Security forces said to open fire on demonstrators in southeast Iran on 13th day of protests

Security forces said to open fire on demonstrators in southeast Iran on 13th day of protests

The Times of Israel is liveblogging Friday

Hundreds of people have taken to the streets in the Sunni-majority city of Zahedan in southeastern Iran, as anti-regime protests extended into their 13th day.

The protests are largely attended by members of the Baluch ethnic group and included a women’s rally where participants are heard chanting “From Zahedan to Iran, my life for Iran” and “This is the final battle, Pahlavi will return,” a reference to the son of the former Iranian shah who is backing the protests from exile in the US.

The Haalvsh Baluch rights site says Iranian security forces opened fire on some of the protesters, wounding several of them.

The shooting reportedly took place near the city’s Makki Mosque, where demonstrators prayed before taking to the streets.

The regime has instituted an internet blackout over much of the country and much of the footage of today’s protests is blurred to protect the identities of the demonstrators.

UN rights chief calls for Iran protest deaths to be ‘transparently’ investigated

The UN’s human rights chief calls for all protest deaths in Iran to be “independently and transparently” probed, while also expressing concern at the internet being cut in the country.

Volker Turk, in a statement, says he is “deeply disturbed by reports of violence” in the nationwide protests, saying: “Those responsible for any violations must be held to account in line with international norms and standards.”

Iran FM says US, Israel ‘directly intervening’ in protests

Iran’s foreign minister accuses the United States and Israel on Friday of fueling a growing protest movement in the country, while dismissing the possibility of direct foreign military intervention after US warnings over crackdowns on demonstrators.

“This is what the Americans and Israelis have stated, that they are directly intervening in the protests in Iran,” says Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi during a visit to Lebanon.

“They are trying to transform the peaceful protests into divisive and violent ones,” he says, adding that “regarding the possibility of seeing military intervention against Iran, we believe there is a low possibility of this because their previous attempts were total failures.”

Turkey welcomes Syrian offensive in Aleppo against Kurdish fighters

Security forces said to open fire at demonstrators in southeast Iran, as anti-regime protests enter 13th day

Hundreds of people have taken to the streets in the Sunni-majority city of Zahedan in southeastern Iran, as anti-regime protests extended into their 13th day.

The protests are largely attended by members of the Baluch ethnic group and included a women’s rally where participants are heard chanting “From Zahedan to Iran, my life for Iran” and “This is the final battle, Pahlavi will return,” a reference to the son of the former Iranian shah who is backing the protests from exile in the US.

The Haalvsh Baluch rights site says Iranian security forces opened fire on some of the protesters, wounding several of them.

The shooting reportedly took place near the city’s Makki Mosque, where demonstrators prayed before taking to the streets.

The regime has instituted an internet blackout over much of the country and much of the footage of today’s protests is blurred to protect the identities of the demonstrators.

UN rights chief calls for Iran protest deaths to be ‘transparently’ investigated

More....

Russian strikes cut heat to Kyiv, mayor calls for temporary evacuation

Russian strikes cut heat to Kyiv, mayor calls for temporary evacuation

Russian strikes cut heating to half of the Ukrainian capital on Friday (Jan 9), triggering the mayor to issue an exceptional call for residents to temporarily leave the city with temperatures at -8°C and set to drop further.

Four people were killed in the capital in a massive missile and drone attack that ripped open apartment blocks and also saw Moscow fire its feared Oreshnik ballistic missile at a gas facility in western Ukraine.

The barrage came hours after Moscow rejected a plan by Kyiv and its Western allies to deploy peacekeeping forces to Ukraine in the event of any ceasefire in the war nearing its four-year mark.

AFP journalists in Kyiv saw residents running for shelter as the air raid siren echoed and heard Russian drones exploding into residential buildings and missiles whistling over the capital.

"A clear reaction from the world is needed. Above all from the United States, whose signals Russia truly pays attention to," President Volodymyr Zelenskyy wrote on social media as rescuers sifted through the rubble of widespread damage in the capital.

"Russia must receive signals that it is its obligation to focus on diplomacy, and must feel consequences every time it again focuses on killings and the destruction of infrastructure," he added.

Zelenskyy said 20 residential buildings in Kyiv had been damaged, adding that a Russian drone had damaged the Qatari embassy building.

Around half of all apartment blocks in the capital were left without heat due to "due to damage to the capital's critical infrastructure caused by a massive enemy attack," Klitschko said.

He called on "residents of the capital who have the opportunity to temporarily leave the city for places with alternative sources of power and heat to do so."

Russia's Hypersonic Warning Shot: Why The Oreshnik Strike Changes Everything

Russia's Hypersonic Warning Shot: Why The Oreshnik Strike Changes Everything

PNW STAFF

The war in Ukraine crossed a dangerous new threshold this week -- not because of territory gained or lost, but because of what Russia chose to fire.

Reports indicate that Moscow launched its Oreshnik hypersonic missile in a strike on Lviv, a city just 40 miles from NATO and the European Union. That geographic detail matters. This was not a random battlefield decision. It was a message -- aimed not just at Kyiv, but at Washington, Brussels, and every Western capital watching the conflict inch closer to a wider confrontation.

Hypersonic weapons are not just faster missiles. They are strategic disruptors. And Russia just demonstrated it is willing to use one in active combat.

What Makes the Oreshnik So Dangerous

The Oreshnik is believed to be an intermediate-range ballistic missile equipped with hypersonic reentry vehicles. Once launched, it accelerates to Mach 10 or higher, separating into multiple warheads that descend toward their targets at blistering speed.

At that velocity, reaction time collapses. Radar detection windows shrink. Interceptors struggle to calculate trajectories that change mid-flight. Traditional missile defense systems -- built for slower, predictable ballistic arcs -- suddenly look outdated.

Russia claims that no existing missile defense system can stop Oreshnik. That statement is almost certainly exaggerated. No weapon is truly invincible. But the more uncomfortable truth is this: there is currently no reliable, proven defense against a full hypersonic strike of this kind, especially when multiple warheads are involved.

Even NATO's most advanced systems were not designed for this scenario at scale. And Ukraine, already stretched thin, has virtually no way to counter it.

That reality is what makes this moment so unsettling.

Why Strike Lviv -- and Why Now?

Lviv is not just another Ukrainian city. It is a logistical hub, a symbol of Western support, and a gateway between Ukraine and Europe. 

By striking so close to NATO territory, Russia was drawing a line -- deliberately and visibly.

This strike came amid rising tensions far beyond Ukraine's borders. The United States and Russia are increasingly at odds over oil shipments, sanctions enforcement, tanker seizures, and geopolitical maneuvering in places like Venezuela. At the same time, Western leaders have doubled down on long-term security guarantees for Ukraine, signaling that Kyiv will not be abandoned.

Moscow sees these moves as encirclement.

And it has responded accordingly.

Russian officials have now openly declared that any foreign troops or military units operating in Ukraine would be considered legitimate targets. That is not idle rhetoric. It is escalation language -- the kind that precedes decisions rather than follows them.

The Oreshnik strike fits perfectly into that posture.

The Bigger Picture: Escalation by Design

This war is no longer confined to tanks, trenches, and drones. It has become a contest of thresholds -- how far each side can go without triggering direct confrontation, and how much pressure can be applied before something breaks.

Russia is signaling that it is willing to:

Introduce strategic-level weapons into a regional war

Undermine confidence in Western defensive guarantees

Force NATO planners to confront uncomfortable new realities

The message is not subtle: your defenses may not be enough, and your proximity will not protect you.

For NATO, this presents a serious dilemma. Deterrence relies not just on military capability, but on credibility. If populations believe that advanced weapons cannot be stopped, public pressure to avoid escalation grows -- and that pressure can shape political decisions.

That is exactly the space Russia is trying to exploit.

A Feedback Loop with No Easy Exit

Every escalation creates momentum. Hypersonic weapons invite counter-development. Counter-development invites preemptive deployment. And preemptive deployment raises the risk of catastrophic miscalculation.

This is how arms races accelerate -- not in decades, but in months.

What makes this moment especially dangerous is how multiple global flashpoints are beginning to overlap. 

Ukraine, energy markets, sanctions, shipping lanes, and political instability in oil-producing nations are no longer separate issues. They are threads in the same strategic web.

Pull one too hard, and the entire structure shifts.

The Sobering Reality

The Oreshnik strike is not just about Ukraine. It is about the future of warfare -- and the fragile assumptions that have kept major powers from direct conflict for generations.

Speed changes everything. When weapons travel faster than diplomacy can respond, the margin for restraint narrows. When leaders openly label foreign forces as legitimate targets, ambiguity disappears. And when advanced systems are tested in live combat, what was once theoretical becomes precedent.

The world should take this moment seriously.

Not because war is inevitable -- but because the rules that once slowed escalation are eroding, one missile launch at a time.

The strike on Lviv was not just an attack.

It was a warning shot.

And history suggests that warning shots are rarely the last.

Trumps Board Of Peace Reveal Is Coming Soon - Kings Without Kingdoms?

Trumps Board Of Peace Reveal Is Coming Soon - Kings Without Kingdoms?

 PNW STAFF

History has a way of repeating itself--not always in identical form, but often in eerily familiar patterns. As reports emerge that President Donald Trump's administration is preparing to unveil a sweeping international "Board of Peace," Christians would be wise to pay close attention. Not with fear, not with sensationalism--but with discernment. The pieces now being placed on the global chessboard bear striking resemblance to patterns described long ago in the pages of Scripture.

According to U.S. and regional officials, the Trump administration plans to announce the Board of Peace as early as next week, positioning it as a global body not only to guide postwar Gaza but eventually to assist in resolving conflicts worldwide. 

Confirmed participants reportedly include Egypt, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, Italy, and Germany--already a powerful and geographically diverse coalition. But perhaps most striking is the administration's consideration of filling remaining seats with the heads of major multinational institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Economic Forum.

These institutions possess extraordinary influence but govern no land, command no armies, and answer to no electorate. These are leaders who do not wear crowns, yet their decisions shape economies, determine development paths, and exert leverage over sovereign governments. They are, in every meaningful sense, kings without kingdoms.

This is where the Board of Peace could take on a distinctly new character. The presence of multinational institutional leaders would fundamentally transform the board from a gathering of national representatives into a technocratic ruling council. These figures do not negotiate treaties on behalf of citizens; they set conditions, control capital flows, and define the rules by which nations must operate to receive aid, investment, or legitimacy.

Their inclusion signals a model of peace not rooted in reconciliation between peoples, but in compliance with global systems. 

Reconstruction funds, security cooperation, governance frameworks, and even leadership legitimacy could all be conditioned on adherence to standards defined by unelected global authorities. In this model, peace is no longer simply brokered--it is managed, enforced through economic incentives and institutional pressure.

For students of Scripture, the parallels are difficult to ignore. The Bible describes a future period in which authority is concentrated not solely in traditional kingdoms, but in a limited number of powerful figures who operate beyond national boundaries. Daniel speaks of rulers who arise suddenly, wield influence disproportionate to their origins, and play decisive roles in confirming agreements that directly impact Israel. Revelation later describes ten kings who rule briefly, not over historic empires, but through shared authority--leaders who ultimately "give their power" to one central figure.

Again, this is not to claim fulfillment--but to recognize a familiar pattern. Power detached from geography. Authority divorced from accountability. Leaders who shape the fate of nations without ever standing for election.

Trump announces US exit from dozens of UN, international groups

Trump announces US exit from dozens of UN, international groups

Mike Wagenheim

U.S. President Donald Trump announced plans to withdraw Washington from 66 United Nations and international organizations, agencies, commissions and conventions.

Trump signed and published a presidential memorandum on Wednesday which, he said, followed a review of which “organizations, conventions and treaties are contrary to the interests of the United States.”

The withdrawals will come with full U.S. funding cuts for all of the entities.

“The Trump administration has found these institutions to be redundant in their scope, mismanaged, unnecessary, wasteful, poorly run, captured by the interests of actors advancing their own agendas contrary to our own or a threat to our nation’s sovereignty, freedoms and general prosperity,” stated Marco Rubio, the U.S. secretary of state.

Washington will exit the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, which serves as the central international agreement on climate crisis solutions, along with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other assorted environmental organizations.

America joined the convention via Senate ratification. It was not immediately clear if Trump had the authority alone to order a unilateral withdrawal. Trump announced last year that the United States would exit the Paris climate deal as well.

The memo on Wednesday also calls for withdrawals from the U.N. Population Fund, which focuses on maternal and child health, and the U.N. offices of the special representative of the secretary-general for children in armed conflict and sexual violence in conflict.

The children in armed conflict office has accused Israel for two years in a row of being a mass violator of children’s rights, despite wildly-inconsistent, internal U.N. data and standards.

António Guterres, the U.N. secretary-general, warned Israel it was in danger of appearing on this year’s sexual violence in conflict blacklist, as well. (The Israeli mission to the United Nations declined to comment.)

“President Trump is clear: It is no longer acceptable to be sending these institutions the blood, sweat and treasure of the American people, with little to nothing to show for it,” Rubio stated. “The days of billions of dollars in taxpayer money flowing to foreign interests at the expense of our people are over.”

Since the start of his second term in January last year, Trump has withdrawn the United States from other U.N. bodies, including the World Health Organization and the U.N. Human Rights Council, and he has called for dismantling UNRWA, the U.N. agency for Palestinians, which Washington, Jerusalem and others have said has extensive ties to Palestinian terror organizations.

According to Trump’s memo, the United States intends to exit other entities, such as the Carbon Free Energy Compact, the United Nations University, the International Tropical Timber Organization, the Pan-American Institute for Geography and History and the International Lead and Zinc Study Group.

A U.S. State Department source said that no decision has been made about personnel affected by the withdrawals and would likely be handled on a case-by-case basis.

Hillel Neuer, executive director of U.N. Watch, told JNS that the administration’s decision to “disengage from dysfunctional U.N. agencies highlights a broader credibility crisis.”

U.N. Women, for example, failed to take meaningful action against its deputy chief, Sarah Douglas, who endorsed more than 150 anti-Israel social media posts that violated the U.N. code of conduct, Neuer said.

“That absence of accountability, compounded by electing regimes like Saudi Arabia to lead its women’s rights commission last year, reinforces why reform—or recalibration of U.S. engagement—is necessary,” Neuer said.

Eugene Kontorovich, a professor at George Mason University Scalia Law School and executive director of its Middle East and international law center, stated that the Trump administration’s action is “beginning to dismantle the opaque web of globalist institutions—including numerous organizations, whose exit I have called for over the years.”

“Some of these are minor niche organizations that do no harm but cannot be justified from the point of taxpayer expense,” wrote Kontorovich, who is also a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation. “Others, like the Vienna Commission, seek to manufacture lay down astroturfed international ‘soft law’ that overwhelmingly aligns with progressive values. U.N. Women neglected mass rape by Hamas but remembered Amal Clooney’s birthday.”

To Kontorovich, the biggest thing was the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, “because it was joined via a Senate ratified treaty, making reentry by a subsequent president almost impossible.”

“UNFCCC violated federal law by admitting the PA as a ‘state,’ and will now reap the consequences,” he stated.

“There has never been such a broad shakeout of America’s position in international organizations, and it is much overdue. Needless to say, a Democratic president will undo much of this, because these organizations embody their globalist worldview,” he added. “But for decades Republican presidents played along. The Left had normalized their preferences as ‘good global citizenship.’ Trump’s action puts an end to all that.”