NEWS

US and Israeli strikes against Iran, which have sparked a regional war, likely violate the UN Charter’s prohibition on aggression and lack any valid legal justification, experts say.

“This is not lawful self-defence against an armed attack by Iran, and the UN Security Council has not authorised it,” the United Nations special rapporteur on the promotion of human rights and “counterterrorism”, Ben Saul, told Al Jazeera.

“Preventive disarmament, counterterrorism and regime change constitute the international crime of aggression. All responsible governments should condemn this lawlessness from two countries who excel in shredding the international legal order.”

The administration of United States President Donald Trump did not seek authorisation from the UN Security Council – or even from domestic lawmakers in Congress – for the war.

And Iran did not attack the US or Israel prior to the strikes that killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and several other senior officials, as well as hundreds of civilians.

Yusra Suedi, assistant professor in International law at the University of Manchester, said there are grounds to believe that the attacks against Iran amount to a crime of aggression.

“This was an act of use of force that was unjustified,” Suedi told Al Jazeera.

International law is a set of treaties, conventions and universally accepted rules that govern relations between countries.

Imminent threat?

The Trump administration has argued that Iran posed a threat to the US with its missile programme and nuclear programme, arguing that military action was necessary.

But the UN Charter prohibits unprovoked attacks against other countries.

“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations,” the founding document of the UN says.

Rebecca Ingber, a professor at Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University who previously served as an adviser to the US Department of State, said that the prohibition of the use of force is a “bedrock” principle of international law that allows for only limited exceptions.

“States may not use force against the territorial integrity of other states except in two narrow circumstances — when authorised by the UN Security Council or in self-defence against an armed attack,” said Ingber.

Suedi said one instance in which the use of force can be legal is when a country seeks to thwart an imminent attack by another state.

Trump has said that the goal of the war is to “defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime”.

But Suedi cast doubt over that assertion.

“Imminence in international law is really understood to be something that is instant, something that is overwhelming, something that leaves really no other choice but to act first, something that is pretty much happening now,” Suedi said.

She noted that Trump himself had said repeatedly that the June 2025 US attacks on Iran “obliterated” the country’s nuclear programme, and that Tehran and Washington were holding talks when the war broke out on Saturday.

“There really was no evidence of an imminent threat, and that the attack was a pre-emptive strike,” Suedi told Al Jazeera.

“If it’s pre-emptive, it means that you are acting to counter something that is in the future, hypothetical, speculative, and that is not imminent, but that’s exactly what happened here. That is illegal under international law.”

US officials, including Trump, have said that Iran was building a ballistic missile arsenal to protect its nuclear programme and later build a nuclear bomb.

‘Scattershot’ arguments

Trump has also said that he is seeking “freedom” for the Iranian people, as the US president’s aides have described the regime in Tehran as brutal.

In January, Iran responded to a wave of anti-government protests with a heavy security crackdown. The violence killed thousands of people.

Trump encouraged the demonstrators to take over government buildings at that time, promising them that “help is on the way”.

Experts say a humanitarian intervention to help protesters in Iran would have required UN Security Council authorisation to cross the legal threshold.

“The rationales have been scattershot,” Brian Finucane, a senior adviser for the US programme at the International Crisis Group, said of the US justifications for the strikes.

“Certainly none of them amount to a serious international legal argument.”

Beyond the possible breaches of the UN Charter, the US-Israeli attacks risk violating provisions of international humanitarian law that are meant to shield civilians from war.

An Israeli or US attack on a girls’ school in the southern Iranian city of Minab on Saturday killed at least 165 people, local officials have said.

“Civilians are already paying the price for this military escalation,” Annie Shiel, US Director at Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC), told Al Jazeera in an email.

“We are seeing deeply alarming reports of attacks on schools and critical civilian infrastructure in Iran and across the region, with devastating casualties, including many children. These strikes risk igniting a wider regional catastrophe.”

Embrace of military power

The strikes on Iran are the latest instance yet of Trump’s reliance on the brute force of the US military power to promote his global agenda.

During Trump’s second term, the US has threatened to use military force to seize the Danish territory of Greenland, killed at least 150 people in a campaign targeting alleged drug trafficking vessels in Latin America, and abducted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in a military attack that killed at least 80 people.

The legality of all of these policies has been questioned domestically and internationally, with UN experts saying that the boat strikes amount to extrajudicial killings.

Trump told The New York Times in January that he is driven by his own morality.

“I don’t need international law. I’m not looking to hurt people,” the US president said at that time.

In recent years, both Democratic and Republican US administrations have also continued to send Israel billions of dollars of weapons despite the Israeli military’s genocidal war on Gaza, which has been documented by rights groups and UN experts.

Ingber, the law professor, said that the use of wanton military force has contributed to a sense of impunity for powerful states and has degraded the international law system that has sought to place some constraints on conflict since the end of World War II.

“The prohibition on the use of force is a relatively recent innovation in the span of things. This rule is policed through the actions and reactions of states, and it feels fragile right now,” she said. “Do we want to go back to a world where states could use force as a tool of policy?”

Iran itself has lashed out against countries across the region in response to the US strikes, launching missiles and drones at military bases as well as civilian targets – including airports, hotels and energy installations.

“In the context of war, from the moment that the first strike was launched, the rules of warfare apply, and they’re very clear that civilian objects and spaces cannot be targeted,” Suedi said.

She said Iran also appears to have violated international law with its response.

Suedi told Al Jazeera that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Israel’s brutal assault on Gaza have been showing the “unravelling fragility” of international law.

The war on Iran “is a next episode in that very worrying trend”, she said.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman has warned European countries against joining the ongoing war with Israel and the US. His statement comes after France, Germany and Britain said they can take “defensive action” to counter Iran’s missile-launching capabilities.

Last week, a prominent Saudi Sheikh, Mohammed Al-Issa, visited the Auschwitz concentration camp in Poland to commemorate the 75th anniversary of its liberation, which signalled the end of the Nazi Holocaust. Although dozens of Muslim scholars have visited the site, where about one million Jews were killed during World War Two, according to the Auschwitz Memorial Centre’s press office, Al-Issa is the most senior Muslim religious leader to do so.

Visiting Auschwitz is not a problem for a Muslim; Islam orders Muslims to reject unjustified killing of any human being, no matter what their faith is. Al-Issa is a senior ally of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MBS), who apparently cares little for the sanctity of human life, though, and the visit to Auschwitz has very definite political connotations beyond any Islamic context.

By sending Al-Issa to the camp, Bin Salman wanted to show his support for Israel, which exploits the Holocaust for geopolitical colonial purposes. “The Israeli government decided that it alone was permitted to mark the 75th anniversary of the Allied liberation of Auschwitz [in modern day Poland] in 1945,” wrote journalist Richard Silverstein recently when he commented on the gathering of world leaders in Jerusalem for Benjamin Netanyahu’s Holocaust event.

READ: Next up, a Saudi embassy in Jerusalem 

Bin Salman uses Al Issa for such purposes, as if to demonstrate his own Zionist credentials. For example, the head of the Makkah-based Muslim World League is leading rapprochement efforts with Evangelical Christians who are, in the US at least, firm Zionists in their backing for the state of Israel. Al-Issa has called for a Muslim-Christian-Jewish interfaith delegation to travel to Jerusalem in what would, in effect, be a Zionist troika.

Zionism is not a religion, and there are many non-Jewish Zionists who desire or support the establishment of a Jewish state in occupied Palestine. The definition of Zionism does not mention the religion of its supporters, and Israeli writer Sheri Oz, is just one author who insists that non-Jews can be Zionists.

Mohammad Bin Salman and Netanyahu – Cartoon [Tasnimnews.com/Wikipedia]

We should not be shocked, therefore, to see a Zionist Muslim leader in these trying times. It is reasonable to say that Bin Salman’s grandfather and father were Zionists, as close friends of Zionist leaders. Logic suggests that Bin Salman comes from a Zionist dynasty.

This has been evident from his close relationship with Zionists and positive approaches to the Israeli occupation and establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, calling it “[the Jews’] ancestral homeland”. This means that he has no issue with the ethnic cleansing of almost 800,000 Palestinians in 1948, during which thousands were killed and their homes demolished in order to establish the Zionist state of Israel.

“The ‘Jewish state’ claim is how Zionism has tried to mask its intrinsic Apartheid, under the veil of a supposed ‘self-determination of the Jewish people’,” wrote Israeli blogger Jonathan Ofir in Mondoweiss in 2018, “and for the Palestinians it has meant their dispossession.”

As the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, Crown Prince Bin Salman has imprisoned dozens of Palestinians, including representatives of Hamas. In doing so he is serving Israel’s interests. Moreover, he has blamed the Palestinians for not making peace with the occupation state. Bin Salman “excoriated the Palestinians for missing key opportunities,” wrote Danial Benjamin in Moment magazine. He pointed out that the prince’s father, King Salman, has played the role of counterweight by saying that Saudi Arabia “permanently stands by Palestine and its people’s right to an independent state with occupied East Jerusalem as its capital.”

UN expert: Saudi crown prince behind hack on Amazon CEO 

Israeli journalist Barak Ravid of Israel’s Channel 13 News reported Bin Salman as saying: “In the last several decades the Palestinian leadership has missed one opportunity after the other and rejected all the peace proposals it was given. It is about time the Palestinians take the proposals and agree to come to the negotiations table or shut up and stop complaining.” This is reminiscent of the words of the late Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban, one of the Zionist founders of Israel, that the Palestinians “never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.”

Bin Salman’s Zionism is also very clear in his bold support for US President Donald Trump’s deal of the century, which achieves Zionist goals in Palestine at the expense of Palestinian rights. He participated in the Bahrain conference, the forum where the economic side of the US deal was announced, where he gave “cover to several other Arab countries to attend the event and infuriated the Palestinians.”

US President Donald Trump looks over at Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia Mohammad bin Salman al-Saud as they line up for the family photo during the opening day of Argentina G20 Leaders’ Summit 2018 at Costa Salguero on 30 November 2018 in Buenos Aires, Argentina [Daniel Jayo/Getty Images]

While discussing the issue of the current Saudi support for Israeli policies and practices in Palestine with a credible Palestinian official last week, he told me that the Palestinians had contacted the Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro to ask him not to relocate his country’s embassy to Jerusalem. “The Saudis have been putting pressure on us in order to relocate our embassy to Jerusalem,” replied the Brazilian leader. What more evidence of Mohammad Bin Salman’s Zionism do we need?

The founder of Friends of Zion Museum is American Evangelical Christian Mike Evans. He said, after visiting a number of the Gulf States, that, “The leaders [there] are more pro-Israel than a lot of Jews.” This was a specific reference to Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince, and his counterpart in the UAE, Mohammed Bin Zayed.

“All versions of Zionism lead to the same reactionary end of unbridled expansionism and continued settler colonial genocide of [the] Palestinian people,” Israeli-American writer and photographer Yoav Litvin wrote for Al Jazeera. We may well see an Israeli Embassy opened in Riyadh in the near future, and a Saudi Embassy in Tel Aviv or, more likely, Jerusalem. Is Mohammad Bin Salman a Zionist? There’s no doubt about it.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

Beirut, Lebanon – Hezbollah raised the stakes for the Lebanese government on Tuesday, when it launched an attack on Israel’s Ramat Airbase and a barrage of rockets another military facility in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, a day after Prime Minister Nawaf Salam’s cabinet announced a ban on Hezbollah’s military and security activities.

Analysts said that the Lebanese government’s decision, while difficult to implement, might have a decisive impact on the future of Lebanon. Some say it was a necessary step to bring decisions related to security and defence under the central government’s control, while others argue it raises the spectre of internal strife.

Imad Salamey, a political scientist at the Lebanese American University, said that implementation of the government’s decision to disarm Hezbollah was “more plausible today than in previous years because the decision reflects unusually broad national backing, including from within the Shia political sphere”.

“Amal’s vote in favour signals that support for consolidating arms under state authority is no longer framed purely as a sectarian or anti-resistance demand, but increasingly as a state-stabilisation necessity – especially amid economic collapse and regional escalation,” he said, referring to the other Lebanese Shia Muslim group headed by Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri.

But Michael Young, a Lebanon expert at the Carnegie Middle East Center, said the decision was easier said than done.

“Implementation is going to he much more complicated. The army is not enthusiastic to enter into a fight with Hezbollah,” Young told Al Jazeera.

“It’s good that the state has taken this decision, but it is not good that the army seems very reluctant to implement this decision,” he added.

The Iran-backed Hezbollah effectively joined the war that the United States and Israel started against Iran on Saturday when it launched a barrage of rockets and drones towards northern Israel on Monday, saying it was acting to avenge the killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Tehran and Israel’s near-daily attacks on Lebanon.

Israel responded by hitting Beirut’s southern suburbs with loud attacks that woke many of the city’s residents up, and issued evacuation warnings for more than 50 towns, displacing tens of thousands of people from their homes.

Hezbollah’s military actions banned

As this unfolded, Salam’s cabinet met and debated the events before the prime minister called an emergency news conference.

“We announce a ban on Hezbollah’s military activities and restrict its role to the political sphere,” Salam said in a news conference on Monday after the meeting.

“We declare our rejection of any military or security operations launched from Lebanese territory outside the framework of legitimate institutions.”

He added that all of Hezbollah’s military or security activities are “illegal” and said security forces would “prevent any attacks originating from Lebanese territory” against Israel or other states.

“We declare our commitment to the cessation of hostilities and the resumption of negotiations,” he said.

The statement was the strongest stance against Hezbollah to date and even gained the support of Parliament Speaker, and longtime staunch Hezbollah ally, Nabih Berri, who leads the Amal Movement.

Justice Minister Adel Nassar, meanwhile, ordered the arrest of the people who ordered the attack.

A ‘landmark’ decision

Hezbollah has been Lebanon’s strongest political and military force for decades. But the 2023-2024 war with Israel devastated the group. Hezbollah lost the majority of its military leadership, including longtime Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah.

Since the end of that war, a debate over Hezbollah’s weapons and role has ensued. Salam’s government has promised to disarm Hezbollah, while the group itself only accepted giving up its arms south of the Litani River that cuts across southern Lebanon.

Despite a November 2024 ceasefire agreement, Israel continued to attack south and east Lebanon almost daily. But since Hezbollah’s retaliation, Israel has started bombing Beirut’s suburbs again. On Monday alone, Israel killed more than 52 people, wounded more than 150 others, struck targets all over Lebanon, and gave evacuation orders for more than 50 Lebanese towns.

While Hezbollah’s first attack on Israel in over a year took many by surprise, Israel’s violent response did not.

Critics of Hezbollah pointed out that the group had acted recklessly and gave Israel an excuse to unleash its fury on Lebanon. Israel has also spoken about a potential ground invasion.

For analysts, the Lebanese government’s decision was a clear indication of how far the group has fallen since 2024.

“The government’s decision to officially ban all Hezbollah activities represents a landmark shift in the position of the government toward disarming Hezbollah,” Dania Arayssi, a senior analyst at New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy, told Al Jazeera. “This is a further reaffirmation that Hezbollah has lost a lot, if not all, its political power and influence in the Lebanese government.”

Arayssi said Hezbollah’s diminished status since 2024 also meant that the likelihood of a clash between the group and the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) was minimal.

“I don’t think there is a possibility of this leading to internal strife,” she said.

Hezbollah challenges Salam’s government

Hezbollah did not welcome the announcement.

The head of Hezbollah’s Parliamentary Bloc, Mohammad Raad, dispelled rumours of his assassination on Monday evening when he released a statement dismissing the government’s decision.

“We see no justification for Prime Minister Salam and his government to take bombastic decisions against Lebanese citizens who reject the occupation and accuse them of violating the peace that the enemy itself has denied and refused to uphold for a year and four months,” Raad said in a statement. “[Israel] has imposed a state of daily war on the Lebanese people.”

“The Lebanese were expecting a decision to ban aggression, but instead they are faced with a decision to ban the rejection of aggression,” Raad added.

Jawad Salhab, a political researcher and analyst, called the government’s move “a grave betrayal of the Lebanese people and a grave betrayal of the Lebanese state, whose sovereignty has been violated for 15 months.”

“Fifteen months of strategic patience have cost us more than 500 martyrs, while this Zionist enemy has persisted in its aggression against Lebanon and its sovereignty by air, land, and sea,” he said.

Overnight on Monday, leading into Tuesday, Israel struck targets around Lebanon, including the southern suburbs of the capital Beirut. In one strike, Israel targeted al-Manar, Hezbollah’s television station.

Then, on Tuesday morning, Hezbollah attacked Israel again, in what will be interpreted as a clear challenge to Salam’s announcement.

The Lebanese army had been tasked with an earlier government decision to disarm Hezbollah and said in January that it completed the first phase south of the Litani River. But Hezbollah has refused to move along with phase two, set to take place between the Litani and the Awali River, which is near the city of Sidon.

Nicholas Blanford, a nonresident senior fellow with the US-based Atlantic Council, told Al Jazeera that the government’s move was a “bold step” but one that might be difficult to enforce.

“How can they implement the decision?” Blanford asked, adding that it increased the potential for internal conflict.

Former US defense official Michael Mulroy breaks down the US justification for striking Iran, while some US officials say there were no immediate threats.

With 100 ⁠days to go until the tournament kicks off, appetite for tickets to the 2026 World Cup in the United States, Mexico and Canada is reaching fever pitch despite eye-watering prices that have fans crying foul amid global unrest after the US-Israeli attacks on Iran.

In addition ⁠to the war against Iran – a country scheduled to play its World Cup group stage games in the US – the heavy-handed immigration crackdowns in the US and the violence that erupted near host city Guadalajara after the death of Mexico’s most-wanted drug cartel leader are causing concern for fans.

“I’m afraid I might not ⁠be allowed into the country. I’ve decided to fly to Canada at most but not to the USA,” German football fan Tom Roeder told the Reuters news agency

“I hope that at least the issue of war with Iran does not reach North America, at least not in a way that affects us personally.”

FIFA, which did not immediately respond to a request from Reuters for comment, has said nearly 2 million tickets were sold in the first two sales phases and demand was so intense that World Cup tickets were oversubscribed more than 30 ‌times.

The most expensive tickets for the opening game are going for almost $900 and more than $8,000 for the final while tickets in general cost at least $200 for matches involving leading nations. The cheapest tickets for the final cost $2,000 and the best seats $8,680 – that is before taking into account FIFA’s official resale site, where one category three seat for the game in New Jersey on July 19 was being advertised for an eye-watering $143,750, more than 41 times its original face value of $3,450.

Political and social tensions surrounding host nations are nothing new for the World Cup.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said there was “no risk” for fans coming to the country, and Adrian Nunez Corte, leader of Unipes, a fan association in Spain, said the situation has not affected willingness to buy tickets.

“Obviously, it is causing concern, but some Spanish fans living in the area have helped to calm things down after the initial hours of alarm,” Corte said.

“There is no alarm regarding US immigration policy, but people are taking preparation of the necessary visas seriously to avoid problems, especially since some fans will be travelling between the US and Mexico due to the match schedule.”

The buzz around the tournament in North America is unprecedented.

“The demand for the 2026 World Cup ⁠in the USA, Canada and Mexico is the strongest I’ve ever experienced,” said Michael Edgley, director at Australia’s Green and ⁠Gold Army Travel.

“I think FIFA will make record amounts of money. There’s no question.

“This World Cup will be a massive financial success, and the beneficiaries will be the member federations.”

But such popularity comes with a price.

Geography adds another layer of complexity as the tournament spans 16 host cities across three countries, making it more challenging and expensive for fans wanting to follow their teams.

“The price of ⁠tickets has been a major drawback, particularly affecting the number of matches each fan will attend, as well as the distances between venues and the costs involved,” Corte said.

Secondary ticket market soars

The sticker shock is even more pronounced this year, especially with ⁠a huge resale market in which tickets are sold at above face value, which is legal in the ⁠US and Canada.

FIFA defended the ticketing model.

“Unlike the entities behind profit-driven third-party ticket marketplaces, FIFA is a not-for-profit organisation,” a spokesperson said.

“Revenue generated from the FIFA World Cup 2026 ticket sales model is reinvested into the global development of football. … FIFA expects to reinvest more than 90 percent of its budgeted investment for the 2023-2026 cycle back into the game.”

Mehdi Salem, vice president of the French football fans association Les ‌Baroudeurs du Sport, said its members are seeing more than a 200 percent increase on what they were told would be the prices in 2018 by the French federation and FIFA.

The pricing pain is so acute that Salem’s association, which boasts about 400 members, will have only 100 attend the tournament – a dramatic drop that he attributed to ticket prices ‌and ‌the political landscape in the US.

“We feel like this World Cup will not really be a people’s World Cup but rather an elitist World Cup,” Salem added.

Iran has held a mass funeral for 165 schoolgirls and staff killed in what it has described as a United States-Israeli attack on a girls school in the southern city of Minab.

Saturday’s strike came on the first day of the joint US and Israeli attacks on Iran. It was the deadliest incident in the campaign against Tehran so far.

The Israeli military said it was not aware of any Israeli or US attacks in that area. Throughout its genocidal war on Gaza, however, Israel has repeatedly denied responsibility for deadly attacks on Palestinian civilians, only to later backtrack when evidence emerged, often describing such incidents as “accidental”.

The attack in Minab has been condemned by UNESCO and Nobel Peace Prize-winning education activist Malala Yousafzai.

Deliberately attacking an educational institution, hospital or any other civilian structure is a war crime under international humanitarian law.

On Monday, Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said the two countries “continue to indiscriminately strike residential areas, sparing neither hospitals, schools, Red Crescent facilities, nor cultural monuments”.

Bala Abubakar rises before dawn, fetching water and checking his irrigation canals. He grew up in Gurin, a community in Adamawa State, northeastern Nigeria, where rice cultivation has fed generations. To operate a thriving rice farm, Bala says he needs good seedlings, fertilisers, and perhaps a loan to tide him over. 

In 2024, members of the Rice Farmers Association of Nigeria (RIFAN) in the state got subsidy inputs through the Nigeria Incentive-based Risk Sharing System for Agricultural Lending (NIRSAL), a programme designed to de-risk agricultural lending for low-income farmers. Bala went to the nearest cybercafé to register, hoping to benefit from the initiative.

The registration required him to enter his National Identity Number (NIN) before he could access the loan. At the café, he entered his name and the NIN, but the system failed to verify him. The café attendant told him that his record was not found and advised him to try his bank’s verification number (BVN). He tried, but the system still failed him. Disappointed after visiting the cybercafé, Bala trudged back home. 

Like Bala, other farmers faced a similar problem. One farmer, Sani Bukar, tried to access the Growth Enhancement Support under the Government Enterprise and Empowerment Programme (GEEP),  an initiative designed to improve smallholder farmers’ access to agricultural inputs through an electronic, voucher-based system. He only received a “verification failed” message, despite having a phone number linked to his NIN.

“They have our pictures and fingerprints now,” Bala says, referring to the recent biometric enrollment drive. “But those pictures are in Abuja. Here in my village, what do I have?” 

His story reflects a deeper tension in Nigeria’s emerging Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) ecosystem. Although Nigeria has made progress in several areas of DPI, alignment across them is uneven. The NIN, for instance, is managed by the National Identity Management Commission (NIMC), while the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) manages the BVN system to expand financial inclusion. In addition, SIM registration—conducted by mobile network operators—links phone numbers to individuals’ identities.

On paper, these systems should make agricultural targeting seamless, but in practice, they often operate in silos. 

Bala’s dilemma is built on concrete technical barriers. To access most federal or sub-national agricultural interventions today, a farmer must have a valid NIN,  a phone number linked to that NIN, a bank account linked to a BVN, and a registration in a state or federal farmer database.  If any link in that chain fails, the entire process most often collapses. 

A 2025 overview of Nigeria’s connectivity landscape notes that only about 38 per cent of Nigerians were online in 2024, with rural communities significantly lagging behind.

“Without stable internet, many agricultural tools are rendered ineffective,” said Tajudeen Yahaya, an agricultural extension expert. “Even simple SMS or app-based registration frequently fails in rural communities.”

Beyond connectivity, issues with identity and data persist. The NIN registry has enrolled over 120 million people, but reports indicate that many more Nigerians have yet to enrol, particularly those in rural areas. Bala’s village falls within that gap. 

The problem spans across multiple government programmes. Different states in Nigeria maintain their own farmer databases that conflict with federal government records. For instance, Agricultural Development Programme (ADP) offices may possess one list, while federal systems could have a different one. 

“We tell farmers to get on the portal, but many are not in our state ADP database,” says Victor Anthony, who spoke on behalf of the Chairperson of the ADP programme in Adamawa State. “And even if they are, the federal system says we’re not synced.” 

In 2025, the Federal Ministry of Agriculture officially launched a National Digital Farmers Registry. The minister, Abubakar Kyari, announced that it would be anchored and accessed through the NIN. According to Abubakar, the registry would eliminate ghost beneficiaries and ensure targeted delivery of inputs, extension services, credit, and insurance. The goal is a single unified platform that links NINs to farmlands, so that when a farmer applies, the system already “knows” him and his fields. 

However, a recent statement from the agriculture ministry noted duplications and inconsistencies in farmers’ records, making it difficult to support them.

Interventions

Many government parastatals and private institutions are working to improve digitalisation for farmers and rural communities. NIMC has expanded the number of enrolment centres under the World Bank–supported programme, aiming to register up to 150 million Nigerians. Mobile NIN vans now travel to rural markets and religious gatherings, reducing distance barriers.

In October 2025, the World Bank approved a $500 million Building Resilient Digital Infrastructure for Growth (BRIDGE) project to lay fibre optics across Nigeria. Over the next five years, 90,000 km of fibre will be added, expanding the national backbone from 35,000 km to 125,000 km. When completed, this network will connect every local government, thousands of schools and clinics, and even remote agricultural research stations. 

In local communities, farming cooperatives and technology companies are also contributing. The Extension Africa network has provided training to many local extension agents in digital tools, enabling them to act as “digital ambassadors” in rural areas. Some platforms are testing offline kiosks that permit farmers to download guidance and transaction records whenever they visit town.

The federal government’s renewed Agric Infrastructure Fund and various projects with agencies aim to equip these hubs with basic internet as part of a broader “Digital Village” initiative.  However, these fixes are works in progress. 

An African challenge?

Nigeria’s struggles are shared across the Global South, and other countries’ experiences offer cautionary lessons. In India, billions of dollars in farmer subsidies are paid directly to bank accounts via Aadhaar ID. The country is now rolling out Agri Stack, a digital initiative that gives each farmer a unique digital ID linked to land records. 

When the government mandated e-KYC for OTPs in 2023, nearly 5 per cent of beneficiaries were flagged as “ineligible” when verification failed. Many older farmers lacked a working linked phone, had worn fingerprints, or ran into a buggy face-scan app. 

With 70 per cent of the population in rural areas, agriculture accounts for 33 per cent of GDP in Kenya, but the country has struggled with piecemeal data. A recent study notes that millions of Kenyan smallholders remain “invisible to formal agricultural programmes”. In 2023, Kenya launched a national digital registry for farmers, but poor connectivity and low smartphone ownership are barriers, as in Nigeria. 

On the positive side, Kenya has explored linking its digital ID (Huduma card) to farm cooperatives and training agents in the field. Rwanda goes even further by running the Smart Nkunganire e-voucher system, in which registered farmers receive digital coupons for seeds and fertilisers based on precise plots. These programmes suggest that pairing farmer IDs with geotagged land data can dramatically improve targeting, but only if the data are entered correctly, experts said.

Ethiopia has introduced a National ID requirement for various services. The newly established National Agricultural Finance Implementation Roadmap (NAFIR) incorporates a Fayda ID, which is a 12-digit unique identification number provided by the National ID Programme (NIDP) to residents who meet the necessary criteria set by NIDP. This system is designed for farmers associated with a land registry containing 18 million plots. The World Bank highlights that digital identity could unlock rural finance at scale in Ethiopia, but warns that without addressing its infrastructure gaps, digital solutions risk remaining pilots.

What needs to change

Experts argue that Nigeria must double down on making its digital agriculture ecosystem inclusive and resilient. Frank Akabueze, a Nigerian-based digital identity expert, noted that IDs should be flexible to ensure seamless registration. He said the NIN may be central, but alternative pathways should exist. For instance, cooperative leaders should be allowed to register farmers offline (paper intake by trusted agents) and synchronise later, rather than requiring each individual’s smartphone.” 

“Voter card numbers should be made acceptable as interim IDs,” Frank said, noting the importance of equipping extension workers with portable biometric devices so they can register farmers on the spot, as some countries do. In India, the option of offline Aadhaar verification was eventually introduced to help offline farmers. 

The digital expert noted that all of Nigeria’s data siloes – NIMC, BVN, SIM records and databases should be harmonised. He stressed that legal frameworks like the new digital ID policy can mandate data sharing between agencies (with privacy safeguards). 

“Spelling mismatches and duplicates should be proactively cleaned: one approach is to use biometric deduplication, as India did at scale for Aadhaar,” he added. 

He also said the proposed National Digital Farmers Registry should connect to the NIN and verify existing records, such as the national farmers’ census, to minimise errors, such as listing the same farmer in multiple states or with different ages.

This report is produced under the DPI Africa Journalism Fellowship Programme of the Media Foundation for West Africa and Co-Develop.

Mérida, March 2, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan popular movements condemned the recent US and Israeli attacks against Iran and expressed support and solidarity with the West Asian nation. 

On Saturday, February 28, the International Platform for Solidarity with the Palestinian Cause and the Alexis Vive Patriotic Force were among the organizations issuing statements rejecting Washington and Tel Aviv’s military actions.

The organizations decried the bombings of Iranian territory, including against civilian targets, and described the operations as serious violations of international law. The International Platform for Solidarity with the Palestinian Cause expressed “deep outrage” over the bombing of a girls’ school in Minab that killed over 175 people.

“This infamous act will not crush the heroic resistance of the Iranian people, in their example of dignity in the face of imperialist and zionist aggression,” the platform’s communiqué read.

For its part, the Alexis Vive Patriotic Force emphasized that the latest attacks are not an isolated incident, but rather “another attempt to impose regime change and undermine Iran’s self-determination.” 

“These actions seek to reconfigure the political map of Western Asia in favor of the strategic interests of Washington and Tel Aviv,” the organization, a driving force in El Panal Commune in Caracas, added in its statement.

The Venezuelan chapter of Alba Movimientos, a continental alliance of social movements, likewise issued a statement declaring “unrestricted solidarity” with Iran and calling on multilateral organizations to deter the US and Israel’s “warmongering.”

Venezuelan grassroots organizations scheduled a rally on Tuesday in front of the Iranian embassy in Caracas to reiterate their support and condemnation of the foreign aggression against the country.

West Asia has been thrown into open conflict after the US and Israel launched operations “Epic Fury” and “Lion’s Roar,” respectively, on Saturday, with widespread bombings against Iran and targeted assassinations against the country’s leadership. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, was killed along with several relatives by an Israeli strike. 

Washington and Tel Aviv justified the systematic bombing of Tehran and other cities as a “preemptive strike,” with officials from both countries claiming without evidence that Iran was working toward nuclear weapons.

In response, Iranian forces launched defensive maneuvers and retaliatory attacks against US military assets in the region, striking bases and other targets in countries including Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Iraq, and Jordan. Iran has also launched multiple waves of missiles against Israel and vowed to implement a strategic blockade in the Strait of Hormuz.

Caracas withdraws statement, expresses solidarity with Qatar

The Venezuelan government issued a statement on Saturday expressing its “condemnation and deep regret” that the “military option was chosen” with attacks against Iran while diplomatic talks were ongoing. However, Caracas did not name the US and Israel as the perpetrators. 

The communiqué went on to condemn Iran’s retaliatory actions as “inappropriate and reprehensible military reprisals against targets in various countries in the region.” The document ended with a call for a return to negotiations between all parties.

The government’s position drew widespread criticism on social media and was removed from the Foreign Ministry’s official accounts, as well as from Foreign Minister Yván Gil’s Telegram and X platforms, on Saturday evening.

Venezuelan leaders, including Acting President Delcy Rodríguez, have offered no explanation for the statement’s publication and deletion. On Monday, Rodríguez reported a phone conversation with Qatari Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani in which she expressed “solidarity” amidst the “violence and instability” in the region.

“I expressed my condolences and deep concern over the loss of civilian lives due to the ongoing conflict, reiterating our call to respect international law and preserve peace,” the acting president wrote.

Caracas’ latest stance contrasts with its previous fierce condemnations of US and Israeli actions in West Asia, including the genocide in Gaza, attacks against Lebanon, and the assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah.

Venezuela had likewise firmly backed Iran, one of its strongest allies in the past quarter century, against foreign attacks, including during the June 2026 war against Israel.

During Hugo Chávez’s presidency (1999-2013), Caracas and Tehran consolidated a multidimensional strategic alliance based on opposition to US expansion and a commitment to building a multipolar world. During this period, more than 270 bilateral agreements were signed in sectors such as energy, housing, agriculture, and technology.

The close ties, described by both governments as a “revolutionary brotherhood,” also provided key lifelines as both countries faced US-led economic sanctions. Venezuela benefited from Iranian technology transfers in areas such as drone manufacturing, cement, and vehicle assembly.

Iran provided key fuel shipments in 2020, defying US threats, as the Venezuelan economy reeled under US coercive measures.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

The loss of three U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles to apparent friendly fire over Kuwait earlier today underscores an enduring reality of conflict: despite advances in technology, high levels of training, and the most carefully prepared plans, casualties inflicted by the same side are always a hazard. Indeed, these are not the first blue-on-blue incidents involving U.S. and allied combat aircraft in the various campaigns since the end of the Cold War. Two of those, in particular, both dating from the invasion of Iraq in 2003, appear eerily similar to the incident over Kuwait today.

While we are still awaiting detailed information as to what happened over Kuwait today, U.S. Central Command has confirmed that the six crew members involved are all safe. You can meanwhile get up to date with what we know about the incident in our report here.

In light of that, we now look back at the previous, high-profile friendly-fire incidents in which the U.S. military has been involved in recent decades.

U.S. Army UH-60 Black Hawks, 1994

In terms of overall loss of life, the costliest fratricide incident involving U.S. military aircraft since the end of the Cold War was the April 14, 1994, shootdown by U.S. Air Force F-15 Eagle fighters of two U.S. Army UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters over Iraq, in which 26 individuals died.

On that date, the two Black Hawks and their crews were assigned to Operation Provide Comfort, a multinational relief effort to aid Kurdish refugees in southern Turkey following the 1991 Gulf War. The helicopters were transporting U.S., British, French, and Turkish military officers; Kurdish representatives; and a U.S. political advisor in northern Iraq. Operating over Turkey was a U.S. Air Force E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control Systems (AWACS) aircraft, to offer airborne threat warning and control for the Provide Comfort aircraft, including the Black Hawks. Despite this, the pilots of two U.S. Air Force F-15 fighters patrolling the area misidentified the Black Hawks as Iraqi Mi-25 Hind helicopters (export versions of the Mi-24) and shot them down.

A subsequent investigation into the incident revealed that, despite the AWACS crew being aware that the Black Hawks were in the area, the two F-15 pilots were not. The Eagle pilots received two radar contacts (indicating helicopters) and stated that they attempted unsuccessfully to identify them by electronic means. They twice reported their unsuccessful attempts to the AWACS, but were still not informed of the presence of the friendly Black Hawks. The F-15 pilots attempted a visual identification, making a single pass each of the helicopters, but this was later deemed insufficient for a positive ID. Instead, the lead pilot misidentified the helicopters as hostile Hinds. The pilot’s confusion was compounded by the fact that the UH-60s were carrying fuel tanks on their external pylons, making them look more like Hinds, with their characteristic stub-wing weapons stations.

The F-15C flight lead fired a single missile and shot down the trailing Black Hawk helicopter. At the lead pilot’s direction, the F-15 wingman also fired a single missile and shot down the lead helicopter. All 26 individuals aboard the two Black Hawks were killed.

After the investigation, which described a catalog of failures, both human and technical, the two F-15 pilots were disqualified from aviation service for three years. Similar punishments were faced by three members of the AWACS crew.

U.K. Royal Air Force Tornado GR4A, 2003

The pilot and navigator of this Tornado reconnaissance jet were both killed when they were targeted by a U.S. Army Patriot air defense missile during the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Flying as part of a package of Coalition aircraft, the Tornado was returning to Ali Al Salem Air Base in Kuwait on March 22, 2003, when the Patriot battery wrongly identified it as an Iraqi anti-radiation missile. The suspected hostile track was interrogated by the identification friend or foe (IFF) system, but there was no response. The Patriot crew launched the missile, and the Tornado began self-defense actions.

Both Tornado crew members were killed instantly when the missile hit their aircraft.

The U.K. Ministry of Defense’s investigation into the incident concluded that a number of issues had contributed. Some of these related to the Patriot system and included the threat classification criteria, rules of engagement, firing doctrine, crew training, IFF procedures, and the nature of autonomous battery operation. The Tornado’s IFF serviceability was a contributing factor, and investigators also found issues with aircraft routing and airspace control measures, as well as overall orders and instructions.

U.S. Navy F/A-18C Hornet, 2003

The F/A-18C flown by Lt. Nathan Dennis White of Strike Fighter Squadron 195 was another victim of a Patriot missile during the war in Iraq in 2003.

According to U.S. Central Command, on April 2, 2003, Lt. White was flying one of two Navy F/A-18s near Karbala in central Iraq, which were heading back to their aircraft carrier, the USS Kitty Hawk. As in the Tornado incident the previous month, a Patriot missile battery mistakenly identified the Hornet as an Iraqi missile. The notification was passed on to the Information Coordination Center, responsible for coordinating air defense. The center mistakenly designated the flight path of the Navy jet as a missile track.

Seconds later, a second Patriot battery located closer to the front line also detected the F/A-18C and also mistook it for an Iraqi missile. The second battery concluded that it was being targeted by the missile. The air defense batteries were reportedly both assigned to defend the U.S. Army’s 3rd Infantry Division, which was driving north near Karbala and about 50 miles from the Iraqi capital.

Since the erroneous reports aligned, the operators at the two Patriot batteries and at the command center became “increasingly confident that they were all detecting the same hostile missile, that their detection was accurate, and that this missile was a direct threat to U.S. forces,” according to a summary of the report into the incident.

The command center ordered that two Patriot missiles be launched, shooting down the F/A-18C and killing Lt. White.

The personnel involved did not face punishment. “It was determined … that no disciplinary action was warranted,” said Marine Capt. Kelly Frushour, a spokeswoman for Central Command.

U.S. Navy F/A-18F Super Hornet, 2024

Most recently, a U.S. Navy F/A-18F belonging to Strike Fighter Squadron 11 was involved in a friendly-fire incident with a U.S. Navy Ticonderoga class cruiser in the Red Sea on December 22, 2024.

As we detailed in our previous coverage of the incident, the F/A-18F was returning to the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman, after conducting a refueling mission. The Carrier Strike Group had been busy fending off a sustained Houthi drone and missile attack in the run-up to the incident. Indeed, a series of errors and misjudgements meant that the Super Hornet had been identified by the warship as a Houthi anti-ship cruise missile, like others fired at the strike group.

“After successfully returning from its initial mission, an F/A-18F launched again to provide air defense support from OWAs and ASCMs [one-way attack drones and anti-ship cruise missiles] that were inbound to the force,” a U.S. official told TWZ at the time. “They were shot down while recovery of remaining aircraft was underway.”

The F/A-18F was downed by a Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) from the cruiser USS Gettysburg. Both crew members ejected from their jet and were recovered. Initial reports indicated that one of the crew members had minor injuries.

A myriad of issues, some systemic, contributed to the shootdown and the near miss, as we discussed once the report into the incident was published. How all these factors combined to cause the friendly-fire incident is something we previously examined in a study about the stresses the Red Sea deployments were putting on Navy surface combatants’ Combat Information Center (CIC), the nerve center and tactical brain of those vessels.

During the same operation in the Red Sea, Gettysburg also almost shot down another Super Hornet, too.

What all these incidents have in common is the fact that the complexities of aerial warfare make this an unpredictable and hazardous business, especially when split-second decisions have to be made. The proliferation of varied threats, as well as the fact that U.S. forces may have to fight alongside allies using different weapons, doctrines, and operating procedures, only adds to the challenge.

In all of these cases, the incidents occurred in high-threat environments with multiple layers of hazards, some of which can be very hard to detect and categorize, and which increasingly arrive simultaneously. As well as more traditional threats, like cruise and ballistic missiles, and aircraft, these increasingly include (and are enhanced by) electronic warfare and other emerging threats.

It is a sometimes-cruel irony that, while U.S. and allied forces are optimized to suppress and destroy hostile threats, this sometimes makes the positive identification of non-threat assets harder. Moreover, while technology, such as enhanced IFF and datalink systems, aims to decrease the chances of a blue-on-blue incident, these systems don’t always work as advertised, especially in a coalition environment.

Even the close-to-reality nature of combat exercises provides a risk of friendly fire. A case in point that we have looked at in the past involved the shootdown of a U.S. Navy A-6E Intruder on June 4, 1996, during the Rim of the Pacific maneuvers, or RIMPAC. The strike jet was flying off the Forrestal class aircraft carrier USS Independence when it was accidentally shot down by a Mark 15 Phalanx close-in weapons system, or CIWS, aboard the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) Asagiri class destroyer Yugiri.

A much more confused situation exists over the battlefields in the Ukraine war. Here, a much more diverse collection of air defense assets is at work, of both Soviet and Western origin. An even greater potential for blue-on-blue exists since many of the same (or very similar) air defense systems and combat aircraft are facing off against each other. Aircraft missions are also regularly flown much closer to the ground, and in proximity to ground forces, meaning the reaction times are even more limited. Both Russia and Ukraine have experienced friendly-fire incidents, bringing down fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, and drones. In one of the most prominent such incidents, it was claimed that one of the first F-16s delivered to Ukraine was shot down by a Patriot missile due to a lack of coordination between the units.

A Marshall Islands-flagged oil tanker became the first ship to be struck by an Iranian uncrewed surface vessel (USV) during this conflict, the Ambrey maritime security firm told us. As we have frequently reported, USVs have been widely used by Ukraine against Russia and, in the Middle East, by the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels against commercial shipping.

You can catch up with our latest coverage of Operation Epic Fury, the joint U.S.-Israel attack on Iran in our rolling coverage here.

The ship, the MKD VYOM, was initially thought to have been struck by a projectile on March 1, in a deadly attack about 50 nautical miles north of Muscat, Oman. However, the United Kingdom Marine Trade Operations (UKMTO) organization, which is managed by the Royal Navy in the United Kingdom, gave an updated assessment of the incident Monday morning.

“UKMTO has received confirmation that the vessel was attacked by an Uncrewed Surface Vehicle (USV), and that the crew has been evacuated to shore,” the organization stated. “Authorities are investigating. Vessels are advised to transit with caution and report any suspicious activity to UKMTO.”

“The vessel suffered an explosion and subsequent fire after being struck by a suspected projectile while off the coast of Muscat, Oman on 1 March,” MKD VYOM‘s owner, V.Ships Asia said in a statement. “It is with great sadness that we confirm one crew member, who was in the engine room at the time of the incident, has died.”

أعلن المركز العُماني للأمن البحري تعرّض ناقلة النفط MKD VYOM لهجوم بواسطة زورق محمّل بالمتفجرات أثناء إبحارها على بُعد 52 ميلا بحرياً من سواحل محافظة مسقط. pic.twitter.com/XUABktn3kt

— الجريدة (@aljarida) March 2, 2026

While this is the first time Iran has used a USV to strike ships in the region, it should come as no surprise that it would deploy these weapons. Iran has steadily developed USVs and undersea vehicles capable of launching kamikaze attacks and added them to its arsenal. Iran, together with its Houthi allies in Yemen, has long been a pioneer in this space. As we have previously reported, the Houthis frequently used USVs in their campaign against Red Sea shipping.

The ongoing war in Ukraine has now fully demonstrated the very real threats these capabilities present to ships and coastal targets — even aircraft.

The MKD VYOM was one of at least four ships struck by Iran since the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps announced it was shutting down the Strait of Hormuz some 150 nautical miles to the northwest. That warning came after the U.S. and Israel started bombing Iranian targets on Feb. 28. We have previously examined in great detail what Iran could do to shut the Strait, a major chokepoint through which about 20% of the world’s crude oil passes.

“For your information, from now on…no ship of any type is…allowed to pass from the Strait of Hormuz.. From now on, the Strait of Hormuz is banned for all ships, the Strait of Hormuz is banned for all ships,” the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said, via a radio transmission obtained by The War Zone.

The IRGC updated that warning on Monday, saying it was shutting the Strait and any ships attempting to pass through would be set on fire.

“The strait (of Hormuz) is closed. If anyone tries to ​pass, the heroes of the Revolutionary Guards and the regular navy will set ​those ships ablaze,” Ebrahim Jabari, a senior adviser to the Guards commander-in-chief, ⁠said in remarks carried by state media.

BREAKING: Islamic Revolutionary Guards commander says that the Strait of Hormuz has been closed and that Iran will set fire to any ship trying to pass, according to Iranian media – Reuters pic.twitter.com/ra0B2x5oWq

— Faytuks News (@Faytuks) March 2, 2026

In addition to three other tankers hit in the Gulf of Oman, the U.S.flagged oil tanker STENA IMPERATIVE suffered at least two direct hits from a suspected Iranian projectile while in the Port of Bahrain on Monday, a maritime security official confirmed to The War Zone.

It is unclear at the moment if the ship was struck by a missile or a drone, the official added.

⭕️⚡️IRGC hit the US Navy-operated Oil tanker “Stena Imperative” docked in Bahrain.

💡An IRGC Drone Ababil flew over the vessel a few weeks ago over the Strait of Hormuz, CENTCOM condemned the incident back then. https://t.co/1bGw6IQ4e7 pic.twitter.com/buTP70JVfW

— MenchOsint (@MenchOsint) March 2, 2026

Shortly before 5:30 a.m. Eastern, UKMTO stated that it “received a report of an incident in the Port of Bahrain. The Company Security Officer reported that the vessel had been struck by two unknown projectiles causing a fire. The fire has been extinguished and the vessel remains in port. All members of the ship’s crew are safe and have evacuated the vessel. Authorities are investigating.”

“Vessels are to remain cautious and report any suspicious activity to UKMTO,” the organization added.

It is believed that the STENA IMPERATIVE is the only U.S.-flagged vessel to be struck by Iran so far.

It has been reported that the tanker is part of the U.S. Maritime Administration’s Tanker Security Program, which “exists to enhance U.S. supply chain resiliency for liquid fuel products.” The Tanker Security Program came into effect in 2021 and empowered the Department of Transportation to create an ad-hoc 10-ship expanded U.S.-flagged tanker fleet for use in a crisis.

Weeks before the war broke out, the STENA IMPERATIVE was approached by Iranian gunboats, which threatened to board the vessel, in the Strait of Hormuz, before continuing on its way under military escort, according to CBS News.

U.S. Central Command issued a statement at the time confirming the incident, saying, “Two IRGC boats and an Iranian Mohajer drone approached M/V Stena Imperative at high speeds and threatened to board and seize the tanker.”

CENTCOM spokesman Capt. Tim Hawkins told CBS that the Arleigh Burke class guided-missile destroyer USS McFaul immediately responded to the scene and escorted the ship with defensive air support from the U.S. Air Force. “The situation de-escalated as a result, and the U.S.-flagged tanker is proceeding safely,” he said.

US Oil Tanker Approached By Iranian Gunboats In Strait Of Hormuz As Peace Talks Begins Soon

Since the launch of Epic Fury, shipping traffic through this vital body of water has plummeted by almost 85%, and a large number of ships have turned off their transponders to avoid being tracked.

New: Ship traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has fallen almost 85%, @Kpler‘s @DimAmpatzidis tells Hunterbrook. 

“Since 00:00 UTC today, only six vessels have crossed the Strait with AIS signals active.” One of those vessels has since been bombed by Iran. pic.twitter.com/offUWTYGic

— Hunterbrook (@hntrbrkmedia) March 2, 2026

While Iran attacks tankers, the U.S. is striking Iranian Navy vessels. U.S. President Donald Trump has said “annihilating” Iran’s naval forces is a core objective of Epic Fury and that 10 Iranian ships have been “knocked out” so far.

Below is a satellite image showing damage to Iran’s main naval base in Bandar Abbas, including what looks to be the IRINS Makran sea base-type ship, following strikes as part of the ongoing U.S.-Israeli campaign. You can read more about that in our story here.

While no one knows how much longer Epic Fury will last, this war will continue presenting major danger to commercial shipping.

Update: 5:51PM EST-

A U.S. official tells The War Zone that while the IRGC claims they’ve closed the Strait, U.S. monitoring of the body of water does not back that up.

Contact the author: howard@thewarzone.com

Israeli attacks on Lebanon have killed more than 50 people. It says the strikes are a response to Hezbollah rockets and drones fired into Israel to protest the US-Israeli killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader.

‘What is needed now in the region more than anything, is a way out.’ The UN Secretary-General is urging a cessation of hostilities and de-escalation amidst the ongoing US and Israeli military offensive against Iran.

Heavy Israeli air strikes have hit multiple parts of Tehran including near the building of Iran’s state broadcaster and the central prison complex. Explosions have been heard across the city.

When Ahmad Salkida first conceived HumAngle in 2014, the idea was audacious: build a newsroom dedicated to conflict reporting at a time when Nigeria’s media space was shrinking, resources were scarce, and insecurity was widespread. It would take six more years before that vision materialised. In 2020, HumAngle formally launched. Today, as the organisation marks its sixth anniversary, Salkida describes the journey as a roller coaster.

“It takes you to a peak where you feel unstoppable,” he says of building HumAngle. “Then suddenly, you’re reminded of the realities: financial strain, political pressure, operational risks. It’s a constant test of resolve.”

Yet, even amid the highs and lows, Ahmad is certain of one thing: HumAngle has become more than a newsroom. It is a platform of purpose. “I’m glad that HumAngle has been a vehicle that has helped so many young people to discover themselves,” he said. 

HumAngle’s roots are deeply personal. On Sept. 6, 2016, Ahmad returned to Nigeria after being declared wanted by the Nigerian Army over allegations that he had withheld information about the whereabouts of the Chibok girls abducted by Boko Haram. Following interrogation, he was released by the Department of State Services without charge.

When he resettled in Abuja, Nigeria’s capital city, Ahmad began refining an idea that had been forming for years: a media platform dedicated to conflict, one that would amplify the voices of victims and survivors rather than merely echo official narratives. He envisioned a newsroom that would not only report on violence but also interrogate its causes, document its human cost, and advocate for a future in which the media could highlight pathways to peace—not just the spectacle of war.

HumAngle was born from that conviction.

Launching in 2020 meant confronting immediate adversity. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted economies and shuttered newsrooms worldwide. Independent journalism in Nigeria faced chronic underfunding, while security risks loomed over reporters covering insurgency, displacement, and corruption.

Still, HumAngle persisted. Three years later, the peacebuilding advocacy arm, HumAngle Foundation, was launched. What began as a small, mission-driven team evolved into a diverse newsroom of nearly 40 staff members, pushing the boundaries of how conflict is reported in Nigeria and across Africa. The organisation adopted an innovative approach, blending deep investigations with ground reporting, data journalism, GIS mapping, and even virtual reality documentaries.

From stories on insurgency and mass displacement to exposés on bureaucratic failure, climate vulnerability, abductions, disappearances, and systemic corruption, HumAngle carved a niche as a trusted source for underreported narratives.

“It was supposed to be a general interest publication, but considering my long and rough experience with the Nigerian security sector, the escalating insecurity across the country, and the media black hole surrounding various dimensions of the conflicts, it made more sense for it to be a niche platform,” according to Ahmad.

Behind the scenes, however, the burden was immense.

“Every morning, I walked into the HumAngle building, feeling the weight of a mission at odds with its environment—carrying not just the hopes of nearly 40 staff members, but also the invisible pressure to prove that public-interest journalism can exist in a society that has never been structured to sustain it,” he recently wrote.

Amidst the struggle, deep investigations, ground reporting, data stories, GIS maps, VR documentaries and stories of insurgency, displacement, bureaucracy, climate vulnerability, abductions, disappearances and corruption continue to emerge. 

Despite acknowledging that HumAngle is “far from achieving its target objectives,” Ahmad speaks with unmistakable gratitude. “I am proud of everything HumAngle has nurtured.” 

In Nov. 2025, Ahmad Salkida was selected for the 2026 Yale Peace Fellowship, alongside 13 other global peacebuilding leaders. “Being selected for this fellowship validates the work I am doing with HumAngle, and I look forward to gaining more insight to improve our processes after the fellowship,” he said. “Peace is achievable in our lifetime. And fellowships like this ensure that that belief is not only a feeling, but a destination that can be reached through small incremental steps.”

He maintains that the fellowship, along with several other recognitions the newsroom has received and the impact it has recorded, serves as fuel to do more.

Six years on, HumAngle stands not merely as a newsroom, but as proof that even in fragile environments, journalism can be courageous, innovative, and deeply human. 

As part of the sixth-anniversary activities, a book-reading conversation was held on Monday evening, March 2, with award-winning Irish journalist Sally Hayden. Her book, “My Fourth Time, We Drowned on the World’s Deadliest Migration Route”, explores the harrowing realities faced by refugees, weaving together shocking personal accounts with a broader investigation into systemic failures—highlighting NGO negligence, corruption within the UN, and the disturbing economics of modern slavery.

Sally, while commending HumAngle’s work in documenting the human cost of insecurity in the Sahel, emphasised the importance of independent journalism in the region and the use of appropriate, generally acceptable language when reporting on conflict and displacement.

“Journalists have the duty to question the languages they use, especially when describing people in the face of conflict, migration crisis or displacement. If I were to rewrite this book today, I would probably correct certain descriptive words or language,” she added. 

Secretary of state says he hopes Iranian people would overthrow regime as US military says six service members killed.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has suggested that a planned Israeli attack against Iran determined the timing of Washington’s assault against the government in Tehran.

The United States’ top diplomat told reporters on Monday that Washington was aware that Israel was going to attack Iran, and that Tehran would retaliate against US interests in the region, so American forces struck pre-emptively.

“We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action. We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t pre-emptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties,” Rubio said.

The US secretary of state’s comments came minutes before the US military confirmed that its death toll from the conflict has risen to six after recovering two bodies from a regional facility struck by Iran.

Tehran retaliated against the joint US-Israeli attacks that killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, several top officials and hundreds of civilians with drone and missile launches across the region, including against American bases and assets in the Gulf.

Rubio’s assertion highlights the Israeli role in bringing about the war, which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been seeking for years.

On Sunday, Netanyahu said the attacks on Iran are happening with the assistance of his “friend”, US President Donald Trump.

“This coalition of forces allows us to do what I have yearned to do for 40 years,” the Israeli prime minister said in a video message.

For his part, Rubio told reporters on Monday that an attack on Iran had to happen because Tehran was amassing missiles and drones that it would have used to protect its nuclear programme and acquire an atomic bomb.

Israel and the US launched the war less than 48 hours after a round of talks between American and Iranian officials over Tehran’s nuclear programme.

Rubio said the goal of the war is to destroy Iran’s missile and drone programmes, but stressed the US would welcome ending the current ruling system in Tehran.

“We would not be heartbroken, and we hope that the Iranian people can overthrow this government and establish a new future for that country. We would love for that to be possible,” he said.

US forces launched a military attack against Venezuela on January 3, reportedly killing over 100 people and kidnapping Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and first lady Cilia Flores, who also serves as a National Assembly deputy.

Western corporate media have played an active role in recent years in legitimizing escalated US aggression against the Venezuelan people, from whitewashing economic sanctions that killed tens of thousands (FAIR.org, 6/4/21, 6/13/22) to outright calling for a military intervention (FAIR.org, 2/12/25, 11/19/25). They also exposed themselves once again as the fourth branch of the US national security state, opting not to publish information they had prior to the January 3 operation in order to “avoid endangering US troops” (FAIR.org, 1/13/26).

The brazen act of war has elicited zero dissent from the Western media establishment, no urge to challenge Trump’s return to early 20th century “gunboat diplomacy.” Worse, with the White House pushing to impose a semi-colonial protectorate and plunder Venezuela’s wealth, corporate outlets continue working overtime to normalize US imperialist predations.

Damage control

In the weeks since the attack, Western media have made a point of referring to Maduro as “arrested” (NBC, 1/5/26), “captured” (PBS, 2/10/26) or “ousted” (ABC, 1/5/26). The choice is far from innocent. By not stating that the Venezuelan leader was “kidnapped” or “abducted,” in a blatant violation of international law, establishment journalists are normalizing the US’s rogue actions, denying Maduro the proper protections of prisoner of war status (FAIR.org, 1/20/26).

But it is not just through semantic distortion that corporate outlets have quarantined any critique of the administration’s lawlessness. Another common feature has been a certain “damage control” in covering up Trump’s most outlandish statements.

After the January 3 military operation, Trump stated in a press conference that “many Americans, hundreds of thousands over the years…died because of [Maduro].” No corporate outlets reported the outrageously false statement. (A couple of factchecking pieces—CBS, 1/6/26; New York Times, 1/8/26—addressed his adjacent, essentially unfalsifiable claim that “countless Americans” died due to Maduro.)

The attempts to make Trump’s Venezuela policy claims appear more rational are not new. For instance, in presidential press conferences, he constantly said that Venezuela had “emptied” its mental institutions into the US (X, 10/15/25, 11/2/25, 12/3/25, 1/3/26). But throughout 2025, the New York Times  (11/4/25) mentioned this absurd statement just once, and the Washington Post (10/22/25, 12/21/25) did so twice.

On the domestic policy front, corporate journalists have had fewer qualms labeling Trump claims as “false,” when it comes to ending wars (CNN, 1/20/26), immigration (NBC, 2/4/26) or the 2020 US election (Guardian, 1/12/26). But they seem happy to carefully conceal or openly parrot false accusations that build the case for wars of aggression, whether in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran and now Venezuela (FAIR.org, 8/1/05).

The vanishing cartel

In recent years, and especially in the second half of 2025, US officials justified escalating attacks against Venezuela on the grounds that Maduro and associates ran a drug trafficking operation, the so-called Cartel of the Suns. Trump himself, during his January 3 press conference, claimed Maduro “personally oversaw the vicious cartel known as Cartel de los Soles.”

While experts consistently questioned the cartel’s existence, and specialized agencies, including the DEA, found Venezuela to play a marginal role in drug trafficking, media outlets reproduced the warmongering claims without scrutiny, citing only the denials from the Venezuelan president they have systematically demonized for over a decade (e.g., New York Times, 10/06/25; NPR, 11/12/25; CNN, 11/14/25).

But the biggest rebuff came from the Justice Department itself. When the time came to indict Maduro, US prosecutors dropped the accusation that the Venezuelan leader headed an actual drug cartel, and downgraded the Cartel of the Suns to a “patronage system.” In other words, the Justice Department was aware that the cartel charge had no substance, and instead accused Maduro of a much looser “drug trafficking conspiracy.”

But this remarkable about-face brought no accountability for the media establishment. Having spent years echoing claims that US prosecutors admitted would not hold in court, corporate outlets chose to ignore the new development, rather than exposing their shameful stenography over the years and taking responsibility for its deadly consequences. FAIR used Google to search for reporting on this crucial about-face in outlets including the Washington Post, Reuters, CNN, NBC and NPR, and found no results.

The one notable exception in this quasi-state corporate media circus was the New York Times‘ Charlie Savage (1/5/26), reporting on the administration’s quiet dropping of its casus belli. Savage wrote that this “called into greater question the legitimacy” of the administration’s designation of the Cartel of the Suns as a foreign terrorist organization. However, the piece stopped short of challenging the US military operation and illegal kidnapping of Maduro, referring to the Venezuelan leader as “captured” and “removed from power.”

The paper of record was quick to compensate for the vanishing of a flimsy regime-change trope by bringing up another one, focusing on a tried and tested dishonest narrative: Venezuela’s alleged ties with Hezbollah, one of the main opponents of the US and Israel in West Asia (FAIR.org, 5/24/19). Under the headline, “What to Know about Hezbollah’s Ties to Venezuela,” Times reporter Christina Goldbaum (1/19/26) offered nothing but a laundry list of unsubstantiated claims from anonymous officials.

Media connivance with Washington’s official narratives to justify imperialist attacks only pave the way for new iterations. Recently, in tightening the murderous blockade against Cuba, the Trump administration proffered the totally baseless claim of the Cuban government “providing a safe haven” for Hamas and Hezbollah. While the New York Times (1/30/26) uncharacteristically reminded readers that Trump offered no evidence, other outlets (NBC, 1/29/26; CNN, 1/30/26) were happy to echo the accusation uncritically.

Holding a country hostage

The media establishment’s support for US foreign policy did not end with the January 3 act of war. Since the attacks and presidential kidnapping, the Trump administration has taken control of Venezuelan oil exports at gunpoint after a month-long naval blockade that involved seizing tankers in the high seas for allegedly transporting Venezuelan crude in violation of unilateral US sanctions.

Under an initial agreement, Venezuela surrendered 30–50 million barrels for White House–picked intermediaries to transport and sell. Proceeds were deposited in bank accounts in Qatar, with a portion being returned to Carácas at the administration’s discretion (Venezuelanalysis, 1/21/26, 1/29/26). Analysts have argued that this arrangement explicitly violates the Venezuelan constitution.

Some articles have given space for Democrats to oppose the Trump deal, but mostly on the grounds of lack of transparency or opportunities for corruption (CNN, 1/15/26; Politico, 2/11/26; New York Times, 2/11/26). Readers will find no opposition on principle to the Trump administration’s Mafia-esque extortion of a sovereign nation’s natural resources, from the president himself saying the US will “keep some” of the hijacked Venezuelan oil (CNBC, 1/22/26) to Secretary of State Marco Rubio announcing that the administration is “prepared to use force to ensure maximum cooperation” (New York Times, 1/28/26).

It is hard to find double standards, because no other nation on Earth unleashes this kind of gangster imperialism. But concerning Russia, Western media did not hold back from denouncing its “stealing,” “robbing” or “plundering” of Ukrainian minerals or grain, despite these resources being in territory that Russia occupies and claims sovereignty over (Washington Post, 8/10/22; Guardian, 12/11/23; DW, 8/28/23; New York Times, 6/5/22).

In a nutshell, when Washington imposed deadly sanctions against Venezuela, corporate pundits said these only targeted Maduro and were meant to promote democracy (FAIR.org, 6/14/19, 6/4/21, 6/13/22, 6/22/23). When the White House ramped up military threats, mainstream journalists parroted drug trafficking allegations (FAIR.org, 2/12/25, 11/19/25). When the drug trafficking charges were exposed, Western outlets reheated baseless stories about Hezbollah. And when Trump seized Venezuelan oil at gunpoint, the only mild concern was whether he would use it to enrich himself.

True to its roots in the “yellow journalism” of Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst, the liberal media establishment is fully on board with Trump’s “Donroe Doctrine.” They have undoubtedly earned the title, to paraphrase Gen. Smedley Butler, of “gangster journalists for capitalism.”

Source: FAIR