The new restrictions expand on the list from June and are broader and more punitive than those during Trump’s first presidency, which largely targeted Muslim-majority countries and which were reversed in 2021.

The African Union urged the United States to protect its borders in “a manner that is balanced, evidence-based, and reflective of the long-standing ties and partnership” between the U.S. and Africa, the bloc’s spokesman Nuur Mohamu said.

The stance was a repeat of the statement by the bloc in June, when U.S. President Donald Trump revived the travel restrictions from his first term in office.

The expanded ban

Of the five countries whose citizens joined the list on Tuesday of those banned from entering the United States, four are in Africa — Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger and South Sudan, which was already facing significant travel restrictions. Also on the list are Syria and people with travel documents issued by the Palestinian Authority, which runs the West Bank.

Some other countries — including Sierra Leone in Africa and Laos in Asia — were subject to partial restrictions during Trump’s first presidency and also in June, and were now moved to the full restrictions list.

Twelve of the 15 countries that face partial restrictions are also in Africa. They include Angola, Benin, Ivory Coast, Gabon, Gambia, Malawi, Mauritania, Nigeria, Senegal, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe. The rest are two Caribbean nations — Antigua and Barbuda, and Dominica — and Tonga in the South Pacific.

Trump’s expanded measures also link entry limits to security, documentation and visa-overstay concerns.

The 55-nation African Union warned of the “potential negative impact of such measures on people-to-people ties, educational exchanges, commercial engagement, and the broader diplomatic relations” built over decades.

Sierra Leone, now moved to the full ban list, said in a statement Wednesday that it hoped to engage Washington and get it to review the decision. The impoverished West African country said it would “remain committed to strengthening international cooperation and addressing immigration concerns raised by the U.S. government,” adding that officials are “actively engaged in ongoing, constructive dialogue with U.S authorities.”

In Mali, which was added to the full ban list on Tuesday, foreign ministry press officer Samuel Saye said it was “too early for us to comment” — something many other officials across Africa echoed.

An unfair measure, many say

Several analysts and activists described the measures as unfair, a sign of incoherent U.S.–Africa relations and an opportunity for Washington’s rivals such as Russia and China to further entrench ties with Africa.

Some ordinary citizens expressed their unease and concerns.

“I believe this position is unfair because it paints all Nigerians with the same brush,” said Ramlah Ibrahim Nok, a business lawyer in Nigeria’s capital, Abuja. Nigeria is on the list of partial restrictions.

Many Nigerians travel for “education, business and tourism,” she said and added that authorities in her own country should also do their part in confronting issues such as visa overstays by Nigerians who travel to the U.S.

Beverly Ochieng, an analyst at Control Risks Group in Dakar, Senegal’s capital, predicted that Trump’s ban will likely make relations between the U.S. and various African countries “incoherent, unpredictable and challenging.”

The measure also reduces prospects for cooperation and may push some governments to look elsewhere to build strong partnerships.

“It’s very unfortunate,” said Mohamed Keita, a 45-year-old Malian resident, adding that Washington’s “decision may penalize Malians who do business with the United States.”

Also in Mali, Abdoulaye Fofana, 31, said he feared retaliation if Malian authorities “apply the principle of reciprocity, it is the bi-national Malians who will be affected.”

Bad timing

Sports enthusiasts are also worried, especially those hoping to travel to the 2026 soccer World Cup matches in the U.S., which is co-hosting the competition with Canada and Mexico.

Pape Seye, a taxi driver in Dakar, said he heard of “FIFA exemptions for the players and staff of the qualified teams” but was concerned whether “fans will be able to go as well” under the new measure.

In South Sudan, which was added to the full ban list, human rights activist Rajab Mohandis said the measure is “an open expression of increasing frustration of the Trump administration with the government” in the African country.

He added that the ban is “a way of invoking diplomatic consequences” following U.S. concerns over the slow implementation of a peace agreement signed in 2018 to end five years of conflict in South Sudan that left more than 400,000 people dead.

AP

The post Trump’s expanded travel ban hits Africa the hardest but reactions are muted appeared first on Inside Politic.

The main memorial is being organized by the bereaved families, separate from a ceremony the government will hold on the anniversary next week, according to the Hebrew calendar. The split reflects deep divisions over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ’s leadership, which many blame for the failure to secure a ceasefire that would free the remaining hostages held by the militants.

In the Gaza Strip, where Israel’s retaliatory offensive has killed tens of thousands of people and razed entire towns and cities, those who can are fleeing another Israeli invasion of Gaza City while others are sheltering in place. Many are unable to make the arduous and costly journey south.

The worst attack in Israel’s history

It’s been two years since thousands of Hamas-led militants poured into southern Israel after a surprise barrage of rockets. They stormed army bases, farming communities and an outdoor music festival, killing some 1,200 people, mostly civilians, including women, children and older adults.

They abducted 251 others, most of whom have since been released in ceasefires or other deals. Forty-eight hostages remain inside Gaza, around 20 of them believed by Israel to still be alive. Hamas has said it will release them only in exchange for a lasting ceasefire and an Israeli withdrawal. Netanyahu has vowed to continue the war until all of the captives are returned and Hamas has been disarmed.

The attack set in motion a cascade of events that led Israel into combat with Iran and its allies across the region, including Lebanon’s Hezbollah, which suffered major losses. The United States joined Israel in attacking Iran’s military and nuclear program in a 12-day war in June.

Israel has killed several top militants as well as Iranian generals and nuclear scientists, and it has vastly depleted the military capabilities of its enemies while seizing control over most of Gaza as well as parts of Lebanon and Syria.

But the failure to return the hostages has left the country deeply divided, with weekly mass protests against Netanyahu. Israel is more isolated internationally than it has been in decades.

A memorial at the scene of a massacre

Nearly 400 Israelis were killed and dozens abducted from the Nova music festival in the border community of Reim. Over the last two years, it has emerged as a memorial site, with portraits of the kidnapped and fallen affixed to Israeli flags.

There’s no official ceremony at the Nova site, due to the Jewish holiday of Sukkot, which coincides with the anniversary. Yet, scores of people descended on the site to share memories of relatives and friends who were killed, weaving through hundreds of photos encircling the spot where DJ booth stood. At 6:29 am, the exact time the attack began, the music — the same track that revelers were listening to at the time — stopped for a moment of silence.

Meanwhile, explosions echoed from Gaza. The army said a rocket was launched from northern Gaza in the morning, but no damage or injuries were reported.

The main memorial ceremony will be held in Tel Aviv and will include musical performances and speeches. It’s being organized by Yonatan Shamriz, whose brother, Alon, was among three hostages mistakenly killed by Israeli forces after they escaped captivity early in the war.

Israel and Hamas discuss Trump peace plan

Israel and Hamas held indirect talks Monday in the Egyptian resort town of Sharm el-Sheikh to discuss a new peace plan put forward by U.S. President Donald Trump. The talks were to continue Tuesday.

The war has already killed over 67,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry, part of the Hamas-run government, which does not say how many were civilians or combatants. It says women and children make up around half the dead, and many independent experts say its figures are the most reliable estimate of wartime casualties.

Israel’s offensive has displaced around 90% of Gaza’s population of some 2 million, often multiple times, and restrictions on humanitarian aid have contributed to a severe hunger crisis, with experts saying Gaza City is experiencing famine.

Experts and major rights groups have accused Israel of genocide, and the International Criminal Court is seeking the arrest of Netanyahu and his former defense minister for using starvation as a method of war.

Israel vehemently denies the allegations, saying it is waging a lawful war of self-defense and taking extraordinary measures to avoid harming civilians. It blames Hamas for the death and destruction in Gaza because the militants are deeply embedded in populated areas.

Hamas portrayed the Oct. 7 attack as a response to decades of Israeli land seizures, settlement construction and military occupation. But the attack has exacted a catastrophic toll on the Palestinians, whose dream of an independent state appears more distant than ever.

-AP

The post A divided Israel marks 2 years since Oct. 7 attack as war in Gaza grinds on and hostages languish appeared first on Inside Politic.

The recent U.S. deployment of B-2 bombers, the only planes able to launch the most powerful bunker-busting bombs, to within range of Iran is a potent signal to Tehran of what could happen to its nuclear programme if no deal is reached to rein it in.

But military and nuclear experts say that even with such massive firepower, U.S.-Israeli military action would probably only temporarily set back a programme the West fears is already aimed at producing atom bombs one day, although Iran denies it.

Worse, an attack could prompt Iran to kick out United Nations nuclear inspectors, drive the already partly buried programme fully underground and race towards becoming a nuclear-armed state, both ensuring and hastening that feared outcome.

“Ultimately, short of regime change or occupation, it’s pretty difficult to see how military strikes could destroy Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon,” said Justin Bronk, senior research fellow for airpower and technology at the Royal United Services Institute, a British defence think-tank.

“It would be a case of essentially trying to reimpose a measure of military deterrence, impose cost and push back breakout times back to where we were a few years ago.”

Breakout time refers to how long it would take to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear bomb, currently days or weeks for Iran. Actually making a bomb, should Iran decide to, would take longer.

The landmark 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and major powers placed tough restrictions on Iran’s nuclear activities that increased its breakout time to at least a year. After President Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the deal in 2018 it then unravelled, and Iran pushed far beyond its limits.

Now Trump wants to negotiate new nuclear restrictions in talks that began last weekend. He also said two weeks ago: “If they don’t make a deal, there will be bombing.”

Israel has made similar threats. Its Defence Minister Israel Katz said after taking office in November: “Iran is more exposed than ever to strikes on its nuclear facilities. We have the opportunity to achieve our most important goal – to thwart and eliminate the existential threat to the State of Israel.”

BIG, RISKY

Iran’s nuclear programme is spread over many sites, and an attack would likely have to hit most or all of them. Even the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, does not know where Iran keeps some vital equipment, like parts for centrifuges, the machines that enrich uranium.

Israel could take out most of those sites by itself, military experts say, but it would be a risky operation involving repeated attacks and would have to deal with Russian-supplied anti-aircraft systems – although it managed to do so in far more limited strikes on Iran last year.

Uranium enrichment is at the heart of Iran’s nuclear programme, and its two biggest enrichment sites are the Fuel Enrichment Plant at Natanz, located about three floors underground, apparently to protect it from bombardment, and Fordow, dug far deeper into a mountain.

The United States would be far better equipped to take out those hard targets with its most powerful bunker buster, the 30,000-pound (14,000 kg) Massive Ordnance Penetrator, which only B-2 bombers like those recently moved to Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean can currently fire and which Israel does not have.

“(Israel) don’t have enough 5,000 pounders,” to take out Fordow and Natanz, said retired U.S. Air Force General Charles Wald, who now works for the Jewish Institute for the National Security of America, which promotes close defence ties between the United States and Israel.

He was referring to the biggest bunker-buster in Israel’s arsenal. With the U.S., an attack would be quicker and more likely to succeed, though Wald estimated it would still take days.

THEN WHAT?

“A strike by the United States could probably cause more damage than an Israeli strike, but in either case you’re talking about buying time and there’s a real risk that it drives Iran toward rather than away from a bomb,” said Eric Brewer of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a former U.S. intelligence analyst.

“A strike can disrupt and delay the program, but it can’t destroy it.”

While sites can be eliminated, Iran’s now advanced knowledge of uranium enrichment cannot. Preventing rebuilding would be a constant, extremely difficult task, analysts and officials said.

“What happens the day after? Iran responds to attacks on its nuclear program by hardening its facilities and expanding its program,” said Kelsey Davenport of the Arms Control Association.

Having already undone additional IAEA oversight introduced by the 2015 deal, many analysts see a risk that, if attacked, Iran would kick out IAEA inspectors acting as the world’s eyes at sites like Natanz and Fordow.

“The continuation of external threats and Iran being in a state of #military_attack may lead to deterrent measures, including #expulsion_of_inspectors from IAEA and cessation of cooperation,” Ali Shamkhani, long Iran’s top security official and now an adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, said on X last week.

The only other country to do that is North Korea, which then tested its first nuclear bomb.

“If you bomb Iran, Iran is going to almost certainly in my judgement chuck out international inspectors, make a dash for the bomb,” said James Acton of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Reuters

The post Analysis: Would military strikes kill Iran’s nuclear programme? Probably not appeared first on Inside Politic.