Whilst in Egypt, Kushner also met Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. According to Israeli media reports, Kushner, Mladenov and Blair will meet Netanyahu on Monday with the aim of advancing Trump’s plan.

The Israeli prime minister has said he wants a full Hamas disarmament first in order to implement the deal.

“Israel rejects the Board of Peace’s 15-point document on Gaza. The IDF will not carry out any withdrawal until Hamas is genuinely disarmed,” Netanyahu said last week defying Israel’s closest ally.

In a joint statement on Sunday, Egypt, UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, Pakistan and Indonesia said Israel’s rejection of the US plan threatened Trump’s efforts for peace.

The ceasefire, which came into effect on 10 October last year, remains in place.

However, the Israel Defense Forces have carried out several strikes in Gaza since then – the latest on “terrorists” in Khan Yunis and Nuseirat areas of Gaza – accusing Hamas of breaking the truce.

The war was triggered by the Hamas-led attack on southern Israel on 7 October 2023, in which about 1,200 people were killed and 251 others were taken hostage.

Israel responded to the attack by launching a military campaign in Gaza, during which more than 73,000 people have been killed, according to the territory’s health ministry, whose figures are considered reliable by the UN.

The UN estimates that about 1.9 million people – 90% of Gaza’s population – have been displaced since the war started.

The UN Security Council meets Friday morning in New York to discuss the evolving situation in Syria, as the country navigates a fragile transition after years of conflict and the fall of the Assad regime. Deputy Special Envoy Claudio Cordone and UN relief chief Tom Fletcher are expected to brief members on political and humanitarian developments. Follow our live coverage for updates from the chamber as they happen.

 The Chinese government confirmed on Monday that U.S. President Donald Trump will visit China from May 13 to 15, marking a significant diplomatic engagement between the world’s two largest economies at a moment of heightened geopolitical friction. The visit, at the invitation of Chinese President Xi Jinping, is expected to center on Iran, trade disputes, and broader strategic competition in the Indo-Pacific, particularly the increasingly sensitive Taiwan issue.

According to China’s foreign ministry spokesperson, the trip will be a formal state visit involving ceremonial events in Beijing, including a scheduled tour of the Temple of Heaven and a state banquet hosted by Chinese leadership. For the Trump administration, officials say the visit is intended to combine diplomatic symbolism with tangible policy outcomes.

“This will be a visit of tremendous symbolic significance,” said White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly during a briefing call. “But of course, President Trump never travels for symbolism alone. The American people can expect the president to deliver more good deals on behalf of our country.”

The visit represents Trump’s first trip to China in his second term and comes amid persistent tensions between Washington and Beijing over trade tariffs, industrial policy, and geopolitical alignment in the Middle East and Asia.

While the agenda is expected to include a wide range of issues, U.S. officials indicate that Iran will be a key focus of Trump’s discussions with Xi. Washington has intensified pressure on Tehran over its nuclear program and regional activities, while Beijing has maintained strong economic ties with Iran, particularly through oil imports.

China remains one of the largest buyers of Iranian crude, much of it processed through independent “teapot” refineries that rely on discounted shipments. This trade relationship has become a persistent point of friction between the United States and China, especially as Washington seeks to tighten sanctions enforcement.

Trade relations more broadly are also expected to dominate the summit. The two powers remain locked in disputes over tariffs, technology restrictions, and industrial subsidies. Despite periodic negotiations, structural economic competition between the United States and China continues to define bilateral relations.

Analysts expect Trump to press for concessions on market access and manufacturing imbalances, while Beijing is likely to push for a reduction in tariffs and a relaxation of U.S. technology export controls.

Beyond Iran and trade, the most sensitive issue looming over the talks is Taiwan — a self-governed island that Beijing claims as its territory and has pledged to reunify with, including by force if necessary.

Military analysts note that the balance of power across the Taiwan Strait has shifted significantly in China’s favor over the past decade. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) now fields more than 2 million active personnel, compared to Taiwan’s roughly 215,000 troops, supported by a reserve force exceeding 1.6 million.

China’s defense budget, estimated at around $230 billion, dwarfs Taiwan’s approximately $16.8 billion. The PLA also maintains a significant advantage in air and naval power, with nearly 1,200 fighter aircraft compared to Taiwan’s roughly 280, along with 777 naval vessels versus Taiwan’s 117. Submarine capabilities also heavily favor Beijing, with 79 submarines compared to Taiwan’s four.

In addition, China has developed one of the world’s most capable amphibious assault forces, including Type 075 landing helicopter docks and Type 071 landing platform docks, supported by large-scale integration of civilian roll-on/roll-off vessels for potential military use. Airborne assault forces are estimated at 35,000–40,000 personnel, further enhancing rapid deployment capabilities.

PLA forces regularly conduct large-scale exercises around Taiwan, including operations that cross the informal “median line” in the Taiwan Strait, increasing pressure on Taipei and testing its defensive readiness.

Despite China’s overwhelming conventional superiority, Taiwan has focused on an asymmetric defense doctrine often described as a “porcupine strategy.” This approach emphasizes mobility, survivability, and precision strike capabilities designed to complicate and delay any invasion attempt.

Taiwan has invested heavily in anti-ship missiles, air defense systems, and dispersed mobile units intended to survive initial strikes. Military planners have also emphasized the importance of maintaining operational continuity even under degraded command-and-control conditions.

Recent war gaming in Taiwan has increasingly focused on scenarios involving decapitation strikes on leadership and communication infrastructure. Inspired in part by global conflicts and evolving military doctrine, Taipei has tested decentralized command structures described by some analysts as a “headless but still fighting” force.

The island’s geography adds both advantages and constraints. While Taiwan’s rugged coastline and mountainous terrain complicate amphibious assaults, its dense urbanization and limited strategic depth make it vulnerable to missile saturation and drone warfare.

The wars in the Middle East and Ukraine have significantly influenced Taiwan’s defense planning. Military analysts in Taipei have studied how precision strikes, drone warfare, and rapid targeting cycles can reshape early conflict phases.

Concerns about missile saturation and drone swarms have driven Taiwan to develop a layered air defense concept known as “Taiwan Shield” or “T-Dome.” The system is intended to integrate multiple tiers of interception, including low-cost solutions designed to counter mass drone attacks and higher-end systems for ballistic and cruise missile threats.

Officials are also exploring emerging technologies such as electronic warfare, microwave jamming, and directed-energy weapons to offset China’s production advantages in unmanned systems.

Beijing, for its part, benefits from a robust and rapidly expanding drone and missile industrial base, giving it significant advantages in sustained high-intensity conflict scenarios.

Since 1949, Taiwan has relied heavily on the United States as its primary security partner, though Washington maintains a policy of strategic ambiguity regarding direct military intervention. The credibility of U.S. commitments remains a critical factor in Taiwan’s defense posture.

Japan, another key regional actor, is widely expected to become involved in any major conflict over Taiwan due to its proximity and security treaty obligations with the United States. This potential multi-theater dimension significantly complicates Beijing’s strategic calculations.

Military analysts also note that China has studied recent U.S. operations emphasizing rapid, coordinated “decapitation” strikes combining air power, intelligence, and special forces. Training facilities in China reportedly include mock-ups of Taiwanese government buildings to simulate such scenarios.

Despite China’s numerical and material advantages, experts caution that a military campaign against Taiwan would face significant operational risks. The Taiwan Strait presents a challenging amphibious environment, and any invasion would require sustained logistical support across a narrow and heavily monitored maritime corridor.

At the same time, Taiwan’s lack of strategic depth and its reliance on external supply chains create vulnerabilities, particularly under blockade conditions. Unlike some conflict zones, Taiwan has limited capacity for domestic production of large-scale munitions or sustained resupply under siege.

The evolving strategic debate in Taipei has increasingly focused on resilience under initial shock. Analysts ask whether Taiwan could maintain coherent command structures in the event of precision strikes targeting political and military leadership — a scenario some compare to recent decapitation-style operations seen in other conflicts.

The upcoming meeting between Donald Trump and Xi Jinping comes at a moment of heightened global instability. While Iran and trade are expected to dominate formal discussions, Taiwan remains the underlying strategic issue shaping U.S.-China relations.

Beijing’s position continues to emphasize reunification as a core national objective, while Washington maintains unofficial but substantive support for Taiwan’s defensive capabilities. The divergence in these positions ensures that Taiwan remains a persistent flashpoint in bilateral diplomacy.

The summit may offer opportunities to stabilize economic relations or manage escalation risks in the Middle East. However, analysts caution that structural tensions — particularly over Taiwan — are unlikely to be resolved through a single diplomatic engagement.

As Trump prepares for his visit, the stakes extend beyond immediate negotiations. The meeting represents a broader test of whether the United States and China can manage strategic competition without sliding into open confrontation.

While China holds overwhelming conventional military superiority in the Taiwan Strait, recent conflicts and evolving defense doctrines suggest that rapid victory in any potential conflict is far from assured.

Ultimately, the trajectory of U.S.-China relations will depend not only on trade concessions or diplomatic optics, but on sustained perceptions of deterrence, alliance credibility, and military risk — particularly in the increasingly volatile Taiwan Strait.

It’s day 26 of war in the Middle East. Ongoing strikes in Israel and Iran have included intensifying Israeli attacks against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon, while some 2,000 US troops are reportedly about to mobilize to the region. Meanwhile, Iran has told the UN maritime agency that the Strait of Hormuz remains open to “non-hostile” ships not associated with the US and Israel. In Geneva, a rare urgent debate on the crisis is also getting under way at the Human Rights Council. Stay with us for live updates from across the UN system. UN News app users can follow coverage here.

US President Donald Trump set the ball rolling on America’s ambitious Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program—now branded the F-47—with sweeping claims of unmatched air superiority over rival powers. But while Washington hails the future aircraft as a revolution in aerial warfare, China has responded with thinly veiled skepticism, casting doubt on the fighter’s design, pace of development, and even the credibility of its manufacturer.

Trump formally awarded Boeing the contract for the crewed sixth-generation fighter—the centerpiece of the NGAD program—on March 20, 2025. The decision marked a turning point in US airpower planning, reviving a program that had faced years of internal debate over costs, feasibility, and the relevance of a crewed aircraft in an era increasingly dominated by drones and artificial intelligence.

The aircraft was unveiled under the designation F-47, a name officially described as a tribute to the legendary World War II-era P-47 Thunderbolt and a nod to the founding year of the US Air Force in 1947. However, the symbolism quickly became politically charged. Observers and social media users speculated that the number also reflected Trump’s status as the 47th President of the United States—a claim never officially confirmed but widely circulated.

In an unexpected reversal, Trump later suggested he might abandon the designation altogether. Speaking at the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, he remarked that the name was not set in stone.

“They say it’s the most devastating plane, fighter jet ever,” Trump said. “They called it 47. If I don’t like it, I’m going to take the 47 off it.”

The comment stood in sharp contrast to Trump’s earlier enthusiasm. When the aircraft was unveiled in March, he had praised the designation, saying, “Nothing in the world comes even close to it, and it’ll be known as the F-47. The generals picked a title, and it’s a beautiful number.”

While no official reason has been offered for the apparent change of heart, analysts suggest Trump may be reluctant to be permanently associated with the program should it face cost overruns, delays, or technical setbacks—a familiar pattern in advanced US defence acquisitions.

Despite the political theatrics, the US Air Force has remained unequivocal in its claims. According to the USAF, the F-47 is designed to “change air combat forever” and deliver decisive air superiority in future conflicts, particularly against China in the Indo-Pacific.

Although most technical details remain classified, the F-47 is expected to feature a combat radius exceeding 1,000 nautical miles—more than 1,800 kilometres—far surpassing current fifth-generation fighters. By comparison, the F-22 Raptor has a combat radius of about 590 nautical miles, while the F-35 Lightning II reaches roughly 670 nautical miles.

Such extended range is critical in the vast Indo-Pacific theatre, where long distances between bases and contested airspace demand aircraft capable of sustained operations without relying heavily on vulnerable aerial refuelling assets. The USAF believes the F-47’s range will allow it to loiter deep inside contested zones, providing persistent air superiority, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR), and strike capabilities.

The aircraft is also expected to operate alongside AI-powered collaborative combat aircraft (CCAs)—autonomous drone wingmen designed to extend sensor coverage, carry weapons, and absorb risk. Two prototypes, General Atomics’ YFQ-42A and Anduril’s YFQ-44A, are already under development, reinforcing the concept of a networked “family of systems” rather than a standalone fighter.

Performance claims have been equally bold. The F-47 is expected to exceed Mach 2 in top speed, matching the F-22 and surpassing the F-35’s Mach 1.6 limit. Trump himself emphasized these attributes when announcing the contract, stating that the aircraft would be unrivalled in “speed, manoeuvrability, payload, and what it can have.”

Stealth is another cornerstone. According to an infographic shared by the USAF’s top leadership in May 2025, the F-47 will feature “stealth++”—a step beyond the F-22’s “stealth+” and the F-35’s baseline stealth. This suggests broad-spectrum, multispectral low observability, potentially incorporating advanced materials and active countermeasures.

Yet even as Washington projects confidence, Beijing has been quick to challenge the narrative.

China has been flying two different sixth-generation fighter prototypes—the J-36 and J-50—since December 2024, giving its state media an opportunity to frame the US program as late and reactive. While little concrete information is publicly available about the Chinese aircraft, both are believed to feature tailless, delta-wing configurations optimized for all-aspect stealth.

Chinese state outlets, including Global Times and CCTV, have devoted extensive coverage to the F-47, often highlighting perceived weaknesses. Shortly after Boeing was awarded the contract, Global Times cited unnamed experts who argued that while the F-47 appeared to meet sixth-generation criteria, it suffered from limited stealth, small size, and the choice of what they described as an “unreliable contractor.”

Zhang Xuefeng, a Chinese military affairs expert, analyzed the USAF’s artist rendering and acknowledged that the F-47 broadly conforms to sixth-generation design trends, such as a lifting-body fuselage, flat nose, and the absence of vertical tails. However, he and other analysts took issue with the apparent presence of canards—small forewings ahead of the main wing—which they argued could compromise stealth.

“Eliminating vertical tails and adopting a supersonic flying-wing structure is a major trend for sixth-generation fighters,” Zhang said, adding that advanced control systems are needed to replace traditional tail surfaces. He described the use of canards as an outdated solution more common in older aircraft designs.

Chinese commentators contrasted this with the J-36 and J-50, which appear to lack both vertical tails and canards, suggesting a purer stealth configuration. Others pointed to the F-47’s relatively modest size. Wang Ya’nan, chief editor of Beijing-based Aerospace Knowledge magazine, argued that the aircraft appears only marginally larger than the F-22, judging by the canopy and landing gear proportions.

In contrast, Wang described the J-36 as a large, multipurpose platform capable of campaign-scale operations rather than purely tactical missions.

Chinese analysts have also questioned US claims that sixth-generation demonstrators have been flying for nearly five years. “Even the pictures depicting the F-47 are artists’ renderings rather than photos,” Global Times noted, casting doubt on Washington’s timeline.

Boeing’s selection has further fuelled criticism. Chinese experts have highlighted the company’s struggles with programs such as the KC-46 tanker and the 737 MAX, arguing that Boeing has not successfully delivered a major new fighter in decades. “Having a company like this to lead a sixth-generation program is actually very risky,” Wang said.

The rivalry has taken on an unmistakably symbolic dimension. Just two days after the F-47 contract was announced, Chinese state television aired grainy footage purportedly showing a test flight of the J-36—timing that analysts interpreted as a deliberate signal in an escalating contest for aerial dominance.

Chinese officials have also struck a confident tone. In December 2025, Yang Shuifeng, a senior engineer at the Chengdu Aircraft Design Institute, claimed China had developed methods for rapidly and reliably producing sixth-generation fighters, surpassing the US by several years. A South China Morning Post article echoed the sentiment, citing China’s experience with the J-20 stealth fighter and improved program management as key advantages.

Western analysts, however, dispute Beijing’s claims of superiority. They argue that the US has maintained a technological lead through highly classified development since at least 2014, with experimental aircraft reportedly flying as early as 2020. According to this view, the secrecy surrounding the F-47 is deliberate, concealing advanced features such as adaptive-cycle engines, metamaterial stealth, and AI-driven mission systems.

Critics of the Chinese narrative also push back against claims that canards inherently undermine stealth, noting that modern materials, shaping, and active measures can mitigate radar signatures. Some even suggest the USAF’s released imagery may be intentionally misleading.

Still, challenges remain. The Next Generation Adaptive Propulsion (NGAP) program, intended to deliver revolutionary engines for the F-47, has faced delays, and the USAF has yet to confirm which powerplant will ultimately be selected.

As Washington and Beijing trade claims and counterclaims, the sixth-generation fighter race is rapidly becoming a defining feature of great-power competition. Whether the F-47 ultimately fulfils Trump’s promise of “the most devastating fighter jet ever” remains uncertain—but what is clear is that air dominance, once again, sits at the heart of global strategic rivalry.

Senior UN political and humanitarian officials are set brief the Security Council this afternoon as members meet to discuss the rapidly deteriorating situation in Sudan, where intensified fighting – including in the Kordofan region – has driven widespread civilian harm and displacement. The region has seen a sharp escalation, including a deadly drone attack on a UN peacekeeping base that killed six Bangladeshi peacekeepers. The meeting was requested by Sudan and Transitional Prime Minister, Kamil Eltayeb Idris, is expected to attend. Follow live below and UN News app users can click here.

Senior UN political and humanitarian officials are set brief the Security Council this afternoon as members meet to discuss the rapidly deteriorating situation in Sudan, where intensified fighting – including in the Kordofan region – has driven widespread civilian harm and displacement. The region has seen a sharp escalation, including a deadly drone attack on a UN peacekeeping base that killed six Bangladeshi peacekeepers. The meeting was requested by Sudan and Transitional Prime Minister, Kamil Eltayeb Idris, is expected to attend. Follow live below and UN News app users can click here.

Syria’s interim President, Ahmed al-Sharaa, has held his first talks with President Vladimir Putin in Moscow since ousting Russia’s ally Bashar al-Assad 10 months ago.

Putin spoke of the “special relationship” between both countries.

Sharaa suggested he would continue to allow Russia access to its military bases in Syria.

He was also expected to ask for the extradition of Assad, who was granted asylum after fleeing to Moscow.

For years they were enemies, on opposing sides of a bloody civil war.

Putin used brutal military force to prop up Bashar al-Assad. And Sharaa’s armed Islamist group led the rebel offensive that eventually forced Assad from power.

But on Wednesday, the Russian and Syrian leaders sat down together for the first time, putting pragmatism ahead of past enmity.

“Over the past decades, our countries have built a special relationship,” Putin said.

He added that there were “quite a few interesting and useful undertakings” on the agenda of their talks, and that Russia stood ready to “do everything to fulfil them”.

Sharaa said he wanted Syria to re-establish its relations with all countries, but “chiefly with Russia”.

“We are trying to restore and redefine in a new way the nature of these relations so there is independence for Syria, sovereign Syria, and also its territorial unity and integrity and its security stability.”

They were warm words from two men seeking a good working relationship.

Russia wants continued access to its Tartous naval port and Hmeimim military airbase on Syria’s Mediterranean coast.

Sharaa suggested he would allow this, saying Syria would “respect all agreements concluded throughout the great history” of their bilateral relations.

In turn, he wants help to consolidate his power in Syria, secure its borders and rescue a parlous economy with access to Russian energy and investment.

Russian ministers said they were ready to deliver foodstuffs and medication to Syria, and to help repair damaged power and transport infrastructure.

But amid the smiles, tensions remain.

Syrian sources said Sharaa would ask for Assad to be extradited so the exiled leader could face trial for war crimes. It is thought unlikely Russia would agree.

On Monday, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told reporters that Russia had granted asylum to Assad because he and his family had “faced the risk of physical elimination”.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio is meeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem, with the aftermath of Israel’s strike in Qatar last week expected to be high on the agenda.

The strike, which targeted senior Hamas leaders on the close US ally’s territory, drew international outrage and was criticised by President Donald Trump.

Rubio earlier told reporters: “Obviously we’re not happy about it. The president was not happy about it. Now we need to move forward and figure out what comes next.”

The meeting comes as Arab leaders hold a summit in a show of support for Qatar. Its prime minister urged the international community to stop applying “double standards” and to punish Israel.

The Gulf state hosts a major US airbase and has played a key role in brokering diplomatic efforts to end the war in Gaza, serving as a mediator of indirect negotiations between Hamas and Israel.

On Sunday, Netanyahu told reporters that the US-Israel relationship was as “durable as the stones in the Western Wall” while he and Rubio made a short visit to the holy site in Jerusalem’s Old City.

Also expected to be under discussion between the pair are Israeli military plans to seize Gaza City and Israel’s continued expansion of settlements in the occupied West Bank.

The meeting comes ahead of a UN General Assembly meeting next week, at which some leading US allies – including the UK, France, Canada, Australia and Belgium – are expected to recognise the State of Palestine.