A Senate subcommittee has called upon Boeing CEO David Calhoun to testify regarding the company’s commercial jetliners amidst an inquiry prompted by recent safety-related allegations from a whistleblower.

The subcommittee has announced plans to convene a hearing next week, featuring testimony from Boeing quality engineer Sam Salehpour. Salehpour is anticipated to provide insights into safety concerns surrounding the manufacturing and assembly processes of the 787 Dreamliner, highlighting potential safety risks that could be “potentially catastrophic.”

Boeing has refrained from confirming whether Calhoun will attend the hearing scheduled for April 17.

Responding to inquiries from The Associated Press, a Boeing spokesperson stated that the company is cooperating with the subcommittee’s inquiry, offering to provide documents, testimony, and technical briefings.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has been conducting its own investigation into Salehpour’s allegations since February, as noted by the subcommittee. However, the FAA has yet to respond to requests for comment on the matter.

Salehpour, whose concerns were recently featured in a New York Times article, is expected to outline the retaliation he faced after raising his safety concerns.

According to Salehpour, his apprehensions stemmed from changes observed in the assembly process of the 787 Dreamliner’s fuselage.

He expressed concerns over potential shortcuts taken by Boeing during assembly, resulting in excessive force and deformations in the composite material utilized in the aircraft’s outer skin.

Boeing, in a statement spanning 1,500 words, expressed full confidence in the structural integrity of the 787 Dreamliner, dismissing concerns raised by Salehpour as “inaccurate” and emphasizing that the aircraft will maintain its service life over several decades.

The company adamantly denied any retaliation against Salehpour, reiterating its commitment to fostering an environment where employees are encouraged to voice concerns without fear of reprisal.

Boeing’s safety practices have come under scrutiny following an incident involving a door panel on a 737 Max 9 jet in early January. Although pilots managed to land the aircraft safely, subsequent investigations revealed missing bolts intended to secure the panel, raising further questions about Boeing’s safety protocols.

Both the 787 Dreamliner and the 737 Max have faced production defects that have led to delays in deliveries and shortages of aircraft for airlines.

Calhoun’s announcement of his retirement at the end of the year follows the departure of another high-ranking Boeing executive and the decision by the company’s board chairman not to seek reelection in May.

Recent polls indicate a slight strengthening of Joe Biden’s position in the upcoming US presidential election. However, they also highlight a potential risk posed by third-party candidates to Biden’s prospects of securing the White House in November.

In a poll conducted by the New York Times/Siena College and released on Saturday, it was revealed that Biden has narrowed the gap with Donald Trump since February. Among registered voters, Trump leads Biden by one point, with 46% to Biden’s 45%.

Trump’s Absence Shifts Support Dynamics 

This shift in support comes at a time when Trump is expected to be largely absent from the campaign and fundraising circuit for approximately six weeks due to his involvement in a criminal trial in New York related to pre-2016 election hush money payments.

While the New York Times poll shows a narrowing race, it reveals a troubling trend for Democrats: 42% now think the country fared better under Trump, up from 39%. Trump’s economic approval rose by 10%, contrasting with 25% who view Biden’s tenure negatively.

The I&I/Tipp survey of 1,265 voters showed Biden ahead of Trump by 3 points in a head-to-head race (43% to 40%). But with independents like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Cornel West, and Jill Stein included, Biden and Trump tied at 38%, with Kennedy gaining 11%, West 2%, and Stein 1%.

These findings underscore the significance of third-party candidates and their potential impact on the outcome of the election. As the race progresses, both Biden and Trump must steer the challenges posed by a diverse field of contenders to secure victory in November.

RFK Jr.’s Progressive Alignment and No Labels’ Unity Struggle

The observation by Jones regarding RFK Jr.’s alignment with progressive leftist views, akin to those of the Democratic party’s current leadership, sheds light on the dynamics of third-party candidates in the upcoming election.

RFK Jr.’s campaign, along with vice-presidential pick Nicole Shanahan, has focused on securing ballot access in six states: Hawaii, Nevada, Utah, Idaho, North Carolina, and New Hampshire.

Earlier this month, No Labels decided against nominating a “unity ticket” candidate after raising $60 million and reaching out to 30 potential contenders. Despite Americans’ interest in independent presidential bids and national unity, the organization couldn’t find a viable path to the White House for any candidate.

Kennedy’s candidacy, though he refutes claims of being a “spoiler” to Democratic aspirations, remains a concern for the party currently in executive power. The polling data adds another layer of complexity. A recent Rasmussen survey indicates that regardless of third-party contenders, Biden trails Trump.

In a head-to-head match between Biden and Trump, the survey revealed 49% of likely US voters favoring Trump and 41% leaning towards Biden. This represents a marginal increase for Trump since February when he held a six-point lead.

Furthermore, the poll found that 8% of respondents would opt for another candidate, aligning closely with the findings from the I&I/Tipp survey.

Iran’s recent missile and drone barrage toward Israel sparked concerns of regional war, yet concealed within was diplomatic maneuvering enabling both sides to assert victory while escalating the risk of broader conflict without certainty.

Israel’s military reported intercepting 99% of the barrage, with no Israeli casualties, after Iran had signaled the attack in advance. Tehran aimed to make a point without escalating further, while Israel’s allies in the US and Europe urged restraint to prevent escalation.

Balancing Act in the Middle East: Striving for Peace Amidst Threats of Conflict

Tensions between Israel and its adversaries had been escalating, yet both sides showed restraint, preventing full-scale conflict despite violence spreading across the region.

Recent US-led diplomatic efforts have shifted focus towards urging Israel to respond to attacks with measured restraint, amidst concerns of potential escalation fueled by hardline elements within Israel’s government.

Iran’s direct assault on Israel marked a significant departure from its past reliance on proxies, signaling a willingness to confront Israel’s military directly. Despite the immediate threat being repelled, the potential for broader conflict looms, with implications for global oil markets and the economy.

US officials were relieved by Israel’s defense against Iran but urged restraint to prevent escalation. Israel pledged self-defense without worsening tensions. Internal calls for retaliation were met with caution, aiming to avert full-scale war.

In Gaza, the conflict between Israel and Hamas continues with devastating consequences. Hamas rejected a ceasefire proposal, and Israel planned an assault on the city of Rafah. Tensions also remain high on Israel’s northern border with Hezbollah.

Iran’s attack aimed to test Israel’s deterrence but caused limited damage. Both sides issued threats, but Iran signaled restraint to neighboring countries to prevent wider conflict. Israel received public pledges of support from allies like the US and UK.

While the attack showcased Iran’s determination, its impact was limited. Analysts speculate on potential targets for Israeli retaliation, with global attention focused on Israel’s next move.

Hanoi’s backing of China’s “community of shared destiny” pleased Beijing during President Xi Jinping’s visit. China seeks a post-American world order, banking on public goods like $1 trillion in loans, despite the ambitious yet vague nature of Xi’s vision.

Under Xi’s leadership, China has bolstered existing Sino-centric organizations like SCO, BRICS, and CICA, while introducing new initiatives such as GSI, GCI, and GDI in the past three years, expanding its global influence.

Many of China’s programs may attract the global south, but it’s uncertain if these nations truly desire a post-American future, particularly one dominated by Beijing. China’s multilateralism vision masks its hegemonic ambitions, rather than representing a genuine goal.

Helming Global Power Shifts: China’s Alternative Vision

The U.S.-led system is fracturing, with G-7 GDP declining to about 30% of global GDP, similar to BRICS. China promotes “democratic multilateralism,” prioritizing economic-centered human rights while offering its state-driven development model as an alternative.

China’s rise challenges U.S. leadership, but its initiatives lack concrete achievements. In crises like Kazakhstan or Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Beijing’s involvement has been limited, with Russia taking decisive action instead of the SCO.

Despite Xi’s assertiveness, there’s a lack of demand for Beijing’s leadership, with many global southern countries opting for multi-alignment. China’s actions, like in the South China Sea and coercion of neighbors, have strengthened U.S. alliances and spurred intra-Asian cooperation.

China’s global economic footprint remains significant despite economic challenges but faces skepticism from the global south. Issues like debt concerns over the Belt and Road Initiative and sovereignty disputes contribute to negative perceptions.

Global Security Initiative

Beijing claims that its Global Security Initiative (GSI) has garnered “support and appreciation” from over 100 countries. Beijing emphasizes respecting sovereignty, cooperative security, upholding the UN Charter, and resolving disputes through dialogue.

The GSI is a modern rendition of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, a cornerstone of China’s foreign policy since Zhou Enlai introduced them in 1954 after the Sino-Indian Agreement.

Xi’s initiatives offer apparent benefits with minimal costs, but some nations benefit more than others. Despite aspirations to challenge U.S. power, Beijing lacks the security provision capacity, and countries under U.S. protection may criticize it but do not seek its elimination.

In theory, principles like nonaggression and sovereignty protect small states, but China’s evolving noninterference policy, seen in its silence on Russia’s actions and economic coercion against critics, reflects its interests over principles.

On Monday, thousands gathered in Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia, to protest against a contentious “foreign influence” bill believed to be modeled after Russia’s authoritarian laws aimed at stifling dissent.

Chanting “No to the Russian law,” demonstrators outside parliament wielded EU and Georgian flags.

Last year, a similar “foreign agents” bill was met with widespread protests, leading the government to withdraw it. However, this month, the government announced plans to reintroduce the legislation, now dubbed the “Transparency of Foreign Influence” bill.

Marisha, a 23-year-old protester, voiced the sentiment of many: “We are fighting for our freedom.” Holding a stick with the Georgian flag, she emphasized the importance of every citizen’s role in shaping the country’s future.

The proposed bill mandates that non-governmental organizations and media entities, which receive over 20% of their funding from foreign sources, register as an “organization serving the interests of a foreign power.”

Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze justified the necessity of the law by stating that it aims to ensure transparency regarding the financial support received by grant recipients.

Controversy Erupts: Opposition Accuses Georgian Government of Suppressing Dissent

Opposition parties and independent journalists criticize the bill, alleging it aims to silence dissent and jeopardize Georgia’s EU prospects. They liken it to laws used by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

President Salome Zurabishvili reaffirms Georgia’s rejection of Soviet influence, stating, “Georgia will not surrender to re-Sovietization.”

The Georgian government denies similarities to Russian legislation. Mamuka Mdinaradze of Georgian Dream emphasizes Georgia’s rejection of such laws.

Tensions escalate in parliament as Mdinaradze is punched by opposition MP Aleko Elisashvili, triggering a brawl.

Opposition politician Zurab Japaridze from the Girchi – More Freedom party accused Georgian Dream of fearing the loss of power. Although Georgian Dream currently holds a parliamentary majority, the country is preparing for upcoming elections.

Japaridze calls for Western-demanded reforms in key sectors, accusing the government of avoiding them to maintain power by suppressing dissent, similar to Putin’s tactics.

Opposition MP Elisashvili, visibly bruised and claiming injuries from a confrontation with pro-government MPs, stated outside parliament, “We refuse to become like Russia! They’re shamelessly steering us in that direction. We won’t allow it.”

International Criticism of “Foreign Influence” Bill

The “foreign influence” bill faces strong criticism from the EU and the US for conflicting with Georgia’s EU integration goals. Despite widespread support for EU membership among Georgians, the bill’s compatibility with democratic norms remains a subject of concern.

The bill raises concerns about Georgia’s democratic values and EU membership path. Despite widespread opposition, the government has not addressed these concerns, prompting doubts about its commitment to European standards.

The Israeli military reports that they successfully intercepted 99% of the missiles and drones launched by Iran overnight, averting any damage to their targets. Iran has declared this assault as retaliation for a recent deadly attack on an Iranian diplomatic compound in Syria.

The direction of the situation hinges largely on Israel’s response to the latest attack. Despite calls for restraint from various countries in the region and beyond, including those with strong opposition to the Iranian regime, Israel has promised “a significant response.”

Israel considers options after the Iran threat

Iran’s stance suggests that they consider the matter settled, warning against further retaliation, or else they may unleash a more potent assault. The unfolding events underscore the delicate balance and potential volatility in the region, as decisions made by key players will shape the trajectory of future developments.

In swift response to the Hamas-led attacks on southern Israel on October 7, Israel launched a relentless six-month campaign targeting the Gaza Strip. Now, faced with a direct attack from Iran, Israel’s war cabinet stands poised to respond, weighing its options with strategic precision.

One potential avenue is the path of “strategic patience,” heeding the counsel of neighboring nations and refraining from immediate retaliation. Instead, Israel could persist in its ongoing strategy of targeting Iran’s proxy allies across the region, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon or military installations in Syria, a tactic it has employed for years.

Alternatively, Israel may opt for a measured escalation, responding with calculated long-range missile strikes aimed specifically at the bases responsible for the recent attack. While this approach would still be viewed as an escalation by Iran, it would constitute a direct assault on Iranian soil, rather than targeting its proxy forces.

IRGC of Iran is designated as a terrorist organization by the United States

A further escalation could involve broadening the scope of retaliation to include bases, training camps, and command centers belonging to Iran’s formidable Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). Yet, both of these latter options carry the risk of triggering additional retaliation from Iran, potentially spiraling into a wider conflict.

The pivotal question at hand is whether such actions will draw the United States into the fray, potentially igniting a full-scale conflict between Iran and US forces in the region. With US military installations scattered across Gulf Arab states, Syria, Iraq, and Jordan, they could become prime targets for Iran’s considerable arsenal of ballistic missiles.

Moreover, Iran could enact its long-standing threat to disrupt global oil supplies by attempting to close the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz, utilizing mines, drones, and fast attack craft. Such a move would imperil nearly a quarter of the world’s oil trade, thrusting the US and Gulf states into a region-wide conflagration.

Governments worldwide are now laboring tirelessly to avert this nightmarish scenario, as the specter of a region-wide war looms large on the horizon.