Admin

By Anas Abbas

Russia and China have publicly criticised the ongoing military campaign by the United States and Israel against Iran, warning that it risks destabilising the Middle East and undermining diplomatic efforts.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi made direct contact with his Israeli counterpart, urging an immediate halt to the bombardment of Iranian territory. China has framed the strikes as a setback to negotiations that had been making headway in addressing Iran’s nuclear programme and regional security concerns. According to him, military action interrupted progress that was being achieved through talks.

In a statement released by China’s foreign ministry, Wang stressed that continued fighting would deepen instability, increase civilian suffering, and fray international norms governing sovereign relations. He reaffirmed Beijing’s preference for diplomatic engagement over force and called for all parties to resume peaceful negotiations without delay.

On the same day, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov echoed similar concerns in Moscow, questioning the justification for the attacks. He pointed out during a press briefing that there is no credible evidence that Tehran was actively pursuing a nuclear weapon, the publicly stated reason for the military action.

Lavrov argued that the strikes could have the opposite effect of what their architects intended, potentially driving Iran and other states to seek nuclear capabilities as a deterrent.

Lavrov warned that the conflict may prompt a broader nuclear arms race in the region if countries feel compelled to arm themselves in response to military threats. He also criticised the US and Israeli approach as “unprovoked aggression,” underscoring that such actions violate international norms and threaten regional peace.

Russia has offered to assist in diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis but has firmly rejected any justification for the current offensive campaign.

Both Beijing and Moscow are pushing for renewed diplomatic channels to be opened, including through international institutions and direct talks, emphasising that military solutions cannot resolve deeply rooted political disputes. Their positions signal widening international concern over the conflict and mounting pressure for a ceasefire and negotiated settlement.

By Ahmed Musa Husaini

In June last year, during the 12-Day war, I described the situation as the end of peace in the middle-east, arguing that a broader conflict between Iran and its proxies on one hand, and US-Israel and their gulf lackeys on the other, is inevitable.

Israel exists on three myths: that it is the only democracy in the middle-east, that it is a strategic asset for the US and the Christian West’s bulwark against an irrational Islamic and Arab enemy, thus positioning itself as US guarantor of American energy security, protector of western maritime lines, and other US/western interests without the need for permanent American boots on ground.

These myths lack any basis in facts or rational geopolitics. Israel is an apartheid state, a security liability for the US, and the biggest source of instability in the region that continues to occupy territories of it’s neighbors and violates more international laws and UN conventions than any country on earth.

Since its founding in 1948, Israel has fought multiple wars with its Arab neighbors. In the early years post-1948, Egypt emerged as its most sophisticated threat due to its size as the most populous Arab nation and its border with Israel, making it impossible to be decisively defeated by Israel in any conventional way.

Aware of such threats, Israel, worked through the US, to sign a peace treaty with Egypt in 1979, in what Israeli leaders and analysts referred to as the “most important strategic shift in Israel’s history,” one that reshaped Israel’s strategic environment in profound ways. It effectively neutralized the most powerful Arab military power, decapitated the Egypt-led Arab military coalition which had crossed Suez Canal in 1973 and took Israel by surprise. With Egypt now removed from the strategic equation, Israel could focus its resources elsewhere.

That’s why Menachim Begin was able to make far-reaching concessions to the Egyptians in 1979: returning the Sinai peninsula along with dismantling over 170 military Israeli installations, as well as the handing over of the Alma oil fields which at the time supplied half of Israel’s energy needs with estimated $100 billion in untapped reserves. To this day, the US pays Egypt $1.3-1.5 billion annually to maintain that agreement.

With the removal of the Egyptian threat, the years from 1979 to the end of the cold war marked a period of Israeli undisputed military superiority. It was Israel’s golden age, a period of unparalleled conventional military dominance. Nowhere was that superiority displayed than in its invasion of Lebanon in 1982 (and its defeat of Syrian forces) in order to dislodge the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO).

Ironically, it was Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and its prolonged occupation of southern Lebanon that gave birth to Hezbollah. Hurting from the suffering and humiliation of the Shiite constituents in Southern Lebanon, Hezbollah emerged (under IRGC’s tutelage) with the explicit goal of ending Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon, a feat it achieved in 2000 when Israel was finally chased out of Southern Lebanon.

In the same vein, the eruption of the First Intifada due to years of Israeli occupation and subjugation of Palestinian Arab people led to the birth of Hamas as a military threat. Prior to that, Hamas was a local charity organization with a vast network of schools, clinics, mosques, and youth clubs, providing crucial social services and embedding itself in the daily life of Palestinian communities. Immediately after the outbreak of the first intifada, Sheikh Ahmad Yassin and other leaders announced the formation of Harakatul Muqawama Al-Islamiya – the Islamic Resistance Movement, known by its acronym as Hamas.

With the end of cold war, Israeli focus shifted to Iraq. Israeli illusion of invincibility was shattered during the Gulf War, with Saddam’s Iraq firing 39 scud missiles at Israeli population centers. For the first time, the Israeli home front was attacked by a different type of weapon that renders its air superiority ineffective, an experience that gave birth to Israel’s famed missile defense technology.

With the elimination of Saddam in 2003 in another costly US war at the behest of Israel, Israel’s new focus shifted to Iran. Iran represented a different kind of threat. For a start, Iran is a non-Arab, Shiite power, with a nuclear and missile delivery technology, and a network of proxies in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen; posing a challenge to Israel’s military dominance in ways its strategists could not have imagined in the heady days after its peace treaty with Egypt in 1979 or the elimination of Saddam in 2003.

In the build up to the Israeli-instigated US invasion of Iraq, Netanyahu even told the US Congress that removing Saddam Hussein from power would usher in a period of peace and stability in the Middle-east. Immediately Saddam was removed, the incitement shifted to Iran, and if Iran were to be removed today, Israel would create a new enemy to continue justifying its belligerence.

The fact is, Israel is created from chaos, from tragedy: the dispossession of millions of indigenous Palestinian Arab populations. The existence and survival of Israel as an occupier, expansionist, racial and ethnic state is predicated on endless chaos and conflict. Even if Hezbollah, Hamas or Iran do not exist, Israel would create one.

The current war with Iran is nothing but a continuation of Israeli impunity under American patronage, in order to guarantee Israel’s qualitative military edge, preserve America’s diplomatic monopoly, and continue to create conditions for continuous US presence in the middle-east.

That’s why Trump’s own objectives for the war keep changing, from regime change and liberating Iranians, to destroying Iranian defense capabilities and industrial infrastructure. Just days ago, the Iranians have agreed to most of Trump’s demands about halting uranium enrichment and the commitment not to pursue nuclear weapons, but negotiations for the US and Israel were just a smokescreen to buy time and reposition forces in the region.

I am under no illusion about American military superiority. If Iran were to fall today, if the Iranian threat were to be eliminated today, Israel would create another threat. Already, Israeli leaders are talking about Muslim nuclear-armed Pakistan and Muslim NATO member Turkey. For Israel to exist, a new enemy must be created after the elimination of the last one, a forever war is needed.

This state of forever war is important for Israel’s domestic population. The Israelis disagree on everything except on the treatment and subjugation of their Arab neighbors. Creating an external enemy serves as a unifying force against an existential threat, thus suppressing internal political and ethnic divisions, distract from their leaders (Netanyahu’s) domestic and personal failures, and delegitimize political dissent as betrayal.

It also has an international dimension. First on the basis of strategic interests by projecting Israel as America’s strategic asset against a common Muslim Arab enemy while conveniently ignoring Palestinian Christian suffering. And most importantly, from an apocalyptic dispensationalist theological belief that the triumph of Israel and the ensuing conflict are prophesied conditions for the “End Times,” culminating in the Battle of Armageddon and guaranteeing the return of Christ. To these groups, which form a core part of the Republican Party’s base and hold immense political influence, unconditional support for Israel is a religious duty and the conflict must continue and even intensify to fulfil a biblical prophecy.

These three elements: the need for an enemy, the value as an American proxy, and the political weaponization of apocalyptic theology make Israel’s policy of forever war not just a failure of American policy in the middle-east, it is the American policy itself. Israel will be locked into a cycle of creating and perpetuating enemies even if all its neighbors surrender.

But nature abhors vacuum. The resistance dynamic will always run its course. Actions will generate reactions. Israeli occupation and subjugation will create collective suffering, and collective suffering creates anger, desperation and desire for revenge, leading to radicalization and the emergence of violent resistance groups whose promise of resistance and dignity will always find fertile ground for recruitment and popular support. And the cycle repeats.

This is exactly what is happening in the current war on Iran. Iran knows quite well it cannot stand the combined military might of the US and Israel, but it chose to fight with dignity rather than face humiliation and surrender. This heroic and noble stand alone, whose story will be told across generations, will galvanize resistance movement across every inch of the middle-east, whose seeds will germinate in the next 20-30 years to trigger seismic geopolitical events across the region as was seen in the Iranian Revolution of 1979 and recently the Arab Spring.

Victory for Iran is not in militarily defeating the US, it is in denying the US and Israel their objectives of regime change and submissive leadership. It is the same victory the Taliban recorded in Afghanistan and the resistance bloc recorded in Iraq after over 20 years of US aggression and occupation.

The solution to all these lies first in saving Israel from itself, from its perpetual sense of forever war and tendency to self-destruct. Israel must be forced to exist as a single biracial state with equal rights for Palestinians and Jews, just as was the case with Apartheid South Africa. And secondly, America’s diplomatic monopoly must end. Asking America to broker a peace involving Israel is akin to asking Iran to broker peace involving Hezbollah. It is against the basic law of natural justice and fairness to ask the state that sponsors, arms, shields, and protects one side to serve as impartial broker.

To Achieve that, the Arabs, Israel’s immediate environment and victims, must do their part. These countries, are run by regimes who continue to ignore the suffering of their people in order to appease their American patrons. The world (Russia or China or any rival power) will not do the job for them. Neither Israel nor their American patrons will change their behavior without incentives. More Abraham Accords can be signed, and more middle-eastern governments can be co-opted into the illusion of American patronage and Israeli security, but as long as the Arab street reeks of domestic discontents and regional outcry against Israeli aggression, as long as the Palestinian question remains unsolved and Israeli belligerence remains untamed, a forever war is in our hands.

By Abdulhamid Abdullahi Aliyu

In Kano today, politics is no longer whispered in corridors; it is argued loudly in markets, mosques and on social media timelines. Since Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf’s reported decision to part ways with the NNPP, the city has become a theatre of competing loyalties, sharp sarcasm and deeper constitutional questions. Supporters have reduced complex political choices into street labels—Abba’s camp being teased as ’yan a ci dadi lafiya, while the Kwankwasiyya faithful wear wuya ba ta kisa as a badge of honour. Beneath the banter, however, lies a serious national issue: who truly owns a political mandate?

Governor Abba Yusuf did not emerge from a vacuum. His ascent to the Kano Government House was inseparable from the Kwankwasiyya political machinery, a movement painstakingly built by Senator Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso over two decades. From red caps to ideological messaging, the movement transcended party platforms and became a political identity. In the 2023 elections, many voters did not merely vote for a party; they voted for Kwankwasiyya as a symbol of continuity, defiance and populist appeal.

Yet, Abba Yusuf is no ceremonial beneficiary. He contested, won, survived legal battles and now governs with all the constitutional powers vested in an elected governor. His mandate, in law, is personal. Once sworn in, no political godfather—however influential—can legally issue directives from outside the Government House. This is where the tension lies: the clash between moral ownership of political capital and constitutional authority of office.

Those derisively tagged ’yan aci dadi lafiya by opponents argue that governance is about pragmatism, access to power and delivering dividends to the people. From their perspective, a sitting governor must build alliances beyond sentiment, protect his administration and ensure stability. Politics, they insist, is not a monastic vow of hardship but a strategic exercise in survival and results.

On the other side stand the wuya bata ƙi sa faithful—Kwankwasiyya loyalists who believe political struggle must be endured to preserve ideology. To them, Abba Yusuf’s move is not strategy but betrayal. They see it as an attempt to reap the fruits of a movement while discarding its architect. In their view, suffering with the movement, even outside power, is preferable to comfort without loyalty.

This divide exposes a recurring Nigerian dilemma: the uneasy relationship between political movements and the individuals they propel into office. From Awolowo’s disciples to Aregbesola’s rupture with Tinubu, Nigerian politics is littered with fallouts between founders and beneficiaries. Kano’s current drama is simply the latest chapter.

Kwankwaso’s influence in Kano politics is undeniable. Beyond elections, he represents a moral compass for millions who see him as a symbol of resistance against elite dominance. His supporters’ anger is therefore not merely partisan; it is emotional and ideological. To them, Abba Yusuf’s political identity was inseparable from Kwankwaso’s shadow.

However, governance demands autonomy. A governor who appears perpetually tethered to an external authority risks administrative paralysis and legitimacy questions. Abba Yusuf’s defenders argue that Kano cannot be governed from outside its constitutional structures. They insist that the electorate voted not just for Kwankwaso’s endorsement but for Abba Yusuf’s promise to lead.

The real casualty in this contest, unfortunately, risks being governance itself. When political energy is consumed by loyalty tests and factional supremacy, policy focus suffers. Kano’s challenges—urban congestion, youth unemployment, educational deficits, and security concerns—require a governor fully immersed in administration, not in constant political firefighting.

There is also the electoral implication. While Kwankwasiyya remains a formidable grassroots force, incumbency is a powerful weapon. State resources, visibility, and administrative control can quickly reshape political narratives. The assumption that loyalty automatically translates into electoral dominance may underestimate the pragmatism of Nigerian voters, especially when power dynamics shift.

Yet, Abba Yusuf’s path is equally fraught. Detaching from a movement that delivered his victory carries political costs. Kano’s electorate is emotionally invested, and symbols matter. If his administration fails to convincingly outperform expectations, the narrative of ingratitude could harden into electoral punishment.

Ultimately, this is not just a Kano story; it is a Nigerian one. It forces a national reflection on whether mandates belong to parties, movements, godfathers or the individuals elected by the people. The Constitution is clear, but politics rarely is.

Perhaps the wisest outcome lies not in triumph or humiliation but in recalibration. Political movements must learn to institutionalise beyond personalities, while elected officials must acknowledge the moral debts that brought them to power. Neither absolute loyalty nor total independence offers a sustainable path.

As the dust settles, the sarcasm of ’yan a ci dadi lafiya and wuya ba ta kisa may fade, but the questions will linger. In Nigeria’s democracy, mandate is both a legal instrument and a moral contract. Kano’s unfolding drama reminds us that ignoring either side of that equation comes at a cost—sometimes higher than any political suffering.

Abdulhamid Abdullahi Aliyu is a journalist and syndicate writer based in Abuja

By Sabiu Abdullahi

U.S. President Donald Trump has announced plans to halt all trade relations with Spain after Madrid declined to permit American forces to use its military bases for operations connected to strikes on Iran.

Trump made the remarks on Tuesday during a meeting at the White House with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. He criticised Spain’s position and disclosed that he had directed Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to take action.

“Spain ‌has been terrible,” Trump said. He added that he had instructed Bessent to “cut off all dealings” with Spain.

“We’re going to cut off all trade with Spain. We don’t want anything to do with Spain,” the president stated.

Following Spain’s refusal, the United States moved 15 aircraft, among them refuelling tankers, away from the Rota and Moron air bases in southern Spain. The Spanish Socialist-led government had declined permission for the facilities to support operations targeting Iran.

Trump also revisited his long-standing demand that NATO members allocate 5% of their gross domestic product to defence. Spain has resisted that target. The president argued that Washington holds broad authority over trade matters.

“Spain has absolutely nothing that we need,” he said.

“All business having to do with Spain, I have the right to stop it. Embargoes – do anything I want with it – and we may do that with Spain,” Trump added.

Bessent, who stood beside the president, confirmed that steps would be taken to examine possible penalties. He said the United States Trade Representative and the Commerce Department would begin inquiries into measures against Spain.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court recently limited Trump’s ability to impose sweeping global tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the president insisted the ruling strengthened his powers in other respects. He said the decision “totally reaffirmed” his authority to impose a comprehensive trade embargo under the same law.

IEEPA, enacted in 1977, has served as a legal basis for sanctions against countries such as Iran, Russia and North Korea. It has also enabled restrictions on exports of sensitive technologies.

Bessent backed Trump’s interpretation of the ruling. “The Supreme Court reaffirmed your ability to implement an embargo,” he told the president.

Spain Reacts

The Spanish government responded with a statement stressing that the United States must respect the independence of private enterprises, international legal frameworks and trade agreements between Washington and the European Union.

Madrid said it possesses the tools required to cushion any economic impact and assist industries that might suffer losses. Officials also affirmed their commitment to open markets and continued economic collaboration with partners.

Spain ranks as the world’s leading exporter of olive oil. It also supplies the United States with auto components, steel and chemicals. However, analysts note that Spain may be less exposed to American trade pressure than some other European economies.

Data from the U.S. Census Bureau show that the United States recorded a $4.8 billion trade surplus with Spain in 2025. American exports to Spain reached $26.1 billion, while imports stood at $21.3 billion. This marked the fourth consecutive year of surplus for Washington.

Chancellor Merz indicated that European partners are urging Spain to increase defence expenditure. “We are trying to ⁠convince Spain to catch up with the 3% or 3.5% which we agreed on in NATO,” he said.

“And as the president said, it’s correct: Spain is the only one who is not willing to accept that and we are trying to convince them that this is part of our common security that ⁠we all have to comply with these numbers,” Merz added.

Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has previously taken positions that have drawn criticism from Trump. Among them was a decision to deny docking access to vessels transporting weapons to Israel.

The latest dispute signals rising tension between Washington and Madrid. The situation may have wider implications for transatlantic trade and security cooperation if concrete measures follow the president’s warning.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

Fresh reports suggesting that Cristiano Ronaldo has left Saudi Arabia for Madrid with his family have been dismissed as false.

Renowned football journalist Fabrizio Romano debunked the claim in a Facebook post on Tuesday. According to him, the story circulating in sections of the international media is untrue.

Romano stated that Ronaldo remains in Saudi Arabia and was present at Al Nassr’s training ground today. The clarification comes amid widespread speculation that the Portuguese star had travelled back to Spain.

The journalist described the report as fake news and insisted that the forward has not departed the country.

He added that Ronaldo is currently undergoing assessment and treatment following issues he experienced in his last match. The five-time Ballon d’Or winner was substituted during that game due to the problem.

Ronaldo continues to train with Al Nassr as he works toward full fitness, putting to rest rumours of an immediate return to Madrid.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has proposed sending his country’s leading drone interception specialists to the Middle East. He said the support would be provided if Gulf leaders persuade Russian President Vladimir Putin to accept a temporary ceasefire in Ukraine.

Zelensky made the proposal after a series of Iranian drone strikes targeted countries including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. He noted that Ukraine has built strong expertise in countering such attacks after four years of war with Russia.

One of the Iranian-made drones struck the British Royal Air Force base in Akrotiri, Cyprus, on Monday. Security forces intercepted two other drones hours later.

“I would suggest the following: leaders of the Middle East have great relations with Russians. They can ask Russians to implement a month-long ceasefire,” Mr Zelensky told Bloomberg. “In exchange, we will send our best operators of drone interceptors to the Middle East countries.”

He said the ceasefire could last two months or even two weeks. He explained that the pause would allow Ukraine to deploy assistance aimed at protecting civilians in affected countries.

Kyiv and its European partners have repeatedly called for an unconditional ceasefire. Moscow has turned down those appeals. Russian officials insist they are prepared to discuss what they describe as a “lasting peace,” while placing strict conditions on any settlement.

On Monday, President Putin held phone conversations with leaders from Bahrain, the UAE and Qatar. These countries have faced recent Iranian drone attacks. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Russia remains “in constant contact with the Iranian leadership.”

“For sure, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar have good relations, first of all economic, with Putin,” Zelensky said. “We can help Israel in the same way.”

Zelensky stated that Russia has launched more than 57,000 Shahed drones at Ukraine since the invasion began four years ago. He said the drones often target power facilities, warehouses and residential areas.

The drones were first designed by an Iranian firm, Shahed Aviation Industries Research Centre. Russia now produces many of them at a factory in Yelabuga, located in the Republic of Tatarstan.

Ukraine uses a coordinated air defence structure that combines mobile ground units, anti-aircraft missiles and radio-electronic systems. Zelensky described the system as “irreplaceable.”

He voiced support for recent US and Israeli military action against Iran. He argued that Tehran “chose to become Putin’s accomplice” by supplying military equipment to Moscow.

At the same time, Zelensky warned that a prolonged conflict in the Middle East could affect Ukraine’s access to air defence supplies. Kyiv depends heavily on US-made Patriot systems, which are also deployed by American forces in the region.

“We understand that a long war… and the intensity of the fighting will affect the amount of air defence equipment we receive,” he said.

Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha said recent developments show weakening support for Moscow among its allies. “Assad, Maduro and now Khamenei. Putin has lost three of his closest pals in little more than a year,” he said. “The domino of deposed dictators must continue, and Putin’s fall one day is inevitable.”

Meanwhile, Putin has presented Russia as a potential mediator in the crisis. He condemned what he described as the “cynical” killing of the Iranian Supreme Leader and held discussions with leaders in Iran and the Gulf region.

Some pro-Kremlin commentators have argued that US military action could disrupt peace efforts in Ukraine. “Diplomacy was destroyed as a tool on Saturday,” said Vladimir Solovyov on Russia-1 television. “It is now completely obvious to us that any negotiation process is nothing more than part of a military operation designed to pacify the enemy.”

By Sabiu Abdullahi

Portuguese football star Cristiano Ronaldo has reportedly departed Saudi Arabia for Madrid, Spain, as security concerns mount in the region following recent military action involving the United States and Israel.

Ronaldo, who serves as captain and forward for Al-Nassr FC, left Riyadh late at night aboard his £61million ($81million) Bombardier Global Express 6500 private jet. The UK Daily Mail disclosed the development on Tuesday.

His relocation followed coordinated strikes carried out by the United States and Israel in Iran on February 28, 2026. The operation reportedly led to the deaths of several senior Iranian figures. Iranian state media announced on March 1 that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei had been killed. Authorities declared 40 days of mourning and introduced a seven-day public holiday.

The security situation in the Gulf region deteriorated after two drones hit the United States Embassy in Riyadh overnight.

The Saudi Ministry of Defence said, “A limited fire broke out at the United States Embassy in Riyadh after it was hit by two drones,” adding that the strike caused “minor material damage.”

According to the Daily Mail, “Riyadh, where Ronaldo lives with his partner Georgina Rodriguez and their five children, has been affected by attacks linked to the regional conflict.”

Flight tracking service Flightradar24 reported that the aircraft “departed Riyadh at 8:00 pm and arrived in Madrid at almost 1:00 am, flying a path over Egypt and the Mediterranean.”

Ronaldo’s exit occurred as Washington intensified security steps across the Middle East in response to the unfolding crisis. The U.S. Department of State announced temporary closures of embassies and the suspension of consular services in several countries due to heightened safety concerns tied to the expanding Iran conflict.

In Saudi Arabia, the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh halted both routine and emergency services across its missions in Riyadh, Jeddah and Dhahran.

In neighbouring Iraq, nonemergency American government personnel received orders to exit the country. U.S. staff also faced restrictions from using Baghdad’s international airport.

Kuwait recorded deadly incidents involving American forces. Six soldiers lost their lives, and three fighter jets crashed in what the U.S. military described as an “apparent friendly fire” episode.

The unfolding developments have heightened uncertainty across the region, with governments implementing precautionary measures as tensions persist.

By Uzair Adam

The Nigerians in Diaspora Commission (NiDCOM) has said it has not received any distress call from Nigerians residing in Iran despite the escalating hostilities involving Iran, the United States and Israel.

The clarification comes as the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs disclosed that it is closely monitoring developments in the Middle East.

NiDCOM’s Director of Media and Public Relations, Abdur-Rahman Balogun, speaking on Monday, explained that although Nigerians may be living in Iran, none has formally contacted the commission to request assistance.

“I’m not saying there are no Nigerians there, I’m only saying nobody has sent any distress call,” he said.

Balogun attributed the cancellation of flights to the region to the ongoing hostilities, noting that airlines would not operate in an active war zone.

He added that temporary ceasefires are sometimes arranged to allow stranded passengers to be evacuated, but such an arrangement has yet to take place.

On the possibility of an evacuation, he said the Federal Government would only activate a full-scale operation when specific conditions are met, including an official request for help from affected citizens.

“You cannot force them. People went there voluntarily. In Sudan and Ukraine, some initially said they were not leaving,” he explained.

He stressed that Nigerians who desire evacuation must clearly indicate their willingness to return home. “People must seek help and say, ‘Our lives are in danger, can you evacuate us?’” he said.

According to him, once a formal request is made and the situation permits safe movement, the government could initiate emergency steps such as chartering aircraft and setting up a rescue committee.

“All must be Nigerian and must be ready to come back home,” he stated.

Balogun reaffirmed that safeguarding Nigerians abroad remains a key responsibility of the Federal Government under its citizen diplomacy policy.

He assured that if any Nigerian’s life is threatened and a request for assistance is received, authorities would explore available options, including leasing aircraft if necessary.

However, he maintained that evacuation would be impracticable without a ceasefire and the reopening of airspace, stressing that international aviation protocols must also be respected.

“As far as I know, I’m not aware that anybody has sent a distress call,” he reiterated.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

Troops of the 35 Artillery Brigade have intercepted 296 large wraps of substances believed to be Cannabis Sativa along the Abeokuta–Igboora Road in Ogun State.

The operation took place at about 4:30 a.m. on March 1, 2026, after the troops received credible intelligence about the planned movement of suspected illicit drugs along the route. Acting swiftly on the information, the soldiers moved to the area and stopped a motorcycle without a registration number.

During a search, the troops discovered 296 large wraps of substances suspected to be Cannabis Sativa, also known as Indian hemp. The items were hidden inside three large sacks. The suspect reportedly abandoned the motorcycle and escaped into a nearby bush under the cover of darkness.

The seized exhibits have been handed over to the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA), Ogun State Command, for further investigation and necessary action.

The 35 Artillery Brigade reiterated its determination to rid Ogun State of drug trafficking and other criminal activities. The Brigade warned individuals involved in illegal trade to embrace lawful means of livelihood or face the consequences of security operations.

It also reassured residents of Ogun State of the Nigerian Army’s continued commitment to safeguarding lives and property. The Brigade stated that troops will sustain a strong presence across the state to ensure that criminal elements do not operate freely.

The statement was signed by Major IderegHI Samuel Akari, Assistant Director, Army Public Relations, 35 Artillery Brigade, and dated March 2, 2026.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

Iran’s newly declared Supreme Leader, Alireza Arafa, has threatened retaliation against the United States and Israel after Tehran accused both countries of carrying out military attacks on its territory.

In a statement released on Tuesday morning across several social media platforms, Arafa said diplomatic efforts had come to an end. He accused Washington of crossing a “red line.”

“The time for negotiations is over. The United States has chosen to cross the red line, the line of irreparable harm,” he said.

“By launching this war, they have signed their own death warrant: they don’t know when or how the axe will fall, but we hold the reins.”

His remarks followed reports of coordinated airstrikes by US and Israeli forces on Iranian military sites and key infrastructure. The operation marked a sharp deterioration in relations among Tehran, Washington and Tel Aviv.

Tensions between the countries have grown in recent months over Iran’s missile programme, its regional activities and allegations linked to nuclear development. The United States has repeatedly accused Iran of supporting armed groups in the Middle East and fuelling instability in the region. Iranian officials have denied those allegations.

Tehran described the recent strikes as “unprovoked.” Authorities insisted that Iran did not initiate hostilities.

Arafa rejected Western claims that the attacks were preventive steps against a nuclear threat.

“They brandish the nuclear specter like a scarecrow, blinded by their arrogance,” he said.

“They have no idea of the true extent of our power or what we are prepared to unleash.”

He directed some of his strongest remarks at Israel and warned of continued retaliation.

“As for Israel, its fate is sealed. Every strike, every crime, every act of suffering they have inflicted will come back to haunt them,” Arafa declared.

“They will remain in our sights, exposed, vulnerable, hunted.”

The exchange of threats has heightened concerns about a wider regional conflict. Armed groups aligned with Tehran in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen could become involved if hostilities expand.

Security analysts say a prolonged confrontation could disrupt global energy supplies and deepen sectarian divisions across the Middle East.

In his concluding remarks, Arafa described the crisis as a defining struggle for Iran.

“We walk in the shadow of the Leader, and every step is a lightning bolt,” he said, before ending with the slogan: “Iran does not bend. Iran wins. Always.”

As tensions rise and military activities continue, international actors face growing calls to intervene and prevent a broader conflict that could reshape the region for years.