Ship attacked near Strait of Hormuz

A US federal judge has formally dismissed criminal bribery and fraud charges against Indian billionaire Gautam Adani, bringing an end to a high-profile prosecution while issuing a sharp rebuke over how the Department of Justice handled the case. US District Judge Nicholas Garaufis approved the Justice Department’s request to drop all charges with prejudice, permanently barring prosecutors from refiling the case. The decision closes an investigation launched in 2024 that accused Adani and senior executives of paying over $250 million in bribes to Indian officials to secure solar energy contracts while misleading American investors. In a 47-page order, Judge Garaufis voiced deep concern over procedural irregularities, noting that senior Justice Department official R. Trent McCotter negotiated the dismissal directly with Adani’s defence team without consulting the FBI agents and career prosecutors handling the investigation. The judge also scrutinized whether Adani’s public pledge to invest $10 billion in the United States and create 15,000 jobs influenced the outcome. While Garaufis ultimately concluded the investment promise did not legally dictate the government’s decision, he warned that the unusual handling of the case raised troubling questions about public perception of equal justice. The dismissal follows efforts by Adani’s legal team, led by prominent attorney Robert J. Giuffra Jr., who argued that much of the alleged conduct occurred outside US jurisdiction and no longer aligned with federal enforcement priorities. Adani, who maintained his innocence throughout the proceedings, welcomed the ruling in a statement, expressing deep respect for the judicial process.

US intelligence agencies are examining whether Russia helped Iran carry out drone attacks on CIA facilities in the Gulf, raising fresh concerns about growing military cooperation between Moscow and Tehran. Officials are reviewing intelligence to determine whether Russia provided targeting information, advanced drone technology, or other forms of support that may have increased the accuracy of the attacks. According to sources familiar with the investigation, analysts have not reached any final conclusions about Russia’s involvement. However, the precision of the strikes and Russia’s long history of military and technical cooperation with Iran have led intelligence officials to explore whether Moscow played a direct role in planning or supporting the operations. The investigation follows a series of Iranian drone attacks that targeted sensitive US intelligence locations in the region. At least two CIA facilities were reportedly hit in March. One of the sites was located inside the US Embassy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, while another was in eastern Iraq. Officials familiar with the matter said additional CIA locations may also have been attacked, although they declined to reveal further details because of security concerns. Western intelligence officials have also reviewed reports suggesting that Russia may have assisted Iran in selecting the targets. One intelligence assessment reportedly concluded that Russia likely contributed to identifying regional CIA facilities, although officials stressed that the findings remain under review and have not been publicly confirmed. According to officials briefed on intelligence reports, the attack on the US Embassy compound in Riyadh involved two upgraded versions of Iran’s Shahed drones. They said one drone created an opening in the embassy’s outer structure while the second entered through the damaged area before exploding inside. No casualties were reported, but the operation demonstrated a level of accuracy that surprised intelligence analysts. The investigation comes as tensions between the United States and Iran remain high following months of military exchanges across the Middle East. American officials are also examining recent Iranian strikes on a US military base in Jordan where ballistic missiles killed two American soldiers. Those attacks have intensified concerns that Iran may be receiving more advanced military support from Russia. Analysts believe Russia has spent years helping Iran improve its drone capabilities. Intelligence sources say Moscow has assisted Tehran in increasing the range and precision of its Shahed drones through technical upgrades. Reports also suggest Russia supplied Iran with the Kometa M satellite navigation system, which is believed to provide greater accuracy and stronger resistance to electronic interference than Iran’s previous guidance systems. Russia has denied supplying the technology and dismissed earlier reports on the matter. The White House referred questions about the investigation to the CIA, which declined to comment. Iran’s mission to the United Nations, the Russian Defense Ministry, and Saudi authorities also did not respond to requests for statements. The exact number and locations of the targeted CIA facilities remain classified. Intelligence sources said more than one site but fewer than a dozen were struck during the attacks. Overseas CIA operations often include embassy based stations as well as secure facilities used for surveillance, logistics, intelligence gathering, and other sensitive missions. US analysts are also investigating whether Russia supplied the intelligence used to identify the Riyadh facility. Some officials remain cautious, noting that Iran may have intended to strike the US Embassy as a whole rather than specifically targeting the CIA station located within the compound. Others believe very few countries possess both the intelligence capabilities and the strategic motivation to identify and support attacks against such highly sensitive US facilities. Former CIA station chief Daniel Hoffman said closer military cooperation between Russia and Iran makes such assistance plausible. He argued that both countries share a common interest in reducing American influence across the Middle East and other regions where they seek greater strategic control. The investigation remains ongoing as US intelligence agencies continue to assess the available evidence.

Professor Jason Arday, who became the youngest Black professor appointed in the history of the University of Cambridge, has resigned from his post with immediate effect following escalating accusations of academic misconduct and misrepresentation of his qualifications. In a statement released on Wednesday via the Good Law Project, the 41-year-old sociologist said he had “concluded that the only way to bring this chapter to an end is to step away”, citing the severe personal cost of public scrutiny. Arday maintained that his resignation should not be interpreted as an admission of guilt or an acceptance of the allegations against him. The resignation coincided with an official announcement from the University of Cambridge confirming the launch of an investigation into new details surrounding Arday’s academic credentials and honorary titles, alongside ongoing complaints handled under its research misconduct policy. Jesus College, where Arday held a fellowship, confirmed a parallel internal review. The controversy began when former Cambridge researcher Nathan Cofnas published allegations detailing extensive textual overlap in Arday’s published academic papers using plagiarism-detection software. Cofnas also questioned several public claims made by Arday regarding his charitable activities, including assertions of running 30 marathons in 35 days and raising more than £5 million for charity. Arday previously acknowledged editorial oversights in his earlier work, attributing textual similarities to processing methods linked to his neurodivergence and autism, while strongly denying intentional deceit or dishonesty. He argued that the scrutiny was part of a racially motivated campaign targeting his position and diversity initiatives within academia. Publisher Simon & Schuster, which is slated to publish Arday’s memoir later this month, issued a statement defending his professional integrity, while Cambridge officials stressed that formal review processes will proceed in accordance with employment law and institutional guidelines.