Sudden, hurricane-force winds toppled the luxury Bayesian superyacht that sank off the coast of Sicily last August, according to an interim report into the disaster, which found the boat had “vulnerabilities” to extreme wind which were not known to the owner or crew.

The 184-foot sailing boat owned by British tech tycoon Mike Lynch was anchored about a half mile from the port of Porticello on the Italian island’s northern coast when it sank, killing seven people, including Lynch and his 18-year-old daughter Hannah.

The interim report by the UK’s Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) gives a detailed account of the hours before the Bayesian suddenly capsized and the desperate escape attempts by the 12 guests and 10 crew on board in the moments after.

On the evening of August 13 when Bayesian’s guests and some of its crew retired for the night, the seas were calm and the winds were light, but thunderstorms were forecast, the report said.

Bayesian’s skipper, James Cutfield, told the overnight watchkeepers to wake him if the wind speed increased above 23 mph or if the boat started dragging anchor, the report said.

At around 3 a.m., one of the watchkeepers noticed storm clouds and lightning seemed to be getting closer, though the wind was blowing at around 9 mph from the west.

An hour later, the wind picked up to 34 mph. Around 3:55 a.m., the watchkeeper filmed a video of the advancing storm and posted it to social media, according to the report, before closing the cockpit windows and forward hatches to protect the yacht’s interior from rain.

Eyewitnesses described furious gales and hurricane-like winds that left an avalanche of debris near the pier.

At 3:57 a.m., the yacht started dragging its anchor, and the watchkeeper woke the skipper and other crewmembers, the report said. Some of the guests were also woken by the storm. Lynch made his way to the boat’s flybridge to see if the taxis arranged for 8 a.m. that morning would have to be canceled because of the storm. The yacht’s chef began stowing cutlery, pots and pans.

Then, the wind suddenly increased to more than 80 mph, and at around 4:06 a.m. the yacht “violently heeled over” to a 90-degree angle in less than 15 seconds, sending people, furniture and other loose items flying across the deck, the report said.

“There was no indication of flooding inside Bayesian until water came in over the starboard rails and, within seconds, entered the internal spaces down the stairwells,” the report said.

Guests and crew scrambled to escape the sinking ship, with two guests using furniture drawers as a ladder to escape their cabin, according to the report.

The survivors treaded water and used cushions from the boat as flotation devices before the boat’s chief officer was able to detach and inflate a life raft, the report said.

Responding to a flare from the life raft, the skipper of a nearby ship rescued the survivors before calling the local coast guard, the report said.

Seven people died in the accident, including the yacht’s chef Recaldo Thomas, Morgan Stanley International director Jonathan Bloomer, prominent American lawyer Chris Morvillo, and both of their wives – Judy Bloomer and Neda Morvillo. Cutfield and 14 other people survived the sinking, including Lynch’s wife, Angela Bacares.

Winds of 73 mph were enough to knock the Bayesian beyond the point of no recovery, the investigation found. It also said it is possible Bayesian could have been vulnerable to lighter winds.

“These vulnerabilities (when in the motoring condition with sails lowered, the centreboard raised and 10% consumables on board) were not identified in the stability information book carried on board,” the report said. “Consequently, these vulnerabilities were also unknown to either the owner or the crew of Bayesian.”

Marine salvage experts are currently working to recover the yacht from the ocean to better understand what happened.

Indian police have killed 31 suspected Maoist rebels in what is being described as the “biggest ever operation” against the long-running insurgency.

Security forces spent 21 days attempting to capture the rebels along the border of the states of Chhattisgarh and Telangana in central India, Home Minister Amit Shah said Wednesday.

Describing the operation as a “historic breakthrough,” Shah said security forces carried out the “biggest ever operation” against the rebels, killing 31 of them in Karreguttalu Hill, considered a Maoist stronghold.

Indian authorities have been battling Maoist rebel groups, also known as Naxals, across several central and northern states since 1967. Inspired by Chinese revolutionary leader Mao Zedong, insurgents have over the decades launched attacks on government forces in an attempt to overthrow the state and, they say, usher in a classless society.

“Our security forces completed this biggest anti-Naxal operation in just 21 days and I am extremely happy that there was not a single casualty in the security forces in this operation,” Shah wrote on X, congratulating the soldiers for their “bravery and courage.”

“So far, a total of 214 Naxal hideouts and bunkers have been destroyed in this operation,” a statement from the Ministry of Home Affairs said, adding that hundreds of explosives were recovered during the search.

The insurgents are known as Naxalites in India after Naxalbari, a village in West Bengal state where they originated in the late 1960s.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi hailed the operation in a post on X.

“This success of the security forces shows that our campaign towards rooting out Naxalism is moving in the right direction. We are fully committed to establishing peace in the Naxal-affected areas and connecting them with the mainstream of development,” Modi said.

The Indian government has cracked down in areas where Maoist groups are active – an approach that, while appearing to reduce the threat level, has been criticized by some observers as heavy-handed and prone to abuse.

Incidents of violence by rebel groups fell from 1,936 in 2010 to 374 in 2024, according to data from the home ministry. The total number of civilian and security-forces deaths have also fallen by 85% during this period, the data shows.

At least 31 suspected Maoist rebels and two police officials were killed in February, in what was described by police as the deadliest combat this year so far.

In 2021, 22 Indian security force members were killed and 31 injured in 2021 during a four-hour gun battle with insurgents, officials said.

It seems some parents in New Zealand just can’t get the message. Once again, King has topped the list of baby names rejected by the country’s Registrar General.

The royal title led the list of banned baby names for 14 years in a row until 2023 when it was replaced by Prince, which ranks second in the latest iteration.

Other regal references including Duke, Majesty and Emperor are also a no-go in the country, which polices birth names under its strict registration law.

New Zealand registered 60,000 births last year and rejected 38 proposed names, according to a letter from John Crawford-Smith, Principal Advisor of the Department of Internal Affairs, in response to a written inquiry.

Under the law, baby names must not be offensive, unreasonably long, or include numbers and symbols. They must also refrain from resembling official titles and ranks “without adequate justification,” according to the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 2021.

New Zealand is part of the British Commonwealth and a constitutional monarchy that calls Charles III its King. It’s not known if the 11 parents who applied to call their child King meant it as an ode to Charles, but all were asked to have a rethink, according to Crawford-Smith.

In 2024, more than 1,000 children in the United States were called King, according to the Social Security Administration. (Liam and Olivia were the top US names last year).

Most of New Zealand’s rejected names had royal links. Ten applications for Prince were rejected, followed by four for Princess. Names like Kingi, Kingz, Prinz, Prynce, and Royallty were also banned – potentially because department staff also consider how names sound when spoken when deciding if they’ll be approved.

Officials also consider community perceptions of the proposed name. That may be why other names, including Sativa and Indica, both strains of cannabis, were rejected.

Fanny, once a popular first name, was also declined.

Parents are given an opportunity to explain their rationale before the Registrar General makes a final decision. “We continue to urge parents to think carefully about names,” Crawford-Smith wrote in the letter. “Names are a gift,” he added.

New Zealand is not the only country that imposes laws to regulate newborns’ names.

In 2015, a French judge in the northern part of the country refused to let two parents name their child Nutella because of the risk of humiliation.

Sweden also has a naming law and has nixed attempts to name children “Superman,” “Metallica,” and “Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116.”

In the United States, some naming fights have centered on adults.

In 2008, a judge allowed an Illinois school bus driver to legally change his first name to “In God” and his last name to “We Trust.”

But the same year, an appeals court in New Mexico ruled against a man – named Variable – who wanted to change his name to “F— Censorship!”

US President Donald Trump said on Thursday that Washington is “very close” to reaching a nuclear deal with Iran after Tehran “sort of” agreed to its terms.

“Iran has sort of agreed to the terms: They’re not going to make, I call it, in a friendly way, nuclear dust. We’re not going to be making any nuclear dust in Iran,” he said.

Speaking at a business roundtable in the Qatari capital Doha, Trump reiterated that Iran “can’t have a nuclear weapon” and suggested that negotiators are “getting very close to maybe doing a deal.”

During his Gulf tour, Trump has repeatedly warned that Iran must never obtain a nuclear weapon, threatening to strike the country if it fails to reach a nuclear deal. But he has not explicitly ruled out Iran enriching uranium on its own soil. While uranium is used as a nuclear fuel, it can be weaponized if enriched to high levels.

Iran has said that its right to enrich uranium is non-negotiable, but the Trump administration has sent mixed signals on its position on the matter.

In an interview with Breitbart last week, US foreign envoy Steve Witkoff said that an enrichment program in Iran is a “red line” for the US. In an earlier interview with Fox News, he had suggested that Iran could be allowed to enrich uranium to low levels.

Several rounds of talks have taken place between the US and Iran, but the most recent one in the Omani capital Muscat last weekend was described by the Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson as “difficult.”

Global oil prices fell after Trump’s comments. The price of a barrel of Brent crude, the global oil benchmark, fell over 3% Thursday morning to $64 a barrel. West Texas Intermediate, the US oil benchmark, was trading down 3.5% to almost $61 a barrel around the same time.

‘We are going to protect this country’

It is unclear what Trump meant by “nuclear dust,” but Gulf states, including Qatar, are concerned that an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities could cause an environmental catastrophe in the region and drag them into a wider regional war.

Speaking in Doha, Trump vowed to “protect” Qatar.

“For this country in particular, because you’re right next door, you’re a stone’s throw away, not even, right? You’re a foot away. You can walk right into Iran. Other countries are much further away, so probably it’s not quite the same level of danger, but we are going to protect this country, this very special place with a special royal family,” he said.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian lambasted the threatening remarks by Trump.

The US president “is naive for thinking that he can come to our region, threaten us, and hope that we back down against his demands,” Pezeshkian told a group of academics during a gathering in Kermanshah Province on Wednesday, according to the Iranian media. “We will never negotiate our dignity. This is in the blood of every Iranian,”

“You have tried to bring Iran to its knees for the past 47 years. We have existed for thousands of years and will continue as one for the years to come,” he said.

On Wednesday, Trump repeated his threats, saying he doesn’t want nuclear talks in Iran to take a “violent course.”

“Two courses, there’s only two courses. There aren’t three or four or five, there’s two. There’s a friendly and a non-friendly, and non-friendly is a violent course, and I don’t want that. I’ll say it up front. I don’t want that, but they have to get moving,” the president said.

A controversial new American-backed organization, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), has announced it will begin delivering aid to the besieged territory within two weeks and says it has Israel’s approval.

The move would provide some relief for Gazans facing acute hunger from 19 months of war and a two-and-half month Israeli blockade of all food, water, medical and humanitarian supplies.

More than half of Gaza’s population faces “emergency” or “catastrophic” levels of hunger, according to a UN-backed panel considered an authority on the matter.

But the foundation has come under significant criticism from top humanitarian officials, who warn that it is insufficient, could endanger civilians and even encourage their forced displacement.

Here’s what we know about the new aid mechanism.

Why is Israel blocking food from entering Gaza?

Israel started a total blockade on Gaza on March 2, the day after the initial phase of a ceasefire with Hamas expired.

Officials said their goal was to force the group to accept new ceasefire terms and release hostages taken from Israel on October 7, 2023.

Israel and the United States have also accused Hamas of stealing aid intended for Gaza’s civilian population. Hamas has rejected those claims, and humanitarian aid organizations say the overwhelming majority of food aid reaches civilians in need.

Whatever the motivation, the impact is clear.

The hunger crisis long predates Israel’s total blockade. Since Hamas’ attack, Israel has severely restricted the amount of aid that can enter Gaza. And even before October 2023, Israel and Egypt had imposed a partial blockade on Gaza, meaning that 63% of the population was food insecure.

Now that figure is 100%, according to the World Food Programme (WFP). It says that 70,000 children need urgent treatment for “acute malnutrition.”

What is the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation?

It’s a non-profit set up at the urging of the American government to help alleviate hunger in Gaza, while complying with Israeli demands that the aid not reach Hamas.

The American ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, laid out some of the goals for the organization in a press conference in Jerusalem last week.

It’s being led by Jake Wood, a US military veteran who founded and ran Team Rubicon, which has provided humanitarian relief during natural disasters.

“Aid diversion, active combat, and restricted access have prevented life-saving assistance from reaching the people it is meant to serve and eroded donor confidence,” the foundation said in a memorandum on its objectives. “GHF was established to restore that vital lifeline through an independent, rigorously-audited model that gets assistance directly – and only – to those in need.”

In its initial press releases, the GHF listed some heavy hitters that would sit on its board, lending it significant legitimacy: David Beasley, the former executive director of the WFP, and Nate Mook, the former head of World Central Kitchen.

How would it work?

The foundation says that it will set up “Secure Distribution Sites” to feed 1.2 million of Gaza’s estimated 2.1 million population – eventually ramping up, it hopes, to serve every Gazan.

It says that it will provide “pre-packaged rations, hygiene kits, and medical supplies.” It plans to move the aid through “tightly controlled corridors, monitored in real time to prevent diversion.”

It will accept both financial donations and “goods-in-kind,” meaning direct donations of food and other aid.

The group says that it will coordinate with the Israeli military, but that security will be provided by private military contractors, including an American firm that was on the ground during a ceasefire earlier this year.

The foundation said in a statement on Wednesday that it has called on Israel to authorize the entry of aid through existing mechanisms as a stop-gap measure until it is up and running. Israel has not yet publicly agreed.

Where would the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation get its food and money?

It’s unclear.

In its announcement this week, the GHF said that it was “in the final stages of procuring large volumes of food aid to supplement existing pledges from humanitarian organizations operating in Gaza.” It said that that would equate to more than 300 million meals.

It did not list the suppliers.

Huckabee told reporters last week that “there are some people who have already committed to helping fund” but that “they don’t want to be disclosed as of yet.”

What about the United Nations?

The UN has long carried the heaviest burden in feeding, education, and treating Palestinians in Gaza.

Israel has long had a contentious relationship with UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, but it was completely ruptured in the aftermath of October 7.

The Israeli government says that some UNRWA staff members participated in the October 7 attack on Israel; the agency fired most of those accused, but says that Israel never provided it with evidence against them.

That led Israel’s parliament to ban UNRWA from operating in Israel, making any UN-led humanitarian efforts extremely difficult.

But more importantly, the UN has said that it refuses to participate in the new American-backed Gaza aid initiative.

Why are the UN and humanitarian groups so critical of it?

The UN’s humanitarian chief called it a “cynical sideshow” at the UN Security Council this week.

The UN and other aid groups say that the way the GHF intends to work violates some basic humanitarian principles.

The fact that the initial sites would only be in southern and central Gaza could, the UN warned, be seen to be encouraging Israel’s publicly stated goal of forcing “the entire Gazan population” out of northern Gaza, as Defense Minister Israel Katz put it earlier this month. (The foundation says it has asked Israel to help up set up distribution points in the north.)

The UN says that the Israeli military’s involvement in securing the sites – even at a remove – could discourage participation, or lead to recipients facing reprisals. Private military contractors, the UN warns, could use force as a crowd control mechanism.

And crucially, it says that the initiative is simply insufficient. There are currently 400 distribution points in Gaza; this program would only have a handful, forcing people to “walk long distances carrying heavy rations.”

The US and the GHF have both been at pains to say that it is not an Israeli initiative – despite Israel’s support for it, and role in designating and securing the distribution sites.

“They will not be involved in the distribution of the food or even in the bringing of the food into Gaza,” Ambassador Huckabee said, referring to Israel. “Their role will remain on the perimeter.”

The UN’s humanitarian chief, Tom Fletcher, was scathing in his assessment to the UN Security Council this week.

“It restricts aid to only one part of Gaza, while leaving other dire needs unmet,” he said. “It makes aid conditional on political and military aims. It makes starvation a bargaining chip. It is cynical sideshow. A deliberate distraction. A fig leaf for further violence and displacement.”

Jeremy Diamond contributed to this report.