Zelensky says U.S. doesn’t ‘have time for Ukraine’ because of Iran war: interview

Suspected militants kill police officer assigned to guard polio team as nationwide campaign begins.

The shooting occurred in Hangu, a district in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province bordering Afghanistan, shortly after Pakistan launched its second nationwide anti-polio campaign of the year, according to local police official Mahmood Alam.

No group immediately claimed responsibility, but suspicion is likely to fall on the Pakistani Taliban and local militant groups, which often carry out similar attacks in the region and elsewhere. Pakistan and neighboring Afghanistan remain the only countries where polio has not been eradicated, according to the World Health Organization.

First lady Aseefa Bhutto Zardari urged families to ensure their children are vaccinated during the weeklong drive, which aims to reach more than 45 million children under 5 across all provinces and regions. She said the campaign will be conducted in coordination with Afghanistan, reflecting a shared commitment to interrupt cross-border transmission and close remaining gaps.

Aseefa is the daughter of President Asif Ali Zardari and former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who was killed in a 2007 gun and bomb attack by militants, and who had personally overseen initiatives aimed at eliminating polio during her tenure. In a statement, she said “Pakistan stands at a crucial moment in the fight against polio.” She said while the country is closer than ever to eradication, “the final stretch remains the most challenging.”

Highlighting recent gains, she said 31 polio cases were reported nationwide in 2025, while only one case has so far been recorded so far this year, but warned against complacency.

While Pakistan primarily uses door-to-door vaccination teams to reach children at their homes, Afghanistan generally relies on fixed vaccination sites and health facilities, where parents are asked to bring their children for immunization.

US President Donald Trump and his advisers are considering resuming strikes on Iran on a limited scale following unsuccessful talks in Pakistan in order to push Tehran to make concessions, The Wall Street Journal reported.

According to the newspaper, a resumption of "a full-fledged bombing campaign" against Iran has not been ruled out. However, it is seen as less likely due to the risk of regional destabilization and dragging Washington into a prolonged military conflict.

The #WSJ said each scenario carries significant risks. A full-scale military campaign could deplete US weapons stockpiles, while drawing down military operations could be seen as Tehran’s victory.

#Kuwait says 24 arrested over ‘financing of terror’. Since Iran began attacking Kuwait and other Gulf states last month as part of the Middle East war, authorities across the region have moved against individuals and organizations suspected of links to or supporting Tehran.

In a statement late on Saturday, Kuwait’s interior ministry did not mention any particular country or organisation, but said it had “thwarted a plot targeting the undermining of the homeland’s security and the financing of terrorist entities and organizations”.

“The State Security Agency succeeded in apprehending 24 citizens, one of whom had his citizenship revoked, in possession of financial sums linked to illicit activities,” the ministry added.

It said the financing was “part of an organized activity involving the collection of funds under religious pretexts... in preparation for their transfer in accordance with instructions from outside the country”.

Later, Kuwait’s foreign ministry named the 24 suspects on its domestic counter-terrorism designation list, saying their assets had been frozen and they were under travel restrictions.

A security source had earlier confirmed to AFP that five former Kuwaiti lawmakers were among those detained.

In March, Kuwait arrested six people linked to Lebanon’s Iran-backed Hezbollah group who it said were planning “assassinations” in the Gulf state.

Hezbollah has repeatedly denied having any presence in Kuwait.

JUST IN: 🇮🇷🇵🇰 Iranian negotiating team holds meeting in Islamabad, Pakistan.

Fireworks warehouse blast leaves one dead, 14 injured in Russia’s Vladikavkaz
The number of injured children has risen to two

Trump raised annexation of Canada with author of new book on royals, In an age of royal tell-alls, with a rash of books coming down the pipeline to eulogize Queen Elizabeth II in what would have been her 100th year, there’s significant competition to cut through the noise.

Robert Hardman’s new biography, Elizabeth II: In Private. In Public. The Inside Story, aims to do exactly that, by seemingly offering not just fresh revelations, but a reframing of Queen Elizabeth II’s reign that the publishers hope is timely and quietly radical.

Hardman uses information from palace insiders, private documents, and unheard stories to reveal a monarch who was more than just a figurehead.

This monarch played an active and thoughtful role in both the British state and the Royal Family.

In Hardman’s view, the monarchy’s strength lies in persistence as an institution rather than in the brilliance of an individual.

This becomes evident in conversations Hardman had with U.S. President Donald Trump about his wish to annex Canada.

It seems that Trump’s respect for King Charles III may have out paid to that plan. Hardman and Trump met in Florida in December 2025 where they discussed the United States place in NATO as well as Trump’s thoughts on Canada.

“I replied that this would probably destroy NATO and, while we were on the subject, could he please leave Canada alone too,” Hardman wrote.
Would ‘make the King of Canada unhappy’

“It had been a staunch ally through history, a gallant D-Day partner and attempting to acquire it would undoubtedly make the King of Canada unhappy. Do they still recognize the King? Or have they stopped that?” Trump reportedly asked, and went on to say, “The problem is some guy drew that straight line to make a border. He should just have drawn it fifty miles further north and then there wouldn’t be a problem.”

Hardman continued, “This was the closest I had heard to an acknowledgement that, as long as Canada had the King, Mr. Trump was not going to usurp him. There could be no doubting the esteem in which the late Queen was held by Mr. Trump. He had also voiced the highest praise for her son and heir, who appeared to be the primary reason why he was no longer sabre-rattling at Canada.”

What stands out here is how the book moves the discussion of royal “soft power” into a fresh perspective.

The Queen had been mastering this kind of subtle influence long before it became a common term in politics. She did so through careful diplomacy meaningful symbols, and a rare skill to gain respect without needing to assert herself.

Leaders rose and fell. Governments changed. Public opinion shifted back and forth. Yet Elizabeth stayed the same – steady, calm, and always there.

Her presence meant something. It gave not just the U.K. but also the entire Commonwealth a feeling of stability during uncertain times. As debates around the future of the monarchy carry on, in nations thinking about their bond with the Crown, Hardman’s story acts as both a reminder and a caution.

#BREAKING: Trump agrees to suspend ‘bombing and attack of Iran’ for two weeks.

TEHRAN, Iran - U.S. President Donald Trump pulled back on his threats to launch devastating strikes on Iran late Tuesday, swerving to deescalate the war less than two hours before the deadline he set for Tehran to capitulate or face a major escalation.

Trump said he was holding off on his threatened attacks on Iranian bridges, power plants and other civilian targets, subject to Tehran agreeing to a two-week ceasefire and reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, the waterway through which a fifth of the world’s oil is shipped during peacetime. He also said Iran has proposed a “workable” 10-point peace plan that could help end the war launched by the U.S. and Israel in February.

Iran’s Supreme National Security Council said it has accepted a two-week ceasefire and that it would negotiate with the United States in Islamabad beginning Friday.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said passage through the strait would be allowed for the next two weeks under Iranian military management. It wasn’t immediately clear whether that meant Iran would loosen its chokehold on the waterway.

In a post on his social media site, Trump said that he would suspend attacks on Iran for two weeks provided Tehran agreed “to the COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE, and SAFE OPENING” of the strait.

North Korea launches projectile off its coast, Seoul says, #SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea launched a projectile off its east coast Wednesday in its second launch in two days, South Korea’s military said.

South Koreas’ Joint Chiefs of Staff gave no further details like how far the latest projectile flew and what type of weapon was launched.

South Korea’s military had also detected the launch of an unidentified projectile near North Korea’s capital region Tuesday. It said South Korean and U.S. intelligence authorities were analyzing details of Tuesday’s launch.

Earlier this week, North Korea said leader Kim Jong Un had observed a test of an upgraded solid-fuel engine for weapons and called it a significant development boosting his country’s strategic military arsenal.

Missiles with built-in solid propellants are easier to move and conceal their launches than liquid-fuel weapons, which in general must be fueled before liftoffs and cannot last long. The latest solid-fuel engine test, the first of its kind in seven months, was in line with Kim’s stated goal of acquiring more agile, hard-to-detect missiles targeting the U.S. and its allies.

South Korea’s spy agency told lawmakers Monday the engine test was likely related to an effort to build a more powerful missile that can carry multiple nuclear warheads, according to lawmakers who attended the meeting.

North Korea has pushed hard to expand its nuclear arsenal since Kim’s high-stakes diplomacy with U.S. President Donald Trump collapsed in 2019. In a ruling Workers’ Party congress in February, Kim left open the door for dialogue with Trump but urged Washington to drop demands for the North’s nuclear disarmament as a precondition for talks.

The Associated Press

#Trump's threatened destruction of Iran's power plants could be considered a war crime, experts say.

The issue could turn on whether the power plants were legitimate military targets, the attacks were proportional compared with what Iran has done and whether civilian casualties were minimized.

Trump’s threat was so broad brush it did not seem to account for the harm to civilians, prompting Democrats in Congress, some United Nations officials and scholars in military law to say such strikes would violate international law.

The president’s eventual actions often fall short of his all-encompassing rhetoric in the moment, but his warnings about the power plants and bridges were unambiguous both on Sunday and Monday as he set a deadline of Tuesday night for Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz.

A spokesman for U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on Monday warned that attacking such infrastructure is banned under international law.

“Even if specific civilian infrastructure were to qualify as a military objective,” Stephane Dujarric said, an attack would still be prohibited if it risks “excessive incidental civilian harm.”

Rachel VanLandingham, a Southwestern Law School professor who served as a judge advocate general in the U.S. Air Force, said civilians are likely to die if power is cut to hospitals and water treatment plans.

“What Trump is saying is, ‘We don’t care about precision, we don’t care about impact on civilians, we’re just going to take out all of Iranian power generating capacity,’” the retired lieutenant colonel said.

Shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint in the Persian Gulf through which 20% of the world’s oil normally flows, has been all but halted, sending oil prices soaring and roiling the stock market.

Trump said Monday that he’s “not at all” concerned about committing war crimes as he continues to threaten destruction. He also warned that every power plant will be “burning, exploding and never to be used again.”

“I hope I don’t have to do it,” Trump added.

When asked for further comment Monday, White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said “the Iranian people welcome the sound of bombs because it means their oppressors are losing.”

“The Iranian regime has committed egregious human rights abuses against its own citizens for 47 years, just murdered tens of thousands of protestors in January, and has indiscriminately targeted civilians across the region in order to cause as much death as possible throughout this conflict,” Kelly wrote in an email.
‘Clearly a threat of unlawful action’

As the conflict has entered its second month, Trump has escalated his warnings to bomb Iran’s infrastructure, including Kharg Island, central to Iran’s oil industry, and desalination plans that provide drinking water.

In a Truth Social post on March 30, Trump warned that the U.S. would obliterate “all of their Electric Generating Plants, Oil Wells and Kharg Island (and possibly all desalinization plants!), which we have purposefully not yet ‘touched.’“

On Easter Sunday, Trump threatened in an expletive-laden post that Iran will face, “Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one,” while adding that “you’ll be living in Hell” unless the strait reopens.

“This strikes me as clearly a threat of unlawful action,” said Michael Schmitt, a professor emeritus at the U.S. Naval War College and an international law professor at the University of Reading in Britain.

A power facility can be attacked under the laws of armed conflict if it provides electricity to a military base in addition to civilians, Schmitt said. But the strike must not “cause disproportionate harm to the civilian population, and you’ve done everything to minimize that harm.”

Harm does not include inconvenience or fear, said Schmitt, who has taught military commanders. But it does mean severe mental suffering, physical injury or illness.

Schmitt said military commanders should consider alternatives, such as targeting a substation or transmission lines that feed electricity to a base, before destroying an entire power plant.

“If you look at the operation and you’ve got a valid military objective, but it’s going to cause harm to civilians and you go, ‘Whoa, that’s a lot,’ then you should stop,” Schmitt said. “If you hesitate to take the shot, don’t take the shot.”
‘He’s using that leverage’

Republican Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa said Monday that Trump is “absolutely not” threatening a war crime when he said he might bomb civilian infrastructure.

The infrastructure is also used by the military, Ernst said, and “it’s an ongoing operation.“

“If he needs leverage, he’s using that leverage,” she said while presiding over a brief pro forma session of the Senate.

But Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, also in the Capitol for the brief session, said it would be a “textbook war crime.”

“If you target civilian infrastructure for the purposes the president was talking about, it clearly is a war crime,” Van Hollen said.

Dujarric, the U.N. spokesman, said the question of whether attacks on civilian infrastructure would be considered war crimes would have to be decided by a court.

However, Katherine Thompson, a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy studies at the CATO Institute, a libertarian think tank, said any accountability would more likely come from Congress.

She said thinking otherwise would mean believing that the U.S. would allow its president to be held accountable by foreign entities.

“This is the persnickety, inconvenient truth about international law: It only works if sovereign nations are willing to cede their sovereignty to a foreign body for accountability,” she said.

But Congress would have to say the president has gone too far. And then both houses would have to take action and with enough support to overcome a presidential veto, a highly unlikely prospect.

Trump also appears to have broad legal immunity under the Supreme Court’s ruling in the criminal case before his reelection, said VanLandingham. And the president could also grant preemptive pardons to top officials if needed.
‘We’re giving them a gift’

Even if technically justified under the law of war, strikes that bring harm to civilians could backfire for the U.S. long term, VanLandingham said.

“There’s a lot of violence that can still be justified as lawful, but lawful can still be awful,” VanLandingham said. “How far did that get us in Iraq? How far did that get us in Afghanistan? How far did that get us in Vietnam?”

Trump’s rhetoric risks spreading fear among regular Iranians and communicating that the U.S. isn’t worried about their well-being, VanLandingham said. The country’s leaders could use it as propaganda to create and harden opposition, contributing to a longer, tougher war.

___

Associated Press writers Farnoush Amiri and Edith M. Lederer in New York and Mary Clare Jalonick and Seung Min Kim in Washington contributed to this report.

Ben Finley, Lindsay Whitehurst And Gary Fields, The Associated Press