Penulis: Agus S

When North Korea's new warship capsized into the sea during its launch last month, it made international headlines. News organisations followed every development, from its successful refloating to itsrelaunch last Friday.

But why such interest, given there were no casualties, and the damage to the hull appeared relatively minor?

The intrigue has less to do with the failure itself and more with how Kim Jong Un reacted.

Kim immediatelydenounced the failureas "a criminal act" that "could not be tolerated", saying it had damaged the country's "dignity". He ordered that the ship be restored immediately, and those responsible be punished. Four party officials were subsequently arrested.

This furious outburst, followed by the ship's swift repair, teaches us a lot about the North Korean regime, whose moves are often so difficult to decipher.

First, it reveals how serious North Korea is about building a nuclear-armed navy.

Despite having a nuclear arsenal, which is growing in size and sophistication, and an enormous standing army, North Korea's navy is considered greatly inferior to those of its enemies – South Korea, Japan and the United States – who have some of the most powerful naval fleets in the world.

"Kim Jong Un believes nuclear weapons are the only way he can protect his country, and yet all it has at sea is an old submarine and some small support ships," said Choi Il, a retired South Korean navy captain.

Therefore, almost since the start of his reign, Kim has prioritised building a modern and powerful navy, equipped with nuclear weapons.

This warship is a key first step towards this goal. It is one of two destroyers North Korea has built over the past year, the first of which launched successfully in April. Weighing 5,000 tonnes, they are by far the biggest warships North Korea has, and are capable, in theory, of firing nuclear short-range missiles.

According to Mr Choi, who now heads South Korea's Submarine Research Institute, it is extremely rare for a destroyer of this class to capsize during its construction and launch, given the advanced technology required to build one.

This would therefore have been "a very embarrassing incident" for Kim Jong Un, he said, as it "highlights the limitations of North Korea's shipbuilding".

Worse still, this flagship project failed in front of his eyes. Kim was attending the ship's launch ceremony, along with his daughter and a crowd of spectators.

"North Korea is obsessed with showing off. I imagine they were planning a whole series of performances, so of course Kim couldn't help but be furious", Mr Choi added.

But experts in North Korea propaganda believe there is far more to Kim Jong Un's outburst than raw anger and humiliation.

Choosing to publicise the capsizing in the way he did was a deliberate political strategy, they say, and shows Kim is shifting away from the regime's tendency to conceal unpleasant truths.

Rachel Minyoung Lee from the Washington-based Stimson Centre, who has analysed North Korean propaganda for decades, explained how this has become a core pillar of Kim's propaganda strategy.

Before Kim came to power, and even in the early years of his rule, the regime would hide anything negative as a way to control the narrative.

But as information has started to spread more freely in North Korea, it has become harder to cover up such major incidents.

"The leadership decided it was almost silly to try and hide what people already knew, and much more effective to show people they were dealing with problems," Ms Lee said.

"Now, when there's a problem, you publicise it, you call out those responsible, and demonstrate to people that if you don't do your job, you will be held accountable. And in doing so, you let everyone know that the government and the leadership are doing their jobs well".

In the case of the warship, this strategy appears to have worked remarkably effectively. The repairs were completed ahead of schedule, in just over three weeks, defying the expectations of naval experts.

"The rapid relaunch shows how even a failure can be turned into a political success," said Kim Dong-yup, an assistant professor at the University of North Korean Studies in Seoul.

But he and others say Kim has used this incident not just to project success but to strengthen people's loyalty to the regime and its ideology – another consistent feature of his rule.

The ship capsized as it was launched sideways from the dock into the sea – a complicated maritime manoeuvre – and part of the bow got stuck on the launching ramp. But rather than present this as a technical failure, Kim Jong Un claimed the incident was caused by "absolute carelessness and irresponsibility."

In contrast, he praised a worker who died during the ship's construction, for "putting his blood and sweat" into the project.

"They turned his death into a symbol of devotion, to strengthen people's loyalty," said Professor Kim Dong-yup.

Rather than present Kim Jong Un as an infallible god as was the case for his father and grandfather, they elevated the loyal worker, he said. "This is a big shift in North Korea's governing technique and shows Kim Jong Un's astonishing ability to adapt and control the narrative".

The biggest takeaway for Ms Lee, the propaganda expert, is that "the North Koreans achieve whatever they set out to do."

"They set this goal of having a nuclear armed navy, and now they're demonstrating they're on their way to achieving that".

No-one thought they could build the destroyers in just over a year, or repair this damage in less than a month, but they have, Ms Lee added, much like they did with their nuclear and missile programme despite the world's initial scepticism.

The retired navy captain Mr Choi agreed. "People may look at this episode and laugh, and think 'oh, North Korea is so far behind', but they're making significant progress", he said.

Most concerning, say he and others, is that Kim Jong Un is intent on transforming his navy from one that is limited to patrolling its own seas into one that will be able to sail the world's oceans and launch pre-emptive nuclear strikes.

"We must be vigilant and prepare accordingly," he said.

Additional reporting by Hosu Lee and Leehyun Choi.

President Trump's comments on the Israel-Iran conflict have veered from full throated support for Israel's strikes to strongly distancing himself from them, and back again.

His ambiguity has added to the sense of uncertainty as the fighting itself escalates.

Meanwhile the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said the attacks were "fully coordinated" with the US.

So what factors are weighing on Trump and, crucially, what are his options now?

As Israeli missiles hit Tehran on Thursday, Trump threatened Iran's leaders with "even more brutal" attacks from his Israeli ally armed with American bombs.

We know Trump's ultimate objective. He says, like Netanyahu, that Iran can't have a nuclear bomb. Crucially, he has said his preferred option (unlike Netanyahu) is via a deal between the US and Iran (this route also reflects his self-described image as a world-class dealmaker).

But he has equivocated over how to get there, sometimes leaning into the threat of force, other times pushing the diplomacy. Last week he even said in the same breath that an Israeli attack on Iran would help a deal or it would "blow it".

His unpredictability is sometimes portrayed by his supporters after the fact as strategic – the so-called "madman" theory of foreign relations. This theory is one that has previously been used to describe Trump's negotiating tactics and suggests that deliberate uncertainty or unpredictability about escalation works to coerce adversaries (or even allies in Trump's case) into complying. It was famously attributed to some of the Cold War practices of President Richard Nixon.

Some of Trump's advisers and supporters back the "maximum pressure" side of the madman theory when it comes to his approach to Iran. They think the threats will in the end prevail because, they argue, Iran is not serious about negotiating (even though in 2015 the country signed an Obama-led nuclear deal that Trump later pulled out of).

Netanyahu has applied constant pressure on Trump to go down the military not diplomatic path, and the US president – despite his oft-stated desire to win the Nobel Peace Prize – may in the end see a need to deliver on his more belligerent threats to Tehran's leadership

Israel may also push harder behind the scenes for American involvement to, as it sees it, to finish the job. The US has bunker buster bombs Israel believes can destroy Iran's underground uranium enrichment site at Fordow.

As the fighting escalates, so does the pressure on Trump from the hawkish camp of Republicans in Congress who have long called for regime change in Iran.

Trump will also see the argument that it could force the Iranians into negotiating with him with a now weaker hand. But the fact remains that the Iranians already were at that table, as a sixth round of talks due with Trump's envoy Steve Witkoff had been planned in Oman on Sunday.

So far, Trump has reiterated that the US is not involved in Israel's attacks.

Escalation comes with significant and potentially legacy-defining risks for Trump. American naval destroyers and ground based missile batteries are already helping in Israel's defence against the Iranian retaliation.

Some of Trump's advisers at the National Security Council are likely to be cautioning against him doing anything that could add to the intensity of Israel's attacks on Iran in the immediate days, especially with some Iranian missiles breaching Israeli-US defences to deadly effect.

Netanyahu is now arguing that targeting Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei would end, not escalate, the conflict.

But an anonymous US official briefed to some news outlets at the weekend that Trump made clear he was against such a move.

One of the big political factors playing on Trump's mind is his domestic support.

Most Republicans in Congress still staunchly back Israel, including continued American arms supplies to the country. Many have vocally backed Israel's attacks on Iran.

But there are key voices within Trump's Make America Great Again (Maga) movement who now outright reject this traditional "ironclad" support for Israel.

Over the last few days they've asked why the US is risking being drawn into a Middle East war given Trump's "America First" foreign policy promise.

The pro-Trump journalist Tucker Carlsonwrote a stinging criticismon Friday saying the administration's claims not to be involved weren't true, and that the US should "drop Israel".

He suggested Mr Netanyahu "and his war-hungry government" were acting in a way that would drag in US troops to fight on his behalf.

Carlson wrote: "Engaging in it would be a middle finger in the faces of the millions of voters who cast their ballots in hopes of creating a government that would finally put the United States first."

Similarly, the staunch Trump loyalist US representative Marjorie Taylor Greeneposted on Xthat: "Anyone slobbering for the US to become fully involved in the Israel/Iran war is not America First/MAGA".

This represents a considerable vulnerability for Trump.

It adds pressure on him to put distance between the US and Israel's offensive and there are signs, in public at least, that he has responded.

The Maga debate over the weekend coincided with him posting on social media that he joined Russia's president Putin in calling for an end to the war. By Sunday he said Iran and Israel should make a deal, adding: "The US had nothing to do with the attack on Iran".

Iran has already threatened to attack US bases in the region if, as is now happening, Washington assists Israel's defence.

The risk of any American casualties would likely see the Maga isolationist argument grow exponentially, in turn potentially adding pressure on Trump to pull back and urge Mr Netanyahu to bring the offensive to a swifter end.

Listen to Lyse read this article

On Friday, after Israel launched an unprecedented attack on Iran, its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed Iranians directly. Speaking in English, he told them that the time had come for them to stand up against an "evil and oppressive regime".

Israel's military operations were, he announced, "clearing the path for you to achieve your freedom".

Now, as the military confrontation between Iran and Israel intensifies, and the range of targets widens, many are asking – what is Israel's real endgame?

Is it simply to end, as Netanyahu also declared on Friday on the first night of strikes, "the Islamic regime's nuclear and ballistic missile threat"?

Was it also to finish off any more talks between the US and Iran, to reach a new negotiated deal to curb Iran's nuclear programme in exchange for the lifting of painful sanctions?

Or could that message to Iranians about clearing a path to achieve freedom nod to an even bigger aim of trying to bring an end to Iran's clerical rule?

The political career of Israel's longest-serving prime minister has been marked by his personal mission to warn the world of the dangers posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran – from a cartoon of a bomb he's shown at the United Nations, to his repeated refrain during the last 20 months of a burning regional war that Iran was the biggest threat of all.

American presidents and Netanyahu's own generals are known to have pulled him back, more than once over the years, from ordering military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities.

US President Donald Trump says he didn't give it a green light. But even what seems to have been at least an amber one seems to have been enough.

"Now he is in, he is all in," is how one western official described Netanyahu's game. He also underlined the view that Israel's main goal was to cripple Iran's nuclear programme.

That decision has been widely condemned by states across the region, as well as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) whose Director-General Rafael Grossi underlined: "I have repeatedly stated that nuclear facilities must never be attacked, regardless of the context or circumstances." They have also been condemned by legal scholars who argue that the strikes are illegal under international law.

But many are now asking whether Israel's prime minister is pursuing the same goals as his top advisors and allies.

"While Netanyahu has personally stacked his fortunes on regime change, the Israeli political and military establishment are committed to profoundly setting back Iran's nuclear program," says Dr Sanam Vakil, Director of the Middle East and North Africa programme at the Chatham House think tank.

"The latter might be difficult but somewhat achievable," she adds. "The former looks harder to deliver in a short and intensifying conflict."

Netanyahu cast Israel's operation as pre-emptive strikes to destroy an existential threat. Iran's advance, he declared, was "at the 90th minute" towards the development of a nuclear bomb.

Western allies have echoed his declaration that Tehran must not be allowed to cross this line. But Netanyahu's clock has also been widely queried.

Iran has repeatedly denied it has decided to build a bomb. In March, Tulsi Gabbard, the US Director of National Intelligence, testified that the US intelligence community "continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon".

The IAEA said in its latest quarterly report that Iran had amassed enough uranium enriched up to 60% purity – a short, technical step away from weapons grade, or 90% – to potentially make nine nuclear bombs.

In these first few days, three key facilities in Iran's vast programme have been targeted – Natanz, Isfahan, Fordow. The IAEA has said that a pilot fuel enrichment plant, above ground, at Natanz was destroyed.

The IAEA also reported that four "critical buildings" were damaged at Isfahan. Israel describes the damage to Iran's facilities as "significant"; Iran says it's limited.

And Israel is also striking "sources of knowledge" by assassinating, so far, at least nine nuclear scientists and a growing list of top military commanders. Its list of targets, which includes military bases, missile launch pads and factories, is now widening to economic and oil facilities.

Iran is also hitting back with its own expanding hit list as civilian casualties mount in both countries.

But to deal a decisive blow to Iran's vast nuclear programme, Israel would have to do significant damage to Fordow, its second-largest and most heavily protected site. The complex, deep underground in a mountain, is where some experts believe Iran has stockpiled much of its near weapons-grade uranium.

Reports in Israeli media say the current aim is to try to cut off access to the facility.

Israel doesn't have the bunker-busting bombs it would need to smash through so much rock. But the US Air Force has them. They're known as MOP – the precision-guided 30,000lb Massive Ordnance Penetrator. But it would still take many strikes, over many days, to cause major damage.

"I think the most likely scenario is that Netanyahu will call Trump and say 'I've done all this other work, I've made sure there is no threat to the B-2 bombers and to US forces but I can't end the nuclear weapons programme,'" Richard Nephew, former US official and Iran expert at the Columbia University Center on Global Energy Policy, told the BBC's Newshour programme.

A Western official told me, "It's still not clear which way President Trump will jump."

Trump keeps veering back and forth. At the start of last week, he urged Israel to stop threatening Iran militarily because an attack could "blow it" when it came to the nuclear negotiations with Iran he's always said he much prefers.

Once Israel attacked, he praised the strikes as "excellent" and warned "there's more to come, a lot more". But he also mused they could help push Iran towards making a deal.

Then in a post on Sunday on his Truth Social platform, he declared "We will have PEACE, soon, between Israel and Iran! Many calls and meetings now taking place."

Iran's negotiators now suspect that the talks, which were set to resume in the Omani capital Muscat on Sunday, had all been a ploy to convince Tehran an Israeli attack was not imminent, despite mounting tensions. Israel's blistering salvos on Friday morning caught it off guard.

Others also see the timing as significant. "Israel's unprecedented strikes were designed to kill President Trump's chances of striking a deal to contain the Iranian nuclear programme," says Ellie Geranmayeh, deputy head of the Middle East and North Africa programme at the European Council on Foreign Relations.

"While some Israeli officials argue that these attacks aimed to strengthen the US leverage in the diplomatic path, it is clear their timing and large-scale nature was intended to completely derail talks."

Officials with knowledge of these negotiations had told me last week that "a deal was within reach". But it all depended on the US moving away from its maximum demand for Iran to end all nuclear enrichment, even from much smaller single-digit percentages commensurate with a civilian programme. Tehran viewed that as a "red line".

After President Trump pulled out of the landmark 2015 nuclear deal in his first term, partly under repeated urging from Netanyahu, Iran moved away from its obligation to restrict enrichment to 3.67% – a level used to produce fuel for commercial nuclear power plants – and started stockpiling too.

In this second attempt, the US leader had given Iran "60 days" to do a deal – a window viewed by mediators with experience and knowledge of this field as far too small for such a complex issue.

Israel attacked on the 61st day.

"The Oman channel is dead for the time being," says Dr Vakil. "But regional efforts are underway to de-escalate and find off ramps."

Viewed from Tehran, this escalation is not just about stockpiles, centrifuges, and supersonic missiles.

"They see it as Israel wanting to, once and for all, downgrade Iran's capabilities as a state, its military institutions, and change the balance of power between Iran and Israel in a decisive way, and perhaps topple the Islamic Republic as a whole, if it can," argues Vali Nasr, Professor of Middle East studies and International Affairs at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and author of the 2025 book Iran's Grand Strategy.

It's unclear how the Iranian public might respond.

A nation of 90 million people has suffered, for years, the effects of swingeing international sanctions as well as systematic corruption. Protests have flared, year after year, on issues ranging from high inflation to low employment, shortages of water and electricity to the zeal of morality police restricting women's lives. In 2022, unprecedented waves of protests demanded greater freedoms; they were met by a harsh crackdown.

Mr Nasr offers his assessment of the public mood now. "Maybe at the beginning, when four or five very unpopular generals were killed, they may have felt a sense of relief, but now their apartment buildings are being hit, civilians have been killed, and the energy and electrical infrastructure of the country is under attack," he says.

"I don't see a scenario in which the majority of Iranians are going to side with an aggressor against their country while it's bombing it, and somehow view that as liberation."

But Netanyahu's statements keep hinting at broader targeting.

On Saturday, he warned his country will strike "every site and every target of the ayatollah regime".

On Sunday, when specifically asked by Fox News if regime change was part of Israel's military effort, Israel's premier replied it "could certainly be the result because the Iran regime is very weak".

"They want to play to the regime's fears of losing control as part of their psychological warfare," says Anshel Pfeffer, Israel Correspondent at The Economist and author of a biography of Netanyahu.

"The consensus within Israeli intelligence is that predicting or engineering the downfall of the Iranian regime is pointless. It could happen soon, or in 20 years."

But Mr Pfeffer believes the prime minister's thinking may be different. "I think there's a good chance that Netanyahu, unlike his spy chiefs, actually believes in the message; he is in a Churchillian mood."

By Sunday evening, reports started appearing on US media, each citing their own sources, that President Trump had vetoed in recent days an Israeli plan to kill Iran's Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The buzz began when Reuters first broke the story quoting two anonymous US officials.

Israeli figures questioned on their aims, from the foreign minister Gideon Sa'ar to the National Security Council Chief Tzachi Hanegbi, have emphasised their focus is not on Iran's political leadership. But Hanegbi added a coda – "but the concept of 'at the moment' is valid for a limited time."

In the end, the contours of this endgame will be shaped by the course of a perilous and unpredictable confrontation, and an unpredictable US President.

"Success or failure is overwhelmingly being defined by whether the US can be dragged in," assesses Daniel Levy, President of the U.S. Middle East project and former Israeli government advisor. "Only the US can bring this to a timely end-point in the near future by determining outcomes and stop points."

Top picture credits: Anadolu via Getty, ATEF SAFADI/EPA – EFE/REX/Shutterstock

BBC InDepthis the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.

After days of uncertainty and negotiations, the funeral arrangements for Zambia's former president have been finalised.

Edgar Lungu, who led Zambia from 2015 to 2021, died 11 days ago in South Africa where he was receiving treatment for an undisclosed illness.

According to his family, he had left instructions that his political rival and current President Hakainde Hichilema "should not come anywhere near his body".

But a spokesperson for the Lungu family confirmed that an agreement had been reached with the government that allowed for Hichilema to preside over a state funeral next Sunday.

The row caused consternation among some in Zambia with people left wondering how they should mourn their former leader.

After days of talks, the Lungu family and the government have agreed that:

At a joint press briefing in South Africa, Lungu family spokesperson Makebi Zulu, sitting alongside Secretary to Zambia's Cabinet Patrick Kangwa, said the family apologised "for the inconvenience and pain that the protracted negotiations may have caused but we were doing our best to honour the former president's personal wishes".

Mr Zulu also said that the family was proceeding on the basis that the government would "not deviate from our agreement".

Speaking for the government, Mr Kangwa appealed for unity and thanked Zambians for their patience "during this difficult time".

After six years as head state, Lungu lost the 2021 election to Hichilema by a large margin.

After that defeat he stepped back from politics but later returned to the fray.

He had ambitions to vie for the presidency again but at the end of last year the Constitutional Court barred him from running, ruling that he had already served the maximum two terms allowed by law.

Despite his disqualification from the presidential election, he remained hugely influential in Zambian politics and did not hold back in his criticism of his successor.

Last year, Lungu complained of police harassment and accused the authorities of effectively putting him under house arrest. He also said he had been prevented from leaving the country. The government denied both accusations.

Go toBBCAfrica.comfor more news from the African continent.

Follow us on Twitter@BBCAfrica, on Facebook atBBC Africaor on Instagram atbbcafrica

US President Donald Trump has ordered an expansion of the detention and deportation of migrants across the country as protests against his policies continue.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump called on federal agencies to "do all in their power" to deliver "the single largest mass deportation programme in history", naming Los Angeles, Chicago and New York as specific targets.

These cities are among the many where large-scale protests have broken out against raids on undocumented migrants since 6 June.

Trump has faced legal challenges and criticism for his response to the protests – particularly his deployment of the military to quell the demonstrations.

Trump said he had directed the "entire administration to put every resource possible behind this effort".

He also promised to prevent "anyone who undermines the domestic tranquility of the United States" from entering the country.

Addressing various federal offices including the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice), he wrote "you have my unwavering support. Now go, get the job done!"

The post came a day aftera new wave of protests against Trump's policies across the country.

On 14 June, the "No Kings" movement demonstrated in cities stretching from Los Angeles to New York. Those demonstrations also coincided with a military parade in Washington DC to mark 250 years of the US army, which was held on the president's 79th birthday.

One person died in a shooting at a No Kings march in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Trump also ordered immigration authorities to focus their efforts on sanctuary cities – those that limit their assistance to federal immigration authorities – which during the protests have become a source of tension between federal and state lawmakers.

Officials in these places havedefended their legal rights to protect undocumented migrants.

The command to expand deportations signals a follow-through on Trump's campaign promise to provide the "largest deportation programme of criminals in the history of America".

Opinion polls suggested this policy had widespread support in the build-up to the 2024 US election. Since the deportation programme has grown, however, protests have only increased.

This new order came just a day after the Trump administration directed immigration officials to largely pause raids on farms, hotels, restaurants and meatpacking plants, according to the Reuters news agency.

A 57-year-old Australian police officer has been shot dead on a rural property in Tasmania while serving a warrant to repossess a home, say police.

The officer had arrived at a house in North Motton, near the town of Ulverstone, on Monday morning when he was fired at by "a member of the public", Tasmania Police said in a statement.

A second police officer returned fire, injuring the suspect's hand. The suspect surrendered and later received treatment in hospital, police said.

Deadly shootings remain rare in Australia, which has strict gun laws.

Following Monday's shooting a crime scene was established in North Motton and the coroner was notified, a police spokesperson said, adding that "there is no ongoing threat to the public".

"The safety of our officers is our number one priority, and to see an officer tragically killed in those circumstances is truly shocking," Police Commissioner Donna Adams told reporters later on Monday.

"We know that policing can be risky, but we expect every officer to finish their shift and come home back to their families."

The police are not naming the officer out of respect for his family, as some family members have yet to be informed of his death, Ms Adams said.

She described him as a "genuine, dependable police officer" who served the community for 25 years.

He had been accompanied by a "senior and experienced sergeant" on Monday morning to "serve a court-approved warrant to repossess a home", Ms Adams said.

She added that the officer had been shot while making his way from his car to the front of the house. She also praised his colleague, who managed to call for assistance while "in a situation of danger and peril".

Investigations of the incident are underway, Ms Adams said.

Police also said that well-being support was being provided to those involved and affected.

In a statement, Tasmanian premier Jeremy Rockliff called the incident a "heartbreaking tragedy".

To everyone who had the honour of knowing this officer, especially his family and his colleagues… the love of an entire state is with you today."

Shootings are relatively rare in Australia, which introduced some of the world's strictest firearm regulations after 35 people were killed in a massacre by a lone gunman at Port Arthur, Tasmania, in 1996.

Additional reporting by Koh Ewe.

Gunmen have killed the mayor of the Mexican municipality of San Mateo Piñas in the latest deadly attack on local officials.

Witnesses said four armed men arrived on motorcycles, stormed the village hall and opened fire on the mayor, Lilia Gema García Soto, and a local official who was in a meeting with her, Eli García Ramírez.

Two municipal police officers were also injured in the attack.

While officials are still investigating the possible motive for the killing, local officials are often targeted by criminal gangs for failing to do their bidding.

García Soto is the second mayor to be killed in Oaxaca state this year. In May, the mayor of Santiago Amoltepec was shot dead in an ambush along with two other people who were in the car with him at the time of the attack.

The governor of Oaxaca has condemned this latest killing, adding that the crime would not go unpunished.

However, security forces are still searching for the four gunmen, who escaped after the attack.

The state prosecutor's office said federal agents had been deployed to the area to help locate them.

Violence against local politicians and those running for office in Mexico has been on the rise in recent years, spiking in the run-up to last year's general election.

Most of the attacks happened in small towns where organised crime groups are particularly strong, but last monthtwo top aides of the mayor of Mexico City were shot dead in the capitalin an escalation of violence which shocked the country.

Investigators have recovered the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) from the crashed Air India flight, a key step in uncovering what caused last week's deadly accident.

The London-bound Air India aircraft, a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner, crashed soon after taking off on Thursday from the western Indian city of Ahmedabad.At least 270 people have been killed, most of them passengers.

The CVR captures audio from the cockpit, including pilot conversations, alarms and ambient sounds.

The flight data recorder(FDR), which logs crucial flight parameters like altitude, speed and engine performance, had been recovered from the debris on Friday.

Both the CVR and FDR collectively form what is commonly known as the "black box" of a plane. It is a vital tool in air crash investigations, helping experts reconstruct the flight's final moments and determine the cause of the incident.

The black box, unlike the name suggests, is actually two bright orange devices – one for the CVR and the other for the FDR – painted with reflective strips for easier recovery after a crash. Both these devices are designed to survive a crash.

India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) is leading the inquiry into the cause of the crash, helped by teams from the US and the UK.

On Sunday, officials from the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) surveyed the site of the plane crash.

"The AAIB has launched a detailed investigation, and the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is conducting a parallel probe under international protocols, since the aircraft is American-made,"a statement releasedon Sunday said.

Indian media outlets have reported, citing sources, that officials from Boeing and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) – the US aviation safety agency – also visited the site.

Separately, a high-level committee set up by the Indian government to examine the reasons behind the crash is expected to hold its first meeting on Monday.

The committee will submit a preliminary report within three months,the All India Radio said, and will propose new standard operating procedures (SOPs) to help prevent similar incidents in future.

As the investigation continues, families on the ground are still grappling with disbelief and trauma.

Less than a minute after taking off from Ahmedabad's Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport, the AI171 flight crashed into a doctors' accommodation building at the BJ Medical College and Civil Hospital.

All but one of the 242 passengers and crew members were killed. Officials have also been trying to establish how many people were killed on the ground and continuing the slow process of matching DNA samples to confirm the victims' identities.

Over the weekend, doctors said 270 bodies had been recovered from the site of the crash.

More than90 victims have been identifiedthrough DNA matching, Dr Rajnish Patel of Ahmedabad's Civil Hospital said on Monday. He added that 47 of the identified bodies have been sent to their families.

Among the identified victims is Vijay Rupani, the former chief minister of Gujarat, whose funeral will be held on Monday. Rupani, whose political career spanned more than 50 years, will be laid to rest with full state honours in Rajkot city.

For many other families, the agonising wait continues.

Officials told the BBC that the identification process has been slow and painstaking, as many of the bodies were badly burned in the crash and are being processed in small batches.

Mistry Jignesh, waiting outside the hospital for updates on his niece,told the BBC on Saturdaythat officials told him that it might take longer for them to hand over his niece's remains as the search for bodies is still ongoing. He had earlier been told that the body would be handed over by Sunday, after the 72 hours it normally takes to complete DNA matching.

"When people are still missing, how can they complete the DNA process by tomorrow? What if my niece's remains haven't even been found? The wait is killing us," he said.

Follow BBC News India onInstagram,YouTube,TwitterandFacebook.

Donald Trump's family business is launching a new Trump-branded phone service, in its latest plan to cash in on the US president's name.

The Trump Organization, which is run by his sons,saidit planned to sell a gold-coloured, "built in the United States" smartphone for $499 (£367.50), along with mobile phone service for a monthly fee of $47.45 – a reference to their father serving as the country's 47th and 45th president.

Ethics watchdogs said the latest venture represented another means for potential corruption and conflicts of interest.

A supply chain expert has also told the BBC that making such a phone in the US from all-American components would be "virtually impossible."

"It's unbelievable that the Trump family has created yet another way for President Trump to personally profit while in office," said Meghan Faulkner, communications director for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).

Trump has said he has put his business interests in a trust, which is managed by his children. The White House has maintained he acts on the interests of all Americans.

But Ms Faulkner said the latest venture raised familiar issues, including whether the new business will win customers from people hoping to influence Trump and how the president will craft policies and regulation for an industry in which his family now has a stake.

Technology experts have questioned what the Trump Organization's "built in the United States" claim about its handsets means and argued it is probably not currently possible to manufacture smartphones from scratch in the US.

"They don't even have a working prototype. It's extremely unlikely," said Professor Tinglong Dai, who teaches operations management at Johns Hopkins' Carey Business School.

"You would have to have a miracle. You would need to have economies of scale. You would need to have sustainable demand for this kind of product," Prof Dai added.

The decision comes as Trump tries to pressure Apple chief executive Tim Cook to manufacture iPhones sold to American buyers in the US.

Last month, the presidentthreatenedto place a 25% import tax "at least" on iPhones not manufactured in America.

Analyst Leo Gebbie of CCS Insight noted that the US currently "simply does not have the high-tech supply chain" required for smartphone assembly, especially not in time to be released in August, as the Trump Organization has said.

"However, it's possible that the device could be assembled in the US with parts imported from abroad. This might be the most likely outcome that lets the T1 claim American sovereignty," Mr Gebbie said.

The announcement was light on details, including the name of the business partner that will run the service and is licensing the name.

The Trump Organization did not immediately respond to questions from the BBC about its business partner, criticisms around potential ethics issues and a request for details of its "built in the United States" claim.

In announcing its plans, it said "hard-working Americans deserve a wireless service that's affordable, reflects their values, and delivers reliable quality they can count on".

It pitched a policy of "discounted" international calls to families with members serving outside the US in the military.

The announcement said the mobile service would have customer support staff based in the US to answer questions, as well as the gold-coloured phone, which is currently available for pre-order.

The deal is an extension of a business strategy that Trump embraced long before his presidency, striking deals to sell his name to hoteliers and golf course operators in exchange for fees and royalties.

But the opportunities to profit from his brand have expanded since he entered politics a decade ago.

On his most recent financial disclosure, Trump reported making more than $600m last year, including millions from of items such as Trump-branded bibles, watches sneakers and fragrances.

Forbes in March estimated his net worth was $5.1bn, more than double than a year earlier.

It said the surge was due in part to the president's "diehard following", which is credited with helping to prop up the value of Trump's social media company that runs the Truth Social platform, which accounted for roughly half his wealth last year.

The mobile phone market in the US is currently dominated by three major players: AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile, which all offer phone service starting at less than $40 a month.

There are also a growing number of smaller firms paying to use those networks to target niche groups of potential customers, by offering lower prices or tailored plans.

The largest of those companies, which are known as mobile virtual network providers, have less than 10 million subscribers, according to a 2024 report by the Federal Communications Commission.

Mint Mobile, which was backed by Ryan Reynolds, was sold to T-Mobile for $1.35bn in 2023. At the time, one analyst estimated the service had roughly two million to three million subscribers.

The actor had a 25% stake in the business, giving him a potential pay out of about $300m.

As protesters marched through central Barcelona on Sunday, they shouted at the tourists who were filming them to "Go Home!".

Bemused couples sitting in street cafés got squirted with water pistols and a luxury clothes store was pasted with stickers declaring the tourists who'd shut themselves inside unwelcome.

Tourism is hugely important to Spain and Barcelona is a top destination for visitors. But the crowds are growing so fast that many locals complain they're being squeezed out of their own cities.

Here and in popular spots across southern Europe, residents are pushing back.

"We cannot live in this city. The rents are super high because of BnBs and also the expats who come and live here for the weather," Marina explained, holding her own banner as the crowd gathered.

It declared "Your AirBnB used to be my home".

Other signs called for a ban on the giant cruise ships that dock here, with one announcing that over-tourism is "killing" the city.

"Our goal is not to stop tourism, because it's also good, but to have it at a normal rate," Marina said.

The protesters' route wound towards one of Barcelona's biggest attractions, the towering Sagrada Familia church designed by Catalan architect, Gaudi.

A combination of stunning architecture, sea and sun drew more than 15 million visitors to the city last year, almost ten times the local population. No wonder it's feeling the strain.

"We're not against individual tourists, it's about how we're managing this," Elena, a young marine biologist, said.

"Young people can't afford living here or even normal things like coffee that are all really expensive for our salaries."

It's not only the young who are struggling.

At 80 years old, Pepi Viu has just been evicted from her home of almost a decade, in a popular neighbourhood. She thinks the owner wanted to earn more rent than the pensioner could pay.

Pepi is now in a hostel, and searching for somewhere more suitable, but prices have soared almost 70% since she last rented.

"I can't find anything – and there's no support. I feel like I have no protection and it's upsetting," she says, frail and leaning on a stick. "There's only tourist flats now, but we residents need somewhere to live!"

In some areas of town, almost all locals like Pepi have already been pushed out.

But in a narrow, paved street of the Gothic quarter, right in the tourist heart of Barcelona, Joan Alvarez is fighting to hold on to the flat his family have rented for 25 years, and at a price he can afford.

His landlord has terminated the contract, but Joan refuses to leave.

Most of the apartments in his building have already been divided into single rooms to bring in more rent.

Joan's little oasis, with tiled floors and a terrace that looks towards the cathedral, is one of the few still intact.

"It's not just about the money, it's the principle," he explains, cats winding through potted plants as he talks. "This is central Barcelona and there's hardly any of us residents left. It shouldn't be like that."

"Housing shouldn't be big business. Yes, this is his property, but it's my house."

Under pressure from the protests, the authorities in Barcelona have already taken the radical step of announcing a complete ban on short-term rentals to tourists from 2028.

10,000 landlords will lose their tourist housing licences.

But Jesus Pereda, who owns two popular tourist flats not far from the Sagrada Familia, thinks that's the wrong response.

"They stopped giving out new licences 10 years ago, but rents have still gone up. So how are we to blame? We're just an easy enemy," he insists.

Managing the flats is his job, providing an income for himself and his wife. "Now we have anxiety."

Jesus believes it's the 'nomad' workers moving from elsewhere in Europe who are pushing rents up, rather than tourists. "They earn and pay more. You can't stop that."

He argues that tourist flats like his help spread the crowds, and the cash, to other areas of the city. Without tourism he believes Barcelona would have an "existential crisis" – it represents up to 15% of Spain's gross domestic product (GDP) as a whole.

If he loses his tourist licence, Jesus won't take on local tenants in any case: a price-cap means long-term rental is barely profitable so he plans to sell both the flats.

The protest in Barcelona culminated in chants of "You're all guiris!" – local slang for foreigners – and a burst of firecrackers. Red smoke billowed up in front of rows of police officers blocking all routes to the Sagrada Familia.

A little earlier, the crowd had targeted a busy hotel, kicking a flare into the lobby. Tourists inside, including children, were clearly shaken.

There were similar protests elsewhere in Spain and more crowds in Portugal and Italy: not huge, but loud and insistent.

The concerns are the same and there's no consensus on how best to tackle it. But Spain is expecting more tourists this summer than ever.

Additional reporting by Esperanza Escribano and Bruno Boelpaep