Peter Mandelson arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office amid Epstein files fallout
Lord Peter Mandelson leaving his home in Wiltshire. Ben Birchall/PA Images via Getty Images
(LONDON) — Lord Peter Mandelson has been arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office, police said Monday.
A spokesperson for the Metropolitan Police issued a statement, saying, “Officers have arrested a 72-year-old man on suspicion of misconduct in public office. He was arrested at an address in Camden on Monday and has been taken to a London police station for interview. This follows search warrants at two addresses in the Wiltshire and Camden areas.”
Mandelson is a former U.K. ambassador to the United States.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Denmark’s then-Foreign Minister Jeppe Kofod speaks to the press in Brussels, Belgium, on July 18, 2022. (Xinhua News Agency via Getty Images_
(LONDON )– Denmark’s new government was less than two months old when U.S. President Donald Trump’s campaign to acquire Greenland broke into public view in the summer of 2019.
“We thought it was unprecedented,” recalled former Danish Foreign Minister Jeppe Kofod, who then was in post and suddenly tasked with a transcontinental fire drill.
Trump’s desire for what he at the time called “essentially a large real estate deal” threw a wrench in the works of a planned state visit by the president to Denmark. The president ultimately cancelled the trip, saying Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen had shown “no interest in discussing the purchase of Greenland.”
Frederiksen at the time rejected Trump’s proposal as “absurd.”
Kofod, who has since left Danish politics, told ABC News in an interview on Tuesday that the 2019 saga was “a really bad situation for the bilateral relationship.”
“We also saw it as offending a close ally,” Kofod recalled. “We were very surprised that the first major comments he had were, ‘Why can’t I just buy Greenland?'”
Copenhagen, he said, never considered formulating a price for Greenland’s potential sale.
At the time, though, Danish leaders did not believe Trump was “determined” to force a U.S. acquisition of the world’s largest island, Kofod said. Rather, the Danish government saw the proposal as a means to foster more U.S. engagement in and influence over Greenland.
Nearly seven years later, Kofod’s successors — again under the leadership of Frederiksen — have faced a more protracted and aggressive campaign from Washington. Trump has repeatedly said the U.S. will acquire Greenland — “one way or another,” he said earlier this month.
Greenland is a self-governing territory of the Kingdom of Denmark. Trump’s second term has seen the president double down on his ambition to acquire the minerals-rich island — despite Danish and Greenlandic politicians repeatedly rebuffing him.
Trump has suggested that U.S. sovereignty over Greenland is necessary to ensure American security and blunt Chinese and Russian influence in the Arctic region. A 1951 defense agreement already grants the U.S. military access to Greenland, but Trump has suggested the accord is inadequate and has demanded “ownership.”
The issue dominated this week’s World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where Trump said in a Wednesday address that he would not use military force to seize control of the Arctic landmass.
On Wednesday, Trump said during the event that a “framework” of a deal had been reached on Greenland after talks with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte. Details of the purported agreement are yet to be revealed.
Frederikson said in a Thursday morning statement that Copenhagen “cannot negotiate on our sovereignty.”
Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen said at a Thursday press conference that Nuuk is “willing to do more in a NATO frame,” but also said they have some “red lines” including territorial integrity, international law and sovereignty.
In Davos on Wednesday, Trump said that Greenland’s mineral deposits are “not the reason we need it,” though also said the professed deal “puts everybody in a really good position, especially as it pertains to security and to minerals.”
Trump’s professed security concerns have prompted Danish efforts to increase military spending in the Arctic and the deployment of small contingents of NATO troops to Greenland.
But the deployments — which the eight European nations involved said were for military exercises to enhance the defense of the region — prompted Trump at the time to threaten new tariffs against the American allies starting on Feb. 1 unless the U.S. was able to acquire Greenland.
That raised the prospect of a new transatlantic trade war, though Trump said Wednesday that he would drop the tariffs citing the purported deal.
European and allied leaders have said they are open to deeper and broader cooperation with the U.S. in Greenland, to address American security concerns and to develop shared commercial opportunities across the mammoth, resources-rich territory.
For Kofod — who said his time in office saw Copenhagen and Washington forge a “path forward” despite tensions over Greenland — any deal should be twinned with a European show of force.
“The first step is power,” Kofod said. Trump may soften his attacks “if he sees that he will have all of Europe — including the U.K., France, Germany — against him, and they are ready to defend Greenland,” Kofod said, plus if he sees that European “retaliation is so massive that it will hurt the U.S. economy and interests.”
“Trump plays with all the instruments he has. Europe has to learn to play the power game,” Kofod said, and “move him to a narrower path if this is going to stop.”
The Danish and Greenlandic experience in 2019 bears striking similarities to 2026. Then, as now, Trump set off a diplomatic storm by repeatedly declaring his ambitions to take control of Greenland.
In both instances, Copenhagen and the Greenlandic government in its capital Nuuk responded by expressing openness to further collaboration, stressing the importance of sovereignty and dispatching a high-level delegation for talks in Washington.
Kofod said the de-escalation of tensions in 2019 was achieved through closer cooperation and modernization in the security sphere. “We took the security concerns of Trump very seriously,” he said.
The period spanning Trump’s first term and that of his successor, President Joe Biden, saw the U.S. reopen its consulate in Nuuk, modernize the Thule Air Base — since renamed to the Pituffik Space Base — and agree a new economic cooperation strategy in Greenland.
Copenhagen and Nuuk, Kofod said, encouraged “constructive engagement” with the U.S. in investment, education programs, tourism and other areas.
Similar measures might help ease the current round of pressure in the High North, Kofod said.
But he added that the future of the Arctic — which was long considered an area of scientific work largely free of geopolitical tensions — will be inextricably tied to security considerations.
Climate change, the subsequent melting of pack ice and the opening of new sea lanes is making the Arctic more navigable and — potentially — more lucrative. Russia’s 15,000 miles of Arctic coastline puts Moscow at the forefront in the region, while China’s declaration of itself as a “near-Arctic state” indicates Beijing’s long-term interest there.
“That’s why Trump is right on the concern about security in the future of the Arctic,” Kofod said. “Any U.S. president will find Greenland key to defending North America and the United States.”
Trump’s efforts “fit his ideology,” Kofod said, saying his bid to acquire Greenland despite broad opposition aligns with the “Donroe Doctrine” — a play on the 1823 Monroe Doctrine by which the U.S. said it would block European interference in the Western Hemisphere — which has in recent weeks been professed by members of Trump’s administration and noted by the president himself.
“There is something to that, that I think Europe hasn’t taken seriously enough,” Kofod said. “But now they are taking it seriously.”
The turbulence will undermine European, American and collective NATO security, Kofod warned.
“For the U.S. it’s also a big self-inflicted problem,” he said. “But I don’t think Trump looks at the world like that. He thinks that NATO is there, it’s important, but it’s not something you cannot live without, because you just can form another alliance.”
A man sweeps up debris near a residential building that was hit in an airstrike in the early hours of March 27, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. (Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)
(LONDON) — President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu kicked off their joint military campaign against Iran in late February, urging the fall of the Islamic Republic.
“When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations,” Trump said, addressing Iranians in announcing the start of “major combat operations.”
A month of unrelenting combined U.S.-Israeli strikes appears to have significantly eroded Iran’s military capabilities and killed many of its most senior leaders, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who died alongside dozens of top Iranian officials in a series of airstrikes on his official residence in Tehran in the opening salvos of the war.
But despite Trump’s assertion that the “war has been won,” Iranian forces continue to launch attacks on Israel, regional U.S. bases and American partners across the Middle East, while commercial shipping through the strategic Strait of Hormuz remains constrained, with large numbers of cargo vessels in limbo on either side of the narrow waterway at the southern entrance to the Persian Gulf.
Trump has also asserted that there had been “complete regime change,” with the leaders the U.S. is now dealing with in recently announced negotiations “more moderate” and “much more reasonable,” the president told ABC News’ Jonathan Karl.
Trump named Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the powerful speaker of the Iranian parliament, as the direct U.S. negotiating partner, though Ghalibaf has denied the assertion.
But in Tehran, the cadre of officials – Ghalibaf among them – emerging to take the reins of power appear as committed as the slain figures they are replacing, many of them veterans of the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), analysts have said.
The regime in Tehran, according to Danny Citrinowicz – the Israel Defense Forces’ former top Iran researcher, now at the Institute for National Security Studies think tank in Israel – “is weaker than it was before the conflict, but it is also more radical. The IRGC has further consolidated its influence over decision-making, eroding what little internal balance once existed within the regime.”
The war appears to have given Tehran long-term leverage over the Strait of Hormuz – a “weapon of mass disruption,” as described by Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group during an online briefing hosted by the think tank this week.
If the Islamic Republic survives the war, and its immediate aftermath by suppressing simmering anti-regime movements, its new leaders may be emboldened to retain perceived strategic advantages, chief among them control of the Strait of Hormuz, analysts who spoke to ABC News said.
That regime sentiment seems to be crystalizing. Ghalibaf, for example, told the IRNA state news agency that Iran’s strategy now rests on its control of three pillars: “missiles, the streets, and the Strait.”
Inside Iran, some sense that shift. Darius – who did not wish to use his real name for fear of reprisal – told ABC News from Tehran of a growing sentiment that “the source of legitimacy for the Islamic republic is shifting” from the clerical establishment to the IRGC.
“Now, the de facto leaders of the country are the generals in the IRGC. And they are actually running the show at the moment,” Darius said.
IRGC ascendant
The IRGC was formed shortly after the Iranian Revolution by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1979, ultimately emerging as the new Islamic Republic’s primary tool for projecting its ideology and influence beyond its own borders.
The IRGC entrenched and expanded its power during the Iran-Iraq War from 1980 to 1988. With its battlefield exploits and ideological zeal, the IRGC came to embody the wartime concept of “sacred defense,” Johns Hopkins University professor Vali Nasr wrote in his recent book, “Iran’s Grand Strategy.”
Observers have long considered the IRGC to be the most powerful military, political and economic institution in Iran.
Even before the most recent U.S.-Israeli campaign against Iran, many experts warned that decapitation strikes or a push for regime change risked empowering the IRGC to seize the state’s other mechanisms of power – though others suggested the force had no need to openly seize control, given its de facto hold over the country.
The new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, the son of Ali Khamenei, served in an elite IRGC unit during the Iran-Iraq War, and analysts have suggested his candidacy was strongly supported by the force.
Mojtaba Khamenei’s newly appointed military adviser, Mohsen Rezaei, was drawn from the senior ranks of the IRGC, as was the new secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr, who was selected to replace Ali Larijani when the latter was killed by Israeli airstrikes in mid-March.
Meanwhile, IRGC veteran Ghalibaf – who has reportedly long been close to Mojtaba Khamenei – remains alive and appears to be in a position of influence, one of the few top prewar officials to have survived the U.S.-Israeli campaign.
Inside Iran, some sense that shift. Darius told ABC News from Tehran of a growing sentiment that “the source of legitimacy for the Islamic republic is shifting” from the clerical establishment to the IRGC.
“Now, the de facto leaders of the country are the generals in the IRGC. And they are actually running the show at the moment,” Darius said.
Reading the ‘mosaic’
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi credited a “mosaic defense” strategy with enabling the Iranian military to launch retaliatory strikes despite the killing of so many senior military officials in the opening hours of the U.S.-Israeli campaign.
That decentralized approach also appeared to cause some tactical confusion. Araghchi and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, for example, both denied Iranian responsibility for several reported Iranian drone and missile attacks in the region in the days after the war erupted.
A decapitated regime in Tehran may pose challenges to American negotiators seeking a peace deal, Citrinowicz said, telling ABC News that the killings have created a “worse” strategic situation by dispersing power.
The centralized decision-making power enjoyed by Ali Khamenei is no more, he said. “Now, how are you going to work with them? It’s going to be very hard to reach an agreement with them,” Citrinowicz said, referring to the newly emergent group of leaders.
Trump himself appeared to acknowledge a diffusion of power in Iran as a result of the American-Israeli assassination campaign. “We have nobody to talk to, and you know what, we like it that way,” the president said earlier this month.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio told “Good Morning America” this week there are “fractures” within the Iranian leadership, though he would not say with whom the administration is in contact.
Yossi Kuperwasser – the former head of the IDF’s military intelligence research division – told ABC News that the emergence of hardliners “was to be expected.”
“Once you eliminate Khamenei, he’s not going to be replaced by some wishy-washy character, but somebody who is committed to the cause and the IRGC is going to be in charge,” Kuperwasser said.
But Kuperwasser also noted that figures currently touted as Iranian negotiators, such as Ghalibaf, might not live to see the end of the war. Indeed, Larijani was often noted as among the prime negotiating candidates before his killing. “I’d guess there are going to be more eliminations,” Kuperwasser said.
As the war progressed, both U.S. and Israeli officials have distanced themselves from earlier suggestions of regime change. Instead, officials refocused the strategic narrative on their ambitions to degrade Iran’s conventional military – especially ballistic missile – and nuclear programs.
These targets, according to Kuperwasser, were always the Israeli priority.
“Simultaneously, we are trying to weaken the regime so as to create the conditions that can be used by the people of Iran in order to promote something that can bring about the removal of the regime from power,” Kuperwasser said. But that will not necessarily occur in the short term, he added.
‘Missiles, the street, the strait’
Citrinowicz said that whatever structure emerges to negotiate with the Trump administration will likely be influenced toward more hardline demands by the killing of its predecessors.
On the nuclear file, too, “it goes without saying” that Tehran’s outlook will have shifted, Citrinowicz said. Before the war, Iranian leaders had already publicly committed not to pursue nuclear weapons, though Tehran was refusing to accept Trump’s demands of zero enrichment. Now, Citrinowicz said, the new Iranian leadership “might find themselves rushing toward a bomb.”
Iran also has more leverage in the Strait of Hormuz than it did before the conflict, even with the significant military degradation that the U.S. and Israel appear to have inflicted. Officials in Tehran have suggested that Iranian control over the strait – and the requirement for those transiting it to coordinate with Tehran and pay tolls – is the new baseline.
Rubio hinted at long-term disruption in the Persian Gulf last week. “Immediately after this thing ends, and we’re done with our objectives, the immediate challenge we’re going to face is an Iran that may decide that they want to set up a tolling system in the Strait of Hormuz,” Rubio said.
Hamidreza Azizi of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs think tank said during the Crisis Group briefing that Tehran will be set on a conclusive settlement, not merely a ceasefire that would allow the U.S. and Israel to rearm and resume the conflict at a later date, as was the case after the 12-day conflict in June.
“Deep inside Iran’s strategic thinking, there is an understanding that ceasefires are only a means for the United States and Israel to buy time,” Azizi said. While before the conflict, Tehran appeared willing to make concessions on the nuclear file and other issues, now Iranian leaders see an opportunity to achieve what they were unable to across years of negotiations.
The endgame, Azizi said, could be one in which Iran preserves “some sort of leverage” over the Strait of Hormuz or secures “substantial sanctions removal.”
For its part, Citrinowicz said the U.S. appears to be scrambling. “There are so many people in the U.S. that understand this regime, but the administration is behaving like it’s Venezuela. It’s crazy,” Citrinowicz said, referring to the American operation in January to seize Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and support his vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, as Maduro’s successor.
Last week, the U.S. delivered 15-point plan to end the war, which was widely interpreted as a blueprint for Tehran’s capitulation. Iranian demands are likewise maximalist, calling for reparations and for the U.S. to abandon its regional bases.
“Nobody’s getting their wish list,” Dalia Dassa Kaye of the UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations said during this week’s Crisis Group briefing.
In the meantime, the battlefield costs will rise and geopolitical implications deepen across the Middle East. “Even if this ends tomorrow,” Kaye said, the costs have already been paid. “It’s going to take years to recuperate the damage.”
“This is not something you put back in a box,” he added.
ABC News’ Desiree Adib and Somayeh Malekian contributed to this report.
People gather in support of Ukraine as delegations from the United States, Ukraine and Russia meet for talks about a potential peace deal at the Intercontinental Hotel on February 17, 2026 in Geneva, Switzerland (Sedat Suna/Getty Images)
(LONDON) — American, Ukrainian and Russian negotiators convened again in Geneva, Switzerland, on Wednesday for trilateral peace talks, with the second day of meetings concluding after around two hours.
The delegations met Tuesday for the opening sessions of the third round of U.S.-brokered trilateral talks, the first two rounds of which were held in the United Arab Emirates starting in late January.
In a post to X, President Donald Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff said both Ukraine and Russia had agreed to keep working towards a peace deal following Tuesday’s meetings.
“President Trump’s success in bringing both sides of this war together has brought about meaningful progress, and we are proud to work under his leadership to stop the killing in this terrible conflict,” Witkoff wrote.
“Both parties agreed to update their respective leaders and continue working towards a deal,” he added.
The Russian delegation to Geneva was led by Vladimir Medinsky, an aide to President Vladimir Putin known for his ultraconservative and nationalistic messaging.
“The negotiations were difficult, but businesslike,” Medinsky said after the conclusion of Tuesday’s talks. Medinsky also said that a new round of negotiations are expected to be held soon.
Rustem Umerov, the secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council and the leader of Kyiv’s delegation, said in a post to Telegram before Wednesday’s meetings that the Ukrainian team was “focused on substantive work.”
Umerov also said Tuesday that the Ukrainian team held talks with European representatives from France, the U.K., Germany, Italy and Switzerland.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Wednesday that the first reports he had received from Kyiv’s delegation showed that the “military” aspect of the talks had been “constructive.”
“There are two tracks: military and political. Here I want to say that all three sides were constructive on the military track — in my view, based on the briefing I have just received,” Zelenskyy said.
“The military basically understand how to monitor a ceasefire and the end of the war, if there is political will. They have basically agreed on pretty much everything there,” the Ukrainian president added.
Before that, Zelenskyy had described the first day of talks on Tuesday as “difficult meetings” in another social media post.
“Russia is trying to drag out the negotiations, which could have already reached the final stage,” he wrote. “Thank you to the American side for their attention to details and patience in talks with the present representatives of Russia.”
Zelenskyy posted to social media on Tuesday after the first round of meetings, saying, “Ukraine is ready. We do not need war. And we always act symmetrically — we are defending our state and our independence.”
“Likewise, we are ready to move quickly toward a just agreement to end the war. The only question is for the Russians: what do they want?” Zelenskyy added.
The Ukrainian president again urged foreign partners to increase pressure and costs on Russia over Moscow’s continued long-range strike campaign against Ukrainian cities and critical infrastructure.
The attacks have focused on energy targets throughout the war’s fourth winter, plunging millions of Ukrainians into periodic darkness amid bitterly cold weather.
“The team absolutely must raise the issue of these strikes — first of all with the American side, which proposed that both us and Russia refrain from attacks,” Zelenskyy said.
“‘Shaheds,’ missiles and fantasy chatter about history matter more to them than real diplomacy, diplomacy and lasting peace,” Zelenskyy said of Moscow.
Russian officials have said little about the latest round of talks. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters on Tuesday, “There are no plans to make any announcements on this matter. Everything will be closed to the press.”
In an interview with Sputnik Radio published on Wednesday, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova said of the talks, “Any step that could lead to, or lead down a path that leads to, a resolution to the situation is of great importance,” as quoted by the state-run Tass news agency.
Zakharova again accused Ukraine’s European partners of trying to sabotage the peace negotiations and pressuring Kyiv to continue the war, echoing a long-held Russian disinformation narrative.
Ukraine and Russia continued their nightly drone and missile exchanges despite the ongoing talks in Geneva.
Ukraine’s air force said in a post to Telegram on Wednesday morning that Russia launched one missile and 126 drones into the country overnight, of which 100 drones were shot down or suppressed. The missile and 23 attack drones impacted across 14 locations, the air force said.
Ukraine’s State Emergency Service (SES) said in posts to Telegram that six people were injured and one person killed in a Russian strike on the southern city of Zaporizhzhia on Tuesday evening. The SES also reported an overnight attack in the Dnipropetrovsk region.
Russia’s Defense Ministry, meanwhile, said its forces shot down at least 43 Ukrainian drones overnight.
Russia’s federal air transport agency, Rosaviatsiya, said in posts to Telegram that temporary flight restrictions were introduced at airports in Volgograd, Saratov, Cheboksary, Kazan and Kaluga.
