Switzerland temporarily closes Iran embassy, UK withdraws embassy staff
'In view of the intensity of military operations in Iran and the highly unstable situation on the ground, the FDFA has decided to temporarily close the Swiss embassy in Tehran,' the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs said in a statement.
Meanwhile, the UK said it had withdrawn its embassy staff from Iran on the eighth day of the war with Israel, as the US mulled whether to enter the conflict.
'Due to the current security situation, we have taken the precautionary measure to temporarily withdraw our UK staff from Iran. Our embassy continues to operate remotely,' the foreign ministry said in a statement.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
5 minutes ago
- Arab News
Institutionalizing the cryptocurrency frontier
Cryptocurrencies have long existed in a legal and financial gray zone — praised as disruptive innovations, dismissed as speculative bubbles and often relegated to the periphery of serious capital markets. That era is over. New US federal regulation of digital assets, especially stablecoins, signals a shift from speculation to mainstream investment. Legislation known as the Genius Act is one of three cryptocurrency bills currently advancing in Washington with President Donald Trump's support. This is not merely a regulatory footnote. It is a structural turning point. For the first time since the publication of Satoshi Nakamoto's white paper in 2008, the debate in Washington is no longer about whether to regulate crypto, but how — and, more importantly, who gets to define the rules. With bipartisan momentum and political backing from figures such as Trump, the US is stepping decisively into a global contest over digital financial infrastructure. The implications are material, especially for investors and financial institutions recalibrating their exposure to a space once seen as fringe. Since the collapse of FTX, the crypto industry has not only recovered market capitalization but has also ramped up lobbying efforts, poured capital into US elections and achieved a legislative milestone that provides regulatory clarity for dollar-backed stablecoins. The new framework mandates full reserve backing with short-term, Treasury-like instruments and places oversight in the hands of state or federal regulators. What was once dismissed as internet play money is now being granted legal standing and policy legitimacy. This clarity matters. It creates a regulatory perimeter in which US-based issuers like Circle can scale and in which institutional finance can enter without reputational or compliance risk. The regulatory moment resembles the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which sought to modernize laws for an internet-driven world. Like that law, today's crypto framework is racing to catch up with technological reality — aiming to open the gates to competition while preserving systemic resilience. Major players such as Citigroup and JPMorgan are not just taking notice, they are moving in. Citigroup CEO Jane Fraser has pointed to rising client demand for 'multi-asset, multi-bank, cross-border, always-on' payment solutions — characteristics that programmable, blockchain-based money can deliver. JPMorgan and Citibank are developing deposit tokens: bank-backed digital instruments designed to retain institutional control while mimicking the benefits of stablecoins. These moves underscore a deeper truth: stablecoins are not just a crypto niche — they are fast becoming a parallel infrastructure for global payments. Settling instantly, operating continuously and increasingly functioning outside legacy banking rails, these instruments resemble nothing so much as the Eurodollar markets of the 1960s — offshore dollar liquidity that reshaped global finance while evading domestic regulatory control. Stablecoins are already testing the limits of monetary sovereignty, with the potential to rival traditional payment networks in speed and reach. And like the Eurodollar, their evolution may define a generation of financial innovation — unless they are absorbed by the incumbents first. Yet crypto-native firms are outpacing the banks. Circle has soared in valuation. Coinbase, benefiting from its stablecoin partnership, has seen record highs. The market is voting with capital. The era of programmable money is not coming — it is already underway. For serious investors, this presents both an opportunity and a challenge. Regulation is no longer a threat to crypto. It is a prerequisite for scale. Just as the Securities Acts of the 1930s laid the foundation for modern capital markets, today's digital asset legislation seeks to institutionalize a new financial layer — without stifling its underlying dynamism. That historical moment transformed Wall Street; this one could do the same for the blockchain economy. Still, this will not be a clean transition. A single token can be a governance tool, a medium of exchange and a speculative asset — simultaneously. Decentralized exchanges mimic brokerages but lack centralized accountability. Applying legacy legal frameworks to these hybrids is like regulating aviation with maritime law. Critics, especially among Democrats like Elizabeth Warren and Maxine Waters, have raised red flags. They worry about insufficient consumer protections, the potential for systemic risk and — should stablecoin issuers fail — the possibility of future taxpayer bailouts. Their skepticism is not without merit. But their remedy — regulatory inaction or outright prohibition — risks pushing innovation into unregulated offshore zones and ceding global leadership to more agile jurisdictions. Critics argue the legislation introduces more risk than reward. After all, the US already has a functioning payment system — it is called the dollar and, for most purposes, it works just fine. So why reinvent the wheel? For much of crypto's existence, its real-world use case — beyond underground transactions and speculative fervor — has remained elusive. While tokenization promises faster, more efficient payments, the volatility of most cryptocurrencies has made them a poor substitute for fiat money. They are not reliable stores of value and, thus, not viable as everyday currency. Stablecoins attempt to square this circle by pegging themselves to the dollar, offering price stability without sacrificing speed. Most do so by backing their tokens with low-risk reserves like Treasury bills, effectively functioning as digital wrappers for existing US assets. Europe's Markets in Crypto-Assets framework is more than consumer protection. It is strategic industrial policy. By offering a unified regulatory passport across the EU, it provides clarity, scale and first-mover advantage. While the US squabbled over jurisdiction, Europe built the infrastructure. Other jurisdictions — Singapore, the UAE and even Hong Kong — have embraced similar clarity. China has gone its own route with a state-backed digital yuan. The US, long caught in agency turf wars, is finally catching up — but only just. This is not merely a new asset class. It is an emerging economic architecture. In countries like Argentina and Nigeria, crypto offers escape from monetary dysfunction. In Ukraine, it became a wartime financing tool. In the US, stablecoins increasingly serve as the foundation for faster, cheaper and programmable transactions. This is not peripheral experimentation. It is foundational infrastructure. What was once dismissed as internet play money is now being granted legal standing and policy legitimacy. Dr. John Sfakianakis Congress' move signals a shift in political perception: crypto is no longer an anarchic subculture but a matter of financial strategy and sovereign control. But this shift is not without its complications. Trump's vocal support of crypto — and financial ties to digital asset ventures — raises uncomfortable questions about transparency and influence. The intersection of public policy and private gain in the digital asset space will require vigilant scrutiny. Nonetheless, the legislation, despite its imperfections, marks a belated but necessary leap forward. Without regulatory clarity, the US risks becoming a bystander to innovations it helped pioneer. With it, it has a credible chance to shape — not just respond to — the financial infrastructure of the 21st century. As of now, the total crypto asset market exceeds $4 trillion, driven by altcoin gains and positive regulatory developments. Options markets suggest growing investor confidence in continued upward movement. For institutional investors, this is no longer a niche curiosity or a speculative side bet. It is a rapidly institutionalizing frontier. The verdict on crypto is not yet settled. But the idea that it can be ignored has been definitively laid to rest. The law has entered the ledger. The market has taken note.
Arab News
35 minutes ago
- Arab News
Magazine editor criticizes arrest of protester holding Private Eye cartoon at Leeds demonstration
LONDON: Ian Hislop, the editor of the UK's satirical magazine Private Eye, has condemned the arrest of 67‑year‑old protester Jon Farley, who was detained under terrorism laws for displaying a cartoon at a silent Gaza demonstration in Leeds. Farley, a retired teacher, was held under Section 12 of the Terrorism Act after holding a placard displaying a cartoon on Private Eye's front cover, which joked about the government's proscription of Palestine Action. Hislop slammed the arrest as 'mind boggling' and a 'blatant misunderstanding of satire,' noting that the cartoon was 'an example of freedom of speech' against a government policy, according to a report in local media. Hislop added: 'So, it's not difficult to understand. It's critical, but it is quite clearly a joke. (It) seems to me absolutely extraordinary that someone could be arrested for holding it (the cartoon) up.' Farley, a regular demonstrator, said he took the cartoon to a protest in Leeds after hearing that 32 Palestinians seeking aid had been killed by Israeli forces that day. He said: 'I saw it in Private Eye and thought, 'That's really well thought-out — it has nuance.' But I don't think the police do nuance.' Farley added that officers handcuffed him and escorted him into a police van before he could explain the placard's satirical origin. He was released six hours later without charge but under bail conditions barring him from rallies supporting Palestine Action, a group that the UK government classified as a terrorist group after it broke into a UK military base and vandalized military aircraft. Farley is among dozens who have been arrested since the ban for holding placards purportedly supporting the group. The retired teacher called for an apology and expressed concern over the 'murky lack of clarity' in the police's actions. West Yorkshire Police said it would review the incident, and acknowledged confusion following Palestine Action's designation as a proscribed organization earlier this month.
Arab News
35 minutes ago
- Arab News
UK data leak highlights West's flawed Afghanistan project
The reverberations of the Western forces' withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 keep on being felt in many nations, years after Taliban turned the page on 20 years of failed attempts by the US, UK, NATO and others to democratize the country. The recently exposed leak of data about thousands of Afghans who had worked with British forces presents several unanswered questions, as well as billions of pounds in costs. Then there is the vetting process that remains less than comprehensive, to say the least, and open to abuse, especially as the Taliban have repeatedly claimed that they have not pursued or targeted those who cooperated with the pro-Western regime in Kabul or its many Western allies. So, is it possible that the Afghans have been overexaggerating the level of threat to their safety for other reasons? Or has the West again been a victim of its oversensitivity to the protection of human rights, freedom of expression and women and other minorities from potential abuse by regimes such as the Taliban? In less than a month's time, on Aug. 15, it will be four years since Kabul fell back into the hands of the Taliban. The US-led Western troops' pullout, negotiated by the first Trump administration and executed by the Biden administration, ended up being one of the most chaotic and humiliating withdrawals since American troops pulled out of Vietnam. Whatever the reasons behind the speedy collapse of the pro-Western government in Kabul, it showed once more that the Western efforts to supplant democracy and nation-building were flawed from the beginning. The story for the UK of repatriating Afghans who had worked with its forces began then and continued under different Conservative governments. But the 2022 data leak did not come to public attention until a high court judge this month lifted a gagging order that was put in place in 2023, when the breach first came to light. In brief, the story goes back to February 2022, when the personal data related to nearly 19,000 Afghans who had applied to be repatriated to the UK after the Taliban seized power was leaked. The Conservative government under Rishi Sunak first learned of the breach in August 2023, when some of the details appeared on Facebook. A special resettlement scheme was set up at speed and more than 4,500 Afghans have since arrived in the UK. But the existence of the leak and subsequent relocations were kept secret after the government obtained a superinjunction banning their disclosure. This was because the data contained the names, contact details and family information of people who had cooperated with the UK and could potentially be at risk of reprisals from the Taliban. The secret scheme, known as the Afghan Response Route, has already cost the UK £400 million ($541 million). And it is expected to cost a similar amount again, if not more, if the UK is to honor its pledge that 600 more Afghan soldiers and 1,800 of their relatives who are still in Afghanistan will be moved to Britain. More dangerously, the leak also revealed the details of more than 100 British officials, including members of the special forces and the intelligence services. The data leak was a catastrophe and it exposed vulnerable Afghans, adding to the risk they faced. The government's decision to try to protect them was right. But it is also fair to question how those risks were assessed and whether the secrecy and lack of public scrutiny improved the situation for those involved. The Taliban's swift takeover of the country surprised the Western powers for sure, but it did not come as a total surprise for a majority of Afghans. Throughout their country's history, they have been capable of sensing the winds of change and maneuvering themselves to lean as necessary. Amid the hasty evacuation of tens of thousands of Afghans who had worked for the Western powers, not all of them were necessarily in imminent danger, but many also saw an opportunity to live outside Afghanistan. The existence of the leak was kept secret after the government obtained a superinjunction banning its disclosure. Mohamed Chebaro The question that has remained unanswered since 2021 is whether there was a genuine case for repatriation or if it was pure opportunism and freeloading. And though human rights groups routinely speak of threats to some people who dwelled in the public sphere, from security to education and women's rights, the dangers faced by those asking for asylum and evacuation remain unclear. Afghanistan is no different to any other nation that has frequently suffered internal strife and wars between its various ethnic and religious constituents. The rush to leave the country as the Western troops withdrew was a natural reflex for humans fearing the worst or sensing an opportune moment to change their lives. As a reporter who covered various parts of the Afghan story, it was possible to notice a trait of Afghans holding the stick from the middle and never burning their bridges with any clan that could be a foe. If anything, the UK data leak highlighted how a poorly-thought-out intervention and poorly executed state-building project, followed by a poorly orchestrated withdrawal, caused damage to the West's standing and reputation. Such poor efforts at the craft of state-building were especially likely to fail in a uniquely tribal and linguistically and ethnically diverse country such as Afghanistan.
