Via Middle East Eye

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Fox News on Tuesday that he was not too bothered by the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) arrest warrant for him, because Israeli special forces would protect him should any country try to take him into custody. 

“It scares me in this sense. For you, you travel internationally, God forbid you had a medical emergency, and you need to land, and you’re about to land in a country that recognizes the ICC. It could complicate things. Do you worry about that?” Fox News pundit and decades-long personal friend to Netanyahu, Sean Hannity, asked during the interview. 

“Yeah, I think about it,” Netanyahu responded. “You know, we have special forces around. I served for five years.”

“The IDF is pretty tough,” Hannity said, referring to the Israeli army. “Yeah. Let’s give them a new task,“ Netanyahu replied. 

Netanyahu flew through the airspace of several ICC member states this week on his way to Washington, prompting critics to accuse those governments of aiding an internationally wanted leader.

Netanyahu left Israel aboard the official government aircraft known as the “Wing of Zion” on Monday, ahead of talks with US President Donald Trump at the White House on Tuesday. Flight-tracking data showed the aircraft passing through the airspace of Greece, Italy and France before crossing the Atlantic, while a widely shared map of the journey indicated that it also entered Canadian airspace on its approach to the US. 

Greece, Italy, France and Canada are all parties to the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC.

The Hague-based court issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu on 21 November 2024, saying there were reasonable grounds to believe that he bore criminal responsibility for the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare, and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution and other inhumane acts in Gaza. “It’s the corruption of the international system. It’s an unelected bureaucracy that sits in The Hague that could arrest American soldiers because you don’t recognize this corrupt body any more than we do,” Netanyahu told Hannity.

“And they could say that the president of the United States is a war criminal. That American soldiers valiantly fighting next to us, shoulder to shoulder against the tyranny in Tehran, that they’re war criminals. They could pick them up.”

The prime minister said he would be coming to New York City for the United Nations General Assembly in September, regardless of what legal avenues, if any, mayor Zohran Mamdani decides to pursue.

“This just hate-spewing elected official [is] pitting one group of New Yorkers against the others. He’s turning them against New York Jews. I mean, what are we, in the 1930s? What is this?” Netanyahu said.

Mamdani has repeatedly said he would protect the right of all Jewish New Yorkers, but Israel has accused him of antisemitism for calling on the federal government to arrest Netanyahu on account of the ICC warrant. 

‘Wall of granite’

Netanyahu spent just under 90 minutes with Trump at the White House on Tuesday before both leaders headed to the Washington National Cathedral for the funeral for South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a staunch and vocal supporter of Israel, and potentially the loudest in Trump’s ear. 

The Israeli prime minister told Hannity the visit with Trump was “one of the best meetings that we’ve had”, but he had also indicated to the Israeli press on Tuesday that it was a meeting among several senior officials, meaning he did not get a private one-on-one with the president. 

Such a decision would suggest Trump’s advisers did not want Netanyahu to influence the president one way or another. “I always hate to disappoint our would-be critics who are trying to find cracks in our alliance, and what they find, like today, is a wall of granite,” Netanyahu told Hannity.

🚨MUST- WATCH: PM Netanyahu was asked what would happen if he were forced to land in a country that recognizes the arrest warrant against him; his answer was wild: “We have IDF special forces in the area” pic.twitter.com/qw7p3T2nsB

— Raylan Givens (@JewishWarrior13) July 29, 2026

Trump himself has sounded less than pleased with Netanyahu’s behavior of late, telling Fox News earlier on Tuesday that Netanyahu wants him to keep attacking Iran when he may no longer want to.

“We have a common commitment. We don’t want to see this fanatic regime in Tehran have nuclear weapons to threaten every American and to threaten the peace of the world and to threaten the existence of Israel,” Netanyahu said. “So we have a common goal, and it’s going to be achieved either through diplomatic means or other means. But we’re both committed to that.”

However, Netanyahu has made it clear he is no fan of those diplomatic means. 

Not long after the US and Iran signed a memorandum of understanding in June, Israel intensified its attacks on southern Lebanon, all the way up to the capital Beirut. 

A key part of the agreement was for Israel to cease hostilities in Lebanon, where it says it’s going after its Iranian ally, Hezbollah.  Trump then told reporters he believed Israel’s attacks were disproportionate and were killing too many civilians. “Do you believe there are moderates that would like a deal and a better Iran?” Hannity asked. “I’m skeptical about the deal, and I say it openly,” Netanyahu said.

“But the only way it would be achieved is if Iran understood these various factions. They’re not ideological factions as much as they differ on the assessment of how tough we are,” he added. “I think at the end, it’s our resolve. It’s our common resolve to make sure that Iran doesn’t get nuclear bombs to threaten every American with.”

The US intelligence community, under the Trump administration, had assessed that there was no imminent threat from Iran before the US and Israel launched their joint war on 28 February – so much so that the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Joe Kent, resigned within hours of the first missiles being launched. 

The Federal Communications Commission is planning to unveil a series of new trade restrictions on Tuesday afternoon that will ban imports of Chinese humanoid and quadruped robots, as well as connected power inverters. This announcement comes ahead of the expected boom in physical AI.

Chinese company Unitree reveal their “all terrain” wheeled robot.

The military potential for this technology is obvious.

Europe is so far behind China, its scary. pic.twitter.com/DcXnmj6Knx

— Chay Bowes (@BowesChay) July 24, 2026

Reuters was first to report the story: 

The Trump administration on Tuesday plans to unveil new bans that target imports of the latest Chinese robots and power inverters, seeking to protect the U.S. AI buildout from national security threats and reshore key industries slated for explosive growth, U.S. officials said.

There is no exact timing for when the FCC is expected to unveil the trade restrictions this afternoon. Officials said the Chinese-linked technologies could expose U.S. power grids, data centers, and AI infrastructure to disruption, data theft, and cyberattacks.

“The President has made clear that the United States must have independent and secure supply chains for critical and emerging technologies like robotic devices and power inverters,” said an anonymous Trump administration official.

“Economic security is national security, and the Trump administration continues to implement a nuanced and multi-faceted policy agenda to reindustrialize America,” the official added.

The trade restrictions on Chinese robots and power inverters come as new analysis from Citi’s Robotics & Physical AI Leadership Conference assesses where the US stands in the physical-AI cycle as robots move closer to mass production. Read the full report here.

Granma, the official newspaper of the Communist Party of Cuba’s Central Committee, reported Wednesday that Havana is easing restrictions on private businesses and self-employed workers as it attempts to stabilize an economy battered by decades of failed socialist policies and renewed pressure from the Trump administration.

“The updated regulations eliminate restrictions, broaden the scope of business activities for micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) and cooperatives, and incorporate new opportunities in commerce, transport, industry, and services,” Granma wrote in the announcement.

Under Decree 160, the government removed 46 of 125 previously restricted activities and modified another 35, opening more of the manufacturing, energy, transportation, trade, health, and education sectors to non-state participation.

Cuba now has more than 15,600 private small and medium-sized businesses, a figure the government expects to top 16,000 by the end of August.

The reforms mark a slight pivot toward market-oriented activity, even as Cuban officials insist the opening does not represent privatization or a transition to capitalism.

“This opening does not imply a privatization process,” Lázara Mercedes López Acea, president of the National Institute of Non-State Economic Actors, told the local outlet, “but rather the strengthening of the national business system, maintaining the socialist state enterprise as the main actor, while expanding the participation of other economic actors to contribute to the growth of the economy and a better supply of goods and services for the population.”

López Acea said the new measures respond to “the tightening of the economic, commercial, financial, and energy blockade imposed by the United States government.”

This development comes after Cuba passed its broadest economic overhaul since the revolution, seeking to loosen state control as U.S. sanctions compound fuel shortages, prolonged blackouts, and a deepening financial crisis. The economic collapse was already well underway before President Trump launched his maximum-pressure campaign.

Raúl Guillermo Rodríguez Castro, grandson of former President Raúl Castro, recently said Cuba must diversify its economy, business practices and investment channels while pursuing a distinctly Cuban development model.

Rodríguez Castro told USA Today in a recent interview that he is willing to negotiate Cuba’s future with President Trump.

Authored by Edward Ring via American Greatness,

So far this century, worldwide energy use is up nearly 60 percent, and, as anyone living in Western industrialized nations knows all too well, we have spent trillions of dollars to “decarbonize” our economy. And guess what? Our dependence on fossil fuels is unchanged.

To make this assertion, we may cite the world’s most authoritative source for comprehensive information on global fuel consumption, the Statistical Review of World Energy. For more than 75 years, an updated annual report has been released, and with the 2026 issue now available, we have the latest information on what forms of energy are most critical for maintaining human civilization. And in 2025, 86 percent of global energy came from fossil fuels: 33 percent from oil, 25 percent from natural gas, and 28 percent from coal. Nuclear power added 5 percent, hydroelectric power added 3 percent, and all renewables—biomass, biofuel, geothermal, wind, and solar combined—contributed 6 percent.

What’s most remarkable about these statistics is how little they have changed in 25 years. The Statistical Review reported that total fossil fuel consumption in 2000 represented, get ready, 87 percent of the total. Our global civilization’s reliance on fossil fuels has declined by 1 percent over the past 25 years. That’s not even a rounding error.

In the United States, the shift is greater, but not anywhere close to the trajectory demanded by the net-zero lobby. In 2000 we relied on fossil fuels for 89 percent of our total energy, and in 2025 that percentage was still 83 percent. More notable, perhaps, was that total energy consumption in the United States actually dropped slightly, from 95.8 exajoules in 2000 to 93.8 exajoules in 2025.

As the table shows, there are many additional, and very big, nuances to this story. Perhaps the biggest is the contrast between trends describing energy use in the United States compared to what happened in the world over the last quarter-century. To begin with, as noted, even though the U.S. population grew from 282 million to 343 million and U.S. GDP in inflation-adjusted dollars nearly doubled from $13.9 trillion to over $24.1 trillion, total energy consumption actually dropped.

Overall, total world GDP increased from an estimated $79 trillion in 2000 to roughly $180 trillion in 2025, more than doubling, while global population grew by 33 percent, from 6.2 billion to 8.2 billion. At the same time, global energy consumption is up 58 percent in the past 25 years, from 381 exajoules to just over 600 exajoules. But where is this energy coming from?

In the U.S., while total energy use declined slightly, the energy mix changed significantly. Consumption of oil stayed about the same, only dropping 3 percent from 37.6 to 36.4 exajoules. But use of natural gas jumped by 35 percent, while coal consumption dropped by a precipitous 63 percent. In 2000, coal and natural gas contributed almost equally to U.S. energy consumption, at 24.4 exajoules and 23.7 exajoules, respectively. By 2025, the contribution of natural gas to total U.S. energy jumped to 32.9 exajoules, while the use of coal plummeted to 8.7 exajoules. Also during the previous quarter century, nuclear energy in the U.S. actually grew a bit, from 7.5 to 9.0 exajoules, while hydroelectric power generation fell dramatically, from 2.6 exajoules in 2000 to only 0.9 in 2025. Hydroelectric power generation, however, is volatile because it depends on annual rainfall and snowpack.

Which brings us to renewables, which in the U.S. grew from virtually nothing in 2000 to supply 6 percent of the energy used in 2025.

For renewables to go from 0 to 6 percent is impressive, but the big story here is the persistence of fossil fuels. In the U.S., while we reduced our use of fossil fuels a bit, as noted, from 89 percent to 83 percent, for the most part we just flipped sources. We replaced coal with natural gas. But worldwide, the consumption of fossil fuels as a percentage of total energy didn’t change at all, barely dropping from 87 to 86 percent, while in absolute terms the use of fossil fuels exploded. And how the total world mix of fossil fuels changed tells a very different story from what happened in the U.S.

Worldwide consumption of oil dropped in percentage terms, from 39 to 33 percent, but the industry logged huge increases in actual production. In 2000, oil was the dominant source of energy in the world at 147.3 exajoules, and in 2025 it retained that distinction with ease, with consumption rising to 201 exajoules. In absolute terms, the use of gas and coal also grew sharply. Natural gas consumption jumped from 90.3 exajoules in 2000 to 150.7 in 2025, an increase of 67 percent. Coal experienced even greater growth, increasing 79 percent from 92.8 exajoules in 2000 to 166 in 2025.

These are a lot of numbers, but they tell an unequivocal story. If we regard the basic proportions that matter, fossil fuels power human civilization as much in 2025 as they did in 2000, despite trillions of dollars invested in renewables. Compared to fossil fuels, everything else combined is still relatively insignificant. Worldwide, as noted, nuclear power offers 5 percent of global energy; hydroelectricity offers 3 percent, and all renewables combined add another 6 percent.

It is pertinent to wonder how renewables, all of them, can possibly be poised to rapidly replace fossil fuels. Over the past 25 years, renewable sources of energy altogether went from zero to delivering to humanity 35.4 exajoules of energy. During that same 25 years, just the increase in fossil fuel consumption was 187 exajoules; that is, it went from delivering 331 exajoules in 2000 to delivering 518 exajoules. As human population moves toward its predicted peak of 10 billion people around 2050, we are going to need more energy to ensure a prosperous civilization, even if our capacity to efficiently convert energy into wealth improves even more than the U.S. was able to do over the past few decades.

These basic proportions are undeniable and lead to an inescapable conclusion. Fossil fuels are indispensable and are going to be with us for a very long time.

It’s important to recognize that the growth in renewable energy, particularly solar (photovoltaic) electricity, has been impressive. The gains have been exponential. Worldwide photovoltaic output—converting terawatt-hours to exajoules—increased from 1.76 exajoules in 2024 to 2.32 in 2025. Photovoltaic energy output is eleven times greater today than it was only ten years ago. But do we have the resources to accommodate another few decades of exponential growth?

Equally pertinent, total global battery storage capacity, despite 60 percent per year growth over the past ten years, is still, as of 2025, only equal to 1.2 terawatt-hours (ref. page 65 in the 2026 Statistical Review, “Grid-scale battery energy storage systems”). In the context of world energy, that’s nothing. It takes 278 terawatt-hours to equal one exajoule. It’s worth reflecting on this fact.

It means that even if we increased our photovoltaic output by another two orders of magnitude—roughly what would be required to even begin making a replacement-level contribution to global energy production—could we also increase our electricity storage capacity by four orders of magnitude from what it is today? Even multiplying today’s worldwide storage capacity by ten thousand would equal only 45 exajoules. Notice those battery farms going in all over? Imagine 10,000 of them where one of them now stands. That’s what it will take, at a minimum, if the world’s energy economy electrifies and does it while relying on intermittent energy sources. Does the earth have the resources to sustain such growth, and what would be the environmental impact?

These are questions everyone must ask who advocates for a net-zero future. There may be answers to these questions, but to date we don’t know what those answers are. Continuing to develop renewable energy has to take into account its own environmental impact. Biofuel cannot possibly grow much beyond current production unless we want to convert millions of square miles of farms and forests into monocultures of sugar cane and oil palm plantations. Wind energy as well is problematic; it’s a resource hog, a visual and auditory nuisance, and it wreaks havoc on the local environment. Hydroelectric power generation also has limited potential to add much more to our energy mix. Geothermal is a wild card. There are other paths, but they will take time—advanced nuclear fission, artificial photosynthesis, space-based power, fusion.

Meanwhile, policies designed to rapidly phase out fossil fuels are based on wishful thinking, and everyone familiar with basic energy statistics knows this. If proponents of net-zero cannot moderate their position against using fossil fuels, then we must justifiably question their motives.

The number of measles cases this year has become the highest since 1991, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said on July 24.

Forty-five states have confirmed 2,318 cases through July 23, the CDC said this week.

That’s up from 2,289 cases in 2025 and the highest since 1991, when 9,643 cases were recorded.

Outbreaks are ongoing in central Virginia and Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

As Zachary Stieber reports for The Epoch Times, some doctors said the jump in cases stems from lower numbers of people receiving vaccines against measles.

“High vaccination coverage has protected even the un- and undervaccinated because of herd protection, keeping measles at bay for the past few decades,” Dr. William Moss, executive director of the International Vaccine Access Center at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said in a statement. “But in communities with pockets of susceptible individuals across a broad age range, measles has been able to take hold, infecting those who are susceptible and spreading rapidly.”

“Measles vaccines are extremely safe and effective,” said Moss, whose center helps build “knowledge and support for the value of vaccines,” according to its website, and partners with vaccine manufacturers.

“Getting you or your child vaccinated is the best way to protect against disease.”

The measles vaccination rate among kindergartners in 2024 and 2025 was 92.5 percent, down from 95 percent in 2019 and 2020. Rates for some states that have seen outbreaks in 2026, such as South Carolina, are less than 90 percent.

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) said during a hearing this week that the high number of measles cases was “due to deliberate attempts to undermine faith in traditional public health measures by those who know nothing but push their ignorance as fact.”

Of the patients this year, 93 percent either were unvaccinated or had unknown vaccination status, according to the CDC. The agency has not responded to requests for separate percentages for the categories.

Another 3 percent had received one dose of a measles vaccine, and another 4 percent had received two doses.

About half of the cases occurred among people aged 5 to 19, and another 31 percent were in adults aged 20 and older.

A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the CDC’s parent agency, told The Epoch Times in an email that Health Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. “has been clear that vaccination remains the most effective way to prevent measles infection” and that the CDC continues to recommend two doses of a measles vaccine.

“Under the Secretary’s leadership, HHS has mounted an aggressive outbreak response, providing more than $8.5 million to states and local partners, expanding technical assistance, and surging CDC personnel and resources to support containment efforts where needed most,” the spokesperson said.

“Currently, U.S. measles incidence remains below that of several peer countries. As of July, Canada’s measles incidence was 3.9 times higher than the U.S., Mexico’s was 13.8 times higher, and the United Kingdom’s was 1.9 times higher,” the spokesperson said. “HHS focused its response where it can have the greatest impact: rapidly supporting affected communities, strengthening state and local response efforts, and communicating the ways in which measles transmission can be slowed, including through MMR vaccination, and ways that measles can be treated.”

Seven percent of the patients have been hospitalized. No deaths have been recorded.

President Trump has repeatedly said that China’s President Xi Jinping has directly assured him that Beijing will not supply Iran with weaponry or military support.

But this week these ‘assurances’ have been called into question by an Reuters investigation. “Iran is expected to receive within weeks a first shipment out of up to 400 Chinese-made shoulder-fired air-defense missile launchers, three sources familiar with the deal told ​Reuters, as it rebuilds its defenses amid war with the United States,” the fresh report says.

“The purchase, valued at $60-70 million, is one of Tehran’s largest-known efforts to strengthen its short-range air ‌defences since the outbreak of its war with the U.S. and Israel, which exposed gaps in Iran’s ability to protect military sites and strategic infrastructure,” it adds.

The fresh report cites three anonymous sources and did not receive comment from the Iranian side. Some of the assertions of the Reuters report are surprisingly specific, such as in the following:

The contract covers the purchase of between 300 and 400 man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS), including Chinese-made QW-12 and FN-16 missiles, the sources said.

The deal was signed with Zhongqing Baoshang International Investment, a Hong Kong-based company that the sources said was acting as an intermediary between the Iranian ​side and the Chinese supplier.

The reporting even explores options being considered for delivery of the weapons, at a moment Iran is urgently seeking to replenish its air defense supplies after months of grinding tit-for-tat conflict with the US military.

“Two Western intelligence sources and an Iranian official said Tehran had also explored the use of overland routes to move Chinese military supplies and dual-use components ⁠more discreetly and ​reduce the risk of disruption,” Reuters continues.

MANPADS could prove especially dangerous for US helicopters and other low flying aircraft, and for Iran can serve as layer of short-range protection.

The opening days of Operation Epic Fury saw much of Iran’s anti-air units get taken out, especially across the Western part of the country, giving US-Israeli jets air superiority. However, at times the Iranians have claimed to shoot down some aircraft, and since then the US has seemed to operate from further afar.

Trump wrote on Truth Social just last week that “President Xi, at our recent meeting in Beijing, China, told me that he would not, under any circumstances, give or sell Weapons to the Islamic Republic of Iran — And that statement included Chinese Companies.”

“Considering our relationship, I take him at his word and, besides, l am doing him very big favors, also. Likewise, President Putin … told me that he would not sell Weapons to Iran,” he stated. Trump continued, “Therefore, two major Countries that people speak of often in terms of Iran are, in my opinion, not participating. If they did, it would be very bad for them — Certainly not in their best interests.”

As for Reuters’ findings, Beijing as expected has blasted them as lies. China’s Foreign Ministry said in response: “The relevant reports are completely groundless. China has consistently played a role ⁠in promoting peace and ending the conflict.”