

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

The United Arab Emirates government should allow hundreds of deported Lebanese citizens and Gazans an opportunity to appeal their expulsions, Human Rights Watch said in a letter today to the UAE interior minister.
The UAE has deported at least 120 Lebanese families - all of them Shiite - since June 2009 without due process, the Beirut-based Committee for Lebanese Deported told Human Rights Watch. UAE authorities have also expelled scores of Palestinians, mainly from Gaza, after cancelling their work permits, news media have reported.
"It's now been more than a year since the UAE started deporting hundreds of Lebanese and Gazans, and the government has yet to give any adequate justification," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "The UAE needs to provide these families, many of whom had lived in the country for decades, a chance to appeal their deportations."
Nine Lebanese deportees interviewed in Beirut by Human Rights Watch said they were arbitrarily expelled, without explanation or any opportunity for redress. Each of them said they had been long-time lawful residents of the UAE. Some had lived in the country for more than 30 years and owned homes and businesses there.
Yet, they said that starting in June 2009, the eight men and one woman each received a call from UAE immigration authorities informing them that they had to leave the country with their families. They were given only days to pack their families' belongings and depart. Several incurred substantial financial losses, as they had little time to sell property or claim payment from employers.
A 55-year-old Lebanese man told Human Rights Watch that he lost $250,000 after he was deported and unable to sell his restaurant in the UAE.
"Immigration officials told us nothing except that we have to pack and return home," said the man, who had lived in the UAE since 1978. "When I asked about the reasons, the immigration officials said they didn't know themselves and that they had received the list from [authorities in] Abu Dhabi."
Some of the deportees told Human Rights Watch that before their deportation, UAE authorities had summoned them and asked which political party they supported in Lebanon. The authorities also sought information from the people who were summoned about Hezbollah and the political affiliations of other Lebanese living in the UAE. The interrogations raise concerns that the expulsions were politically motivated, Human Rights Watch said.
A Lebanese professor who worked at the University of Sharjah told Human Rights Watch that immigration officials summoned her for an interview on June 10, 2009, three days after the Lebanese parliamentary elections. During the four-hour interrogation, an officer accused her of belonging to a Hezbollah "sleeper cell". She said her interrogator also "mocked my [Shia] religious beliefs and practices in a very callous way that was quite painful and agonizing since I could not answer back or defend myself."
On October 21, 2009, immigration officials interrogated her again, this time ordering her to leave the country immediately. She said the university still owes her a portion of her salary and other expenses. Under international law, governments have the right to regulate the presence of foreigners within their borders. However, the process of deportation is subject to certain constraints. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, ratified by the UAE in 1974, prohibits discrimination on the basis of ethnicity or national origin. The Arab Charter for Human Rights, also ratified by the UAE, obliges governments to deport foreigners only in accordance with the law and to give deportees the opportunity to appeal their deportation order. It prohibits any form of collective expulsion.
The Lebanese government has raised the issue of the deportations with UAE authorities repeatedly over the last year. In October, the speaker of the Lebanese Parliament, Nabih Berri, traveled to the UAE and expressed his concerns directly to the president, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al Nahyan. Despite reported assurances made by UAE authorities to Lebanese officials that the UAE would review each deportee's case, none of those interviewed by Human Rights Watch who had been expelled have received any further information.
The Human Rights Watch letter urges the UAE government, in light of the country's international commitments, to publicly state the steps each deported person wishing to appeal his or her expulsion order may take, specify the body that will rule on their appeals and on what basis it will do so, and suspend any deportation pending an appeal. The UAE government should also provide this information individually to each person who has been summarily deported, Human Rights Watch said.
"The UAE prides itself as a land of opportunity for Arabs from across the region, but these cases illustrate that these opportunities rest on shifting sands," Whitson said.
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
The president's decision means the US "will not illegally intercept and seize the entirely legal and legitimate sovereign trade in oil," said one observer.
President Donald Trump said Sunday that his administration would let a Russia-owned tanker carrying an estimated 730,000 barrels of oil to reach Cuba, loosening the illegal fuel blockade that has intensified the island's already-grave humanitarian crisis.
Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump said that "if a country wants to send some oil into Cuba right now, I have no problem," backing off his previous threat to tariff any nation that supplied the besieged island with fuel. Cuba has not received any oil imports since January 9, sparking nationwide blackouts and food shortages and leaving hospitals without critical supplies—with deadly consequences for patients.
Trump insisted that the oil on the Russian tanker—which experts say is enough to buy Cuba at least several weeks of energy—is "not going to have an impact," declaring, "Cuba is finished."
"They have a bad regime, and they have very bad and corrupt leadership," added Trump, who presides over what analysts have deemed the most corrupt administration in US history. "Whether or not they get a boat of oil is not going to matter."
Reporter: There's a report that the US is going to let a Russian oil tanker go to Cuba?
Trump: If a country wants to send some oil into Cuba, I have no problem with that.
Reporter: Do you worry that that helps Putin?
Trump: It doesn’t help him. He loses one boatload of oil.… pic.twitter.com/8Vh6gHwaxs
— Acyn (@Acyn) March 30, 2026
Trump's comments came after The New York Times reported that, "barring orders instructing it otherwise," the US Coast Guard would not intercept the Russian tanker as it approached Cuba.
The Russian vessel, known as the Anatoly Kolodkin, is expected to reach the island by Monday night, providing some reprieve to a nation whose economy has been strangled by unlawful US economic warfare for decades. In recent days, an international convoy of activists has delivered tons of food, medicine, and other aid to the island, but the shipments are a Band-Aid on a gaping wound.
Michael Gallant, a member of the Progressive International Secretariat, welcomed news that the US is allowing the Russian tanker to reach Cuba as "very good news"—but said Trump's decision is hardly deserving of praise.
Very good news. “The US will allow,” of course, means “will not illegally intercept and seize the entirely legal and legitimate sovereign trade in oil” https://t.co/YF2RRIXC2S
— Michael Galant (@michael_galant) March 29, 2026
Trump imposed the fuel blockade in January, absurdly characterizing Cuba as an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to US national security.
Earlier this month, Trump threatened to "take" Cuba by force, calling it a "very weakened nation." Trump's remarks prompted Cuba's president, Miguel Díaz-Canel, to vow "impregnable resistance" to any US attempt to seize the island. The Trump administration is reportedly seeking Díaz-Canel's removal as a necessary condition in talks with the Cuban government.
Trump's threats led Reps. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) and Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) to introduce legislation last week that would prohibit the administration from using federal funds for any attack on Cuba without congressional authorization.
"Trump has started illegal regime change conflicts in Venezuela and Iran and is now threatening Cuba," Jayapal said in a statement. "These military attacks put our troops in danger, endanger innocent civilians, waste billions of taxpayer dollars, and are not what the American people want."
"Trump promised to end forever wars—he lied," Jayapal added. "Congress alone has the power to declare war, something Trump clearly does not respect. He has no plan to improve conditions for the Cuban people or promote democracy, and we must pass this legislation to block him from acting on a whim."
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war."
Pope Leo XIV used his Palm Sunday sermon to take what appears to be a shot at US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
In his sermon, excerpts of which he published on social media, the pope emphasized Christian teachings against violence while criticizing anyone who would invoke Jesus Christ to justify a war.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war," Pope Leo said. "He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them."
The pope also encouraged followers to "raise our prayers to the Prince of Peace so that he may support people wounded by war and open concrete paths of reconciliation and peace."
While speaking at the Pentagon last week, Hegseth directly invoked Jesus when discussing the Trump administration's unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran.
Specifically, Hegseth offered up a prayer in which he asked God to give US soldiers "wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy," adding that "we ask these things with bold confidence in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ."
Mother Jones contributing writer Alex Nguyen described the pope's sermon as a "rebuke" of Hegseth, whom he noted "has been open about his support for a Christian crusade" in the Middle East.
Pope Leo is not the only Catholic leader speaking against using Christian faith to justify wars of aggression. Two weeks ago, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, said "the abuse and manipulation of God’s name to justify this and any other war is the gravest sin we can commit at this time."
“War is first and foremost political and has very material interests, like most wars," Cardinal Pizzaballa added.
"Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing to launch some kind of ground assault on Iran in the coming weeks, but one prominent military strategy expert believes he's heading straight for defeat.
The Washington Post on Saturday reported that the Pentagon is preparing for "weeks" of ground operations in Iran, which for the last month has disrupted global energy markets by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz in response to aerial assaults by the US and Israel.
The Post's sources revealed that "any potential ground operation would fall short of a full-scale invasion and could instead involve raids by a mixture of Special Operations forces and conventional infantry troops" that could be used to seize Kharg Island, a key Iranian oil export hub, or to search out and destroy weapons systems that could be used by the Iranians to target ships along the strait.
Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told the Post that taking over Kharg Island would be a highly risky operation for American troops, even if initially successful.
“I just wouldn’t want to be in that small place with Iran’s ability to rain down drones and maybe artillery,” said Eisenstadt.
Eisenstadt's analysis was echoed by Ret. Gen. Joseph Votel, former head of US Central Command, who told ABC News that seizing and occupying Kharg Island would put US troops in a state of constant danger, warning they could be "very, very vulnerable" to drones and missiles launched from the shore.
Lawrence Freedman, professor emeritus of war studies at King's College London, believes that the president has already checkmated himself regardless of what shape any ground operation takes.
In an analysis published Sunday, Freedman declared Trump had run "out of options" for victory, as there have been no signs of the Iranian regime crumbling due to US-Israeli attacks.
Freedman wrote that Trump now "appears to inhabit an alternative reality," noting that "his utterances have become increasingly incoherent, with contradictory statements following quickly one after the other, and frankly delusional claims."
Trump's loan real option at this point, Freedman continued, would to simply declare that he had achieved an unprecedented victory and just walk away. But even in that case, wrote Freedman, "this would mean leaving behind a mess in the Gulf" with no guarantee that Iran would re-open the Strait of Hormuz.
"Success in war is judged not by damage caused but by political objectives realized," Freedman wrote in his conclusion. "Here the objective was regime change, or at least the emergence of a new compliant leader... Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."