the kind of attack Spider Web represents. It is no exaggeration to say that Zelenskyy has lit a fuse dangerously close to a powder keg. Which raises a larger question: What exactly was the purpose of this attack? ADVERTISEMENT Some suspect it was less about battlefield utility and more about political optics. With Western support waning and battlefield momentum stalled, Zelenskyy may have felt compelled to show that he still commands initiative—that he remains a credible partner worth backing. There's also speculation that this operation was a plea for continued arms shipments now under threat from Trump's 'America First' administration. But if this was an attempt to impress or pressure Western allies, it may backfire. The attack has already emboldened voices in Washington and Brussels who argue that the war is spiraling out of control. And it gives ammunition to Moscow's propaganda machine, which is portraying the strike as Russia's own Pearl Harbor. When a nuclear power perceives itself as the victim of an existential assault, dangerous decisions follow. We must also ask: was NATO involved? Did European allies—through satellite intelligence or remote drone operations—have a hand in the planning or execution? If so, this operation could cross a previously avoided threshold, bringing NATO into direct conflict with Russia. That's not just a strategic misstep—it's a generational blunder. President Zelenskyy must now answer for the consequences of his audacity. Yes, the strike humiliated Russia. Yes, it exposed the rot within Moscow's security establishment. But the cost of that humiliation could be paid not just in Ukrainian lives, but potentially in the lives of millions across Europe and beyond, should Putin interpret this as justification for escalation. History is littered with leaders who mistook tactical victories for strategic triumphs. Napoleon's march into Moscow, Hitler's advance into Stalingrad, even George W. Bush's 'Mission Accomplished' moment in Iraq—all stemmed from an overestimation of short-term success and a blindness to long-term consequence. Zelenskyy, admired as he rightly is for his courage and resolve, must now be judged for his judgment. By launching Spider Web when he did, and in the manner that he did, he may have sabotaged the very peace he claims to seek. Worse, he has placed the entire international order at the mercy of a man like Vladimir Putin, whose worldview is shaped not by cost-benefit logic but by grievance, pride, and a paranoid sense of historical destiny. The West must now perform a high-wire act. It must reaffirm support for ending the war. It must also demand restraint and a return to diplomacy. A nuclear confrontation, even a 'demonstrative' one over a deserted military base, would rewrite the rules of war and peace for generations to come. It would show that nuclear blackmail works—or that nuclear retaliation can be normalized. Neither outcome is acceptable. Operation Spider Web may be remembered as a brilliant military feat. But unless it is followed by swift and sober diplomacy, it risks becoming a historical monument to hubris—the kind that ignites wars from which there is no return. The lesson from history is chillingly clear: great fires often begin with a single, dazzling spark. Also published on Medium. Notice an issue? Arabian Post strives to deliver the most accurate and reliable information to its readers. If you believe you have identified an error or inconsistency in this article, please don't hesitate to contact our editorial team at editor[at]thearabianpost[dot]com. We are committed to promptly addressing any concerns and ensuring the highest level of journalistic integrity.
