NEWS

United States President Donald Trump has announced that he will replace Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem with Republican Senator Markwayne Mullin.

In a social media post on Thursday, Trump explained that he had reassigned Noem to be a special envoy for a new security initiative focused on the Western Hemisphere, dubbed the “Shield of the Americas”.

The staffing change, he added, will take effect starting March 31. It marks the first major cabinet-level shake-up of Trump’s second term so far.

Trump praised Noem upon her departure from the cabinet-level post, writing that she “has served us well, and has had numerous and spectacular results (especially on the Border!)”

But Noem has played a prominent role in some of the administration’s most controversial immigration policies, and her tenure at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has spurred questions about government spending and conflicts of interest.

The announcement that she would be leaving her post comes a day after she faced a grilling from Democrats during congressional hearings this week, with several politicians called for her resignation.

“DHS is supposed to be protecting our residents and upholding constitutional protections. But you’ve turned that on the head. You have actually turned the United States government against its own residents,” Representative Pramila Jayapal, a Democrat, said during Wednesday’s hearing.

“Yours is a case of failed leadership. Secretary, you need to resign, be fired or be impeached because you don’t have the right to lead this agency.”

The announcement of Noem’s removal also comes as DHS continues to weather a partial government shutdown.

Democrats have opposed approving new funding for the department in response to deadly shootings involving immigration agents under Noem’s leadership.

Those shootings were brought up again this week during Noem’s appearances before judiciary committees in the Senate and House of Representatives.

Democratic Representative Jamie Raskin, for instance, repeatedly accused Noem of launching a “smear campaign” against two US citizens shot dead during interactions with immigration agents: Renee Good and Alex Pretti.

“There have been three homicides in Minneapolis in 2026, and your agents committed two of them,” Raskin told Noem.

He also highlighted comments Noem made calling Good and Pretti “domestic terrorists“, despite evidence undercutting the administration’s depiction of the events leading to their deaths.

“Rather than work with state and local authorities to solve these homicides, you barred Minnesota’s investigators from the crime scenes,” Raskin said.

“It smells like a coverup, and it makes me wonder who the real domestic terrorists are.”

Noem, formerly the Republican governor of South Dakota, has also been scrutinised for a $220m advertising campaign promoting border security.

The advertising campaign shows Noem riding a horse near Mount Rushmore, a well-known national memorial in her home state.

The news outlet ProPublica previously reported that a government contract for the campaign went to a Republican consulting firm with ties to senior DHS officials.

Noem has denied any wrongdoing, stating that the bidding process was “competitive” and that the contract was “all done correctly, all done legally”.

On Thursday, before announcing the staffing change, Trump denied any connection to the advertising campaign, telling the news service Reuters that he “never knew anything about it”.

Noem played a key role in the administration’s mass deportation push, and she has frequently used rhetoric that vilified immigrants as dangerous and violent.

Though DHS’s mandate focuses on domestic security, Noem has made several international trips over the last year, including visits to Ecuador in July and November.

Trump has called a “Shield of the Americas” summit at his Mar-a-Lago estate this weekend, inviting world leaders from multiple countries to discuss regional security and combatting Chinese influence in Latin America.

Noem’s replacement as DHS head, Mullin, has served as a US senator since 2023. He was a representative in the House for a decade before that, representing Oklahoma.

Trump highlighted his membership in the Cherokee Nation, writing that Mullin would be a “fantastic advocate for our incredible Tribal Communities” as DHS leader.

“Markwayne will work tirelessly to Keep our Border Secure, Stop Migrant Crime, Murderers, and other Criminals from illegally entering our Country, End the Scourge of Illegal Drugs and, MAKE AMERICA SAFE AGAIN,” Trump said on Thursday.

“I’m enjoying the role across all formats and I’d love to carry that on,” added McCullum.

“It’s been an absolute privilege to be in this position over the past three and a half years. I feel like we’ve made some significant improvements across the various formats.

“Yes, we’ve missed some opportunities, but I think this team has a real opportunity over the coming years to continue to improve and hopefully finish what we started. I’d love to be a part of that.”

Key backed McCullum during the Ashes, but neither ECB chief executive Richard Gould nor chair Richard Thompson have publicly spoken on his future.

At the end of the Ashes, McCullum also received support from Test skipper Ben Stokes, while the relationship between McCullum and Brook has blossomed during the T20 World Cup.

Asked after the semi-final defeat if McCullum should stay in charge, Brook said: “125%. I’ve said plenty of times he’s the best coach I’ve ever had.

“The way he speaks to everybody, he’s got an aura in the dressing room, and everybody looks up to him. The things he’s done over the four years since he took over has changed English cricket for hopefully the best.

“Our partnership has been good throughout the competition and since I’ve taken over. Long may it continue.”

Failures in away Ashes tours have often signalled change in the management of England teams.

Speaking on Sky Sports, former England captain Nasser Hussain said the ECB has to guard against repeating the mistakes of the past, while not ignoring the failures of this latest defeat in Australia.

“What you have to get away from is going to the Ashes, you lose, you get rid of the coach and captain, and you start all over again. I’m never a fan of that,” said Hussain.

“But I’m also not keen on, a couple of months later, forgetting what happened in the Ashes, and how poor England were on and off the field – all the mistakes that were made.

“There is a feeling Brook and McCullum are aligned, but there is a suggestion there was a divergence during the Ashes and that is a concern.

“They’ve made good decisions in the white-ball game that they didn’t in the Ashes. They missed an opportunity there and you can’t just brush over that.”

Israeli strikes have killed more than 100 people in Lebanon as Israel issued more leave-or-die threats to the suburbs of Beirut, and across vast areas of the country’s south.

Lebanon’s Ministry of Public Health reported on Thursday that the death toll from the Israel-Hezbollah conflict has reached 102, with 638 wounded since Monday.

New strikes hit Hezbollah’s stronghold in Beirut’s southern suburbs early Thursday, with AFPTV footage showing smoke rising from the area.

Lebanon’s National News Agency (NNA) reported that an Israeli drone strike on an apartment in the Beddawi Palestinian refugee camp near Tripoli killed senior Hamas official Wassim Atallah al-Ali and his wife.

On Thursday, Israel expanded its forced evacuation threats to residents across hundreds of square kilometres of southern Lebanon, citing imminent military action.

The escalating conflict has triggered a humanitarian crisis, displacing more than 83,000 people within Lebanon. According to Syrian authorities and the UN refugee agency, at least 38,000 people, primarily Syrians, have fled Lebanon for Syria.

Israeli military spokesperson Avichay Adraee posted on X: “Urgent warning to residents of southern Lebanon: you must immediately continue evacuating to the north of the Litani river.” The warning specifically mentioned the cities of Tyre and Bint Jbeil.

Israel’s military announced on Tuesday it was establishing a buffer zone inside Lebanon to protect Israeli citizens. By Wednesday, it confirmed that three divisions comprising infantry, armoured and engineering units were operating inside Lebanese territory.

“Across the Middle East and beyond, a troubling displacement picture is emerging in the aftermath of the ongoing conflicts in the region,” UNHCR spokesperson Babar Baloch said Thursday.

On Thursday, the Israeli military extended forced evacuation orders to Beirut’s southern suburbs, instructing residents to “save your lives and evacuate your homes immediately,” indicating potential intensified bombardment amid the widening of the Iranian conflict.

While previous forced evacuation threats focused on southern Lebanon below the Litani River, this marks the first comprehensive evacuation threat for areas near the capital since hostilities resumed.

New videos show destruction across Iran after US and Israeli air strikes, including damage to government buildings, residential neighbourhoods and Iran’s main sports stadium. Iranian media say dozens of strikes have hit multiple locations as fears grow of a wider regional conflict.

Iran has launched operations targeting Iranian and Iraqi Kurdish groups in the semi-autonomous Kurdish region in neighbouring Iraq as the regional war ignited by the United States and Israel entered its sixth day, with more than 1,000 people killed across the country.

State television, Press TV, reported early on Thursday that Tehran was striking “anti-Iran separatist forces”, referring to Iranian and Iraqi Kurdish groups believed to be based in mountainous, hard-to-reach areas near the Iran-Iraq border.

Iranian missiles hit Sulaimaniyah city in the semi-autonomous Kurdistan region, according to local reports.

“We targeted the headquarters of Kurdish groups opposed to the revolution in Iraqi Kurdistan with three missiles,” Iran’s official IRNA news agency reported on Thursday, quoting a military statement. The Iranian military said earlier on Tuesday it used “30 drones” on Kurdish positions.

The attack comes just days after multiple publications reported that US President Donald Trump was in active talks with Iranian and Iraqi Kurdish groups, and that Washington hopes to use them to spur a popular uprising.

Various Iranian Kurdish groups, which share close ties with Iraqi Kurds, have long opposed Tehran from their bases in northern Iraq and along the Iraq-Iran border. These groups reportedly have thousands of fighters between them.

Here’s what we know so far:

Why are Kurdish groups cooperating with the US?

US officials said the aim is to stretch Iranian forces and take out the remains of the military-dominated Iranian government, according to reporting by CNN.

There is also speculation that the groups could be supported to take control of northern Iran to create a ground buffer for Israeli forces, possibly streaming in from Iraq.

US-Israeli bombings have heavily targeted areas along the Iraq-Iran border since the start of the war on Saturday, possibly to degrade Iranian defences and allow Kurdish opposition groups to cross fully into Iran, according to a briefing by US-based think tank, the Soufan Center.

The US has not ruled out sending ground forces, although analysts told Al Jazeera Iran’s rugged territory would make that very difficult.

If the US does support these groups against Tehran, it would mean that Washington is treating them like armed “players on a board,” Winthrop Rodgers, associate fellow at the UK think tank, Chatham House, told Al Jazeera.

Which Kurdish groups are there?

Neither the US nor Kurdish groups had confirmed any agreements by Thursday.

However, it is known that Trump has spoken to the leaders of two Kurdish groups in Iraq: Masoud Barzani, leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party, and Bafel Talabani, leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), according to US publication, Axios. Talabani confirmed the call on Wednesday.

Trump also spoke to Mustafa Hijri, head of the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan (KDPI), on Tuesday, CNN reported, quoting a Kurdish official.

Meanwhile, Iranian Kurdish rebel groups, which have thousands of fighters along the Iraq-Iran border, formed the Coalition of Political Forces of Iranian Kurdistan (CPFIK) alliance one week before the war broke out.

The group issued statements at the start of the conflict, signalling imminent intervention and urging Iranian military members to defect. According to Israel’s I24News, thousands of its fighters were in Iran by Wednesday.

Here are the different groups:

Kurdistan Democratic Party: The ruling party in the semi-autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG). The party controls the capital city of Erbil as well as Duhok. It has historical ties with Iranian Kurdish groups.

However, the KRG is not eager to be seen as supporting attacks on Iran, even as Iranian drones have hit US assets in Erbil. On Wednesday, Kurdistan region President Nechirvan Barzani spoke with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and told him his region “will not be part of conflicts” targeting Tehran.

In 2023, the two countries signed a security deal that saw Iraq promise to disarm and relocate Iranian opposition groups on its territory, although it appears many groups are still based there, reflecting the limited influence the government wields over them.

Iraqi Kurds, who have close ties with both the US and Iran, are in a “difficult position”, said Rodgers.

“They are under tremendous pressure from a wide range of forces, including (pro-Iran) Iraqi militias. They will try to stay out of the conflict as much as they can, but that will likely prove impossible,” he said.

Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK): The PUK is the official opposition in the semi-autonomous Kurdistan region and also nationally relevant as Iraqi President Abdul Latif Rashid is a member. In a statement on Sunday, Rashid urged dialogue and an end to the war. Iraq declared three days of mourning following the killing of Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in US-Israeli strikes on Tehran on Saturday.

Coalition of Political Forces of Iranian Kurdistan (CPFIK): Formed on February 22, 2026, the group includes six Iranian Kurdish opposition groups seeking an independent state.

Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI) – Based in the Kurdistan region, the group has about 1,200 members and is proscribed as a “terror” group by Iran.

Kurdistan Freedom Party (PAK) – Also based in Kurdistan, it has an estimated 1,000 members.

Kurdistan Free Life Party (PJAK) – A close ally of the Turkish opposition armed group, Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), PJAK is proscribed as a “terror” group by Ankara. PJAK’s armed wing, the Eastern Kurdistan Units (YRK), is believed to have between 1,000 and 3,000 members, many of them women. It is based in the rugged Qandil Mountains near the Iran-Iraq border and in the semiautonomous Kurdistan region. It has launched numerous attacks on Iranian forces in the past decade. A recent Iranian strike reportedly killed one fighter.

Organisation of Iranian Kurdistan Struggle (Khabat) – It has an unknown number of fighters.

Komala of the Toilers of Kurdistan – Based in Iraq’s KRG, it has an unknown number of fighters.

Komala Party of Iranian Kurdistan (KPIK) – Also headquartered in the Kurdistan region, it has an estimated 1,000 fighters in 2017.

What is the history of US involvement with Kurdish resistance groups in the Middle East?

Kurds are an ethnic minority spread across the Middle East with a shared language and culture. They do not have a state of their own and have historically been marginalised across countries – mainly Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkiye.

For decades, several armed Kurdish groups have sought self-governance in Turkiye, Syria and Iran.

In Iraq, Kurdish nationalist groups gained some success during the 1991 Gulf War by working with the US, which helped establish the self-governing Kurdistan region of Iraq. The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) also trained and armed its army, known as the Peshmerga, after the US invaded Iraq in 2003. In 2005, the semiautonomous region was officially recognised in Iraq’s constitution.

Since 2017, Washington has also armed and trained the People’s Protection Units (YPG), a Syrian Kurdish militia that Turkiye lists as a “terror” group because of its links with the proscribed PKK. The group, which successfully resisted ISIL (ISIS), now forms the main component of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). It controlled Raqqa and other ISIL strongholds.

However, when it began military clashes with Syrian forces under the President Ahmed al-Sharaa-led government last August, Washington turned away from the group and backed Damascus instead. In January this year, the SDF signed an agreement with the Syrian government to integrate into the government forces. In return, the Syrian government recognised Kurdish rights.

In Turkiye, meanwhile, the PKK, whose presence in northern Iraq has long been a source of tension with Ankara, declared a ceasefire in March 2025, after a call from its imprisoned leader, Abdullah Ocalan, to disarm.

How does Kurdish resistance in Iran compare with others?

Iranian Kurds opposed the Iranian government even before the formation of the Islamic Republic in 1979, Rodgers said, and Tehran’s current weakness provides an opportunity for them to advance their political aims in the country.

However, the new coalition of multiple diverse groups is unprecedented, the analyst added, and their internal dynamics will be a key decisive factor in what role Kurdish groups will play in this war.

“Support from the US is helpful, especially in terms of targeting security forces’ infrastructure with air strikes, but they will likely be cautious about relying too much on Washington, especially from an administration as capricious and disorganised as Trump’s,” Rodgers said, noting how Washington abandoned the Kurds in Syria.

Unlike the split Iranian movements, Iraqi Kurds have long united to form a devolved government enshrined in the Iraqi constitution, built an advanced economy, and secured substantive relations with a wide range of foreign countries. That’s something Kurdish groups will also be hoping to establish in a democratic Iran, he said.

“I think it is unlikely that the Trump administration has made any commitments to the Iranian Kurds about supporting their political goals,” Rodgers said, adding that the US’s plan “does not look fully thought through at all”.

For the first time, an F-35 has shot down a crewed aircraft in combat. According to the Israeli military, an Israeli Air Force (IAF) F-35I Adir brought down an Iranian Yak-130 Mitten combat trainer over Tehran. This would also be the first IAF air-to-air kill against a crewed combat aircraft since November 1985, when an F-15 claimed a pair of Syrian MiG-23 Floggers over Lebanon.

The announcement was made earlier today by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) via their social media channels. There are no further details at this point, but the IDF says the engagement occurred “a short time ago.”

There is at least one unverified video that purports to show the stricken Yak-130 coming down, accompanied by two possible ejections, in a mountainous area north of Tehran.

Previously, unverified videos had been posted to social media purporting to show at least one Yak-130 operated by the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force (IRIAF) flying over Tehran, while armed with air-to-air missiles.

The shoot-down of Iranian manned tactical jets follows two others that occurred at the hands of the Qatari Air Force, which swatted a pair of Su-24 Fencers out of the sky.

🇶🇦🇮🇷 Qatar claims its forces shot down two Sukhoi Su-24 tactical bombers operated by the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force. pic.twitter.com/vfqmWPZlB1

— Status-6 (War & Military News) (@Archer83Able) March 2, 2026

While the Russian-made Yak-130 was developed primarily as an advanced trainer, the jet has a significant combat capability, with the option to carry gun pods, bombs, and rockets as well as R-73 series (AA-11 Archer) infrared-guided air-to-air missiles.

The Yak-130 is among the newest combat aircraft in the Iranian inventory.

As you can read about here, evidence of Yak-130 deliveries to Iran emerged in late 2023, when imagery published by the Tasnim News Agency showed one of the jets in a hangar displaying a high-visibility IRIAF paint scheme. Another video showed a Yak-130 with the same paint job reportedly taxiing at Iran’s Isfahan Air Base.

Undated image and video leak of Yak-130 in Isfahan, Iran. Yesterday there were rumours that 2 Yak-130s had been transferred to Iran, and today these images have been shared through unofficial sources.

These trainers are Iran’s first observed practical step to adopting Su-35s. pic.twitter.com/osIgwwCNOr

— Aᴍɪʀ (@AmirIGM) September 2, 2023

The delivery of Yak-130s to Iran was one of the signs of Tehran securing new Russian equipment in exchange for supplying Moscow’s war effort in Ukraine. This burgeoning military relationship has also seen Russia acquire Iranian drones starting in 2022, after which Iranian-made Shahed-136 kamikaze drones (and their Russian-made derivatives) have been a staple of Russia’s raids against Ukraine.

In exchange for drones and other supplies, it was expected that Russia would provide more advanced weapons systems to Iran, among them a batch of Su-35 Flanker multirole fighters. The claimed Su-35 deal has yet to materialize.

House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby told reporters in February 2023 that Russia would provide Iran Yak-130s, attack helicopters, and radars. The attack helicopters, in the form of Mi-28NE Havoc rotorcraft, began to appear in Iran last month.

Although not in any way comparable to the Su-35, the Yak-130 is arguably the most advanced fast jet in service with Iran overall. However, its combat capabilities are mainly limited to the light attack role, or drone-hunting. According to unconfirmed reports, the Yak-130 that fell victim to an F-35 today was flying a counter-drone mission over the Iranian capital at the time.

At the very least, the fact that one or more Yak-130s have been operating over Tehran in any capacity indicates the IRIAF’s continued ability to put some aircraft in the sky despite the significant blows delivered on the ground by U.S. and Israeli strikes, which have also targeted Iranian airbases. The video below shows Iranian Su-22 Fitter swing-wing attack jets being destroyed on the tarmac by U.S. strikes.

However, the Yak-130 is clearly no match for the F-35.

The IAF has been at the forefront of introducing the Joint Strike Fighter to combat.

In May 2018, Israel announced that it had become the first operator to use the F-35 on offensive operations, and, since then, it has also recorded success in aerial combat against Iranian drones.

Making History:

Last year, Israeli “Adir” (F-35I) fighter jets successfully intercepted two Iranian UAVs launched towards Israeli territory. pic.twitter.com/FQsEjKzxct

— Israeli Air Force (@IAFsite) March 7, 2022

This time last year, Israel confirmed that its F-35s had flown airstrikes using external ordnance. The F-35’s so-called ‘beast mode,’ featuring heavier loads on underwing pylons, is familiar, but as far as is known, it had not previously been called upon operationally by any other countries.

It’s also worth noting that Israel’s unique F-35I fleet — locally known as the Adir (Hebrew for mighty) — features various local modifications and has frequently been at the forefront of demonstrating new capabilities.

The IAF F-35 fleet has seen extensive combat action since October 2023. It has been involved in raids on targets in Gaza and Lebanon and has also taken part in long-range strikes against Iranian-backed Houthi militants in Yemen and against Iran.

These long-endurance missions have been aided by Israel’s reported development of a means of extending the range of its F-35s, allegedly providing them with enough reach to hit targets in Iran without needing aerial refueling.

The Adir has also been used in an air defense capacity against other uncrewed targets, including against Houthi cruise missiles, as you can read about here.

As it stands, the latest milestone in the Israel Air Force’s Adir story is the first instance of an air-to-air kill of a crewed aircraft — as far as we know — by any F-35 operator.

Update, 11:10 a.m. EST

On its website, the IAF has provided more details of the engagement. These suggest that the kill may have been achieved at beyond visual range.

From the article: “Various types of Israeli aircraft were deployed against the hostile aircraft, and the one chosen to deal with the threat was the F-35I, which was endowed with several features that gave it an advantage in the scenario.”

The article quotes Brigadier General D., commander of Nevatim Base, from where the F-35 was launched:

“It has particularly advanced sensors, which were able to lock onto the target quickly and accurately, and is armed with long-range missiles, which the pilots are particularly trained in, and are suitable for this type of mission.”

Brigadier General D. continues:

“We detected it, got on it — and launched at it. There was no overly complicated air battle here, no dogfight or aerial scuffle. There was a rapid response here — which ended in making history in the skies of Iran.”

Update, March 5:

The IAF has now released footage showing the engagement of the Yak-130 shootdown:

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

The Strait of Hormuz is a key artery for the movement of global energy supplies.

Usually, about 20% of global oil and gas passes through the narrow shipping lane in the Gulf.

Iran’s General Sardar Jabbari said that Tehran will now “not let a single drop of oil leave the region”.

A timelapse of marine traffic showed the flow of ships has decreased in the strait since the US and Israeli coordinated military offensive against Iran began on 28 February 2026.

Blocking the strait could further inflate the cost of goods and services worldwide, and hit some of the world’s biggest economies, including China, India and Japan, which are among the top importers of crude oil passing through the waterway.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney told reporters he wants de-escalation of the Iran attacks but said he couldn’t rule out his country’s military participation. He was speaking alongside Australia’s prime minister during a visit to Canberra.

Russia and China, Tehran’s two most powerful diplomatic partners, have labelled the US-Israeli war on Iran that has killed more than 1,000 people a clear violation of international law.

President Vladimir Putin called the assassination of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on Saturday a “cynical violation of all norms of human morals”.

China’s Foreign Affairs Minister Wang Yi told his Israeli counterpart, Gideon Saar, that “force cannot truly solve problems” as he urged all sides to avoid further escalation.

Russia and China jointly requested an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council.

The reaction reflects the close relationship between Iran, Russia, and China. Moscow and Beijing have signed bilateral deals and expanded coordination through joint naval drills, projecting a united front against what they describe as a US-led international order that has long sought to isolate them.

Yet despite their sharp rhetoric, neither has indicated a willingness to intervene militarily to support Iran.

Russia-Iran: Strategic partners, not military allies

In January 2025, Russia and Iran signed a comprehensive strategic partnership treaty covering areas from trade and military cooperation to science, culture, and education.

The agreement deepened defence and intelligence coordination and supported projects such as transport corridors, linking Russia to the Gulf through Iran.

The pair carried out joint military drills in the Indian Ocean as recently as late February, the week before the US and Israel attacked Iran.

However, when the war began, Moscow was not obliged to respond as the treaty did not include a mutual defence clause, meaning it stopped short of forming a formal military alliance.

Andrey Kortunov, the former director general of the Russian International Affairs Council and a member of the Valdai Discussion Club, a Russian foreign policy think tank, told Al Jazeera via videolink from Moscow, that Russia’s 2024 mutual defence treaty with North Korea is an example of a “more binding” agreement on military support.

He said that, under that agreement, Russia would be obliged to join North Korea “in any conflict the country might get involved in”, whereas with Iran, “it just mentioned that both sides agreed to abstain from any hostile actions in case the other side is engaged in conflict”.

Kortunov said Russia is unlikely to take direct military action in support of Iran because the risks would be too high.

He added that Moscow appears to be “prioritising the United States mediation in the conflict with Ukraine”, and noted that Russia has previously taken a similar approach by criticising US actions in places like Venezuela after the US military attack and arrest of its President, Nicolas Maduro, in January.

Although the treaty clearly states that Russia is not obliged to intervene, he said some of his contacts in Tehran have expressed a “degree of frustration”, and there had been an “expectation that Russia should somehow do more than just diplomatic moves in the United Nations Security Council or in other multilateral forums”.

China–Iran ties and their limits

In 2021, China and Iran signed a 25-year cooperation agreement aimed at expanding ties in areas such as energy, while also drawing Iran into China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

Jodie Wen, a postdoctoral fellow at the Centre for International Security and Strategy (CISS) at Tsinghua University in China, who has travelled frequently to Iran, told Al Jazeera that the relationship is widely viewed in Beijing as pragmatic and stable.

“From the political side, we have regular exchange,” she said over the phone from Beijing, adding, “on the economic side, the cooperation is very deep; many enterprises have investments in Iran.”

Yet she stressed that Beijing has long drawn clear limits around the partnership, particularly regarding military involvement.

“The Chinese government always adheres to not interfering in other countries’ issues … I do not think the Chinese government would send weapons to Iran,” she said.

Instead, Beijing’s role is more likely to focus on diplomacy and crisis management.

“I think China is trying its way to talk with the US side and Gulf countries to keep calm,” she said.

That clarity about the relationship, she added, has helped build trust in Tehran.

Even so, she noted the relationship is not symmetrical.

Vessel-tracking service Kpler estimates that 87.2 percent of Iran’s annual crude oil exports go to China, underscoring how economically significant China is for Tehran, while Iran remains a relatively small partner in China’s global trade.

Dylan Loh, an associate professor in the Public Policy and Global Affairs programme at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, told Al Jazeera that he believes China’s role regarding Iran “has evolved into a protective one, accelerating its mediation effort to prevent a regional collapse that would threaten its own regional economic and security interests”.

“I think there will be some assessment of how to lower the political risks and what sorts of options are available; truth be told, this re-think already started after [the US attack on] Venezuela,” he said.

Follow our live build up, with full toss and team news coverage, ahead of our live text commentary stream.

Caracas, March 4, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA emphasized recent agreements to supply crude to the US market and reiterated its commitment to “global energy market stability” amid spiraling volatility caused by the US-Israel war against Iran.

“PDVSA has signed supply contracts with trading companies that deliver oil and derivatives to US markets, thus maintaining a historic trade relationship to guarantee supply,” the company said in a statement on Tuesday.

PDVSA further reaffirmed its stance as a “reliable provider” that will contribute to the “necessary equilibrium” in global energy markets, and called for an end to sanctions against the Venezuelan oil industry.

The communiqué followed a surge in oil prices as a result of the US and Israeli attacks against Iran. On February 28, Washington and Tel Aviv launched a massive bombing campaign against military and civilian targets in the West Asian country. 

Tehran has responded by striking Israel and US bases in the region, including in several oil-producing Gulf states. Iranian forces have likewise shut down the Strait of Hormuz, a critical passageway for oil shipments.

Though Venezuelan popular movements have firmly condemned the US-Israeli aggression and voiced support for Iran, the government headed by Acting President Delcy Rodríguez has yet to take a position. Rodríguez expressed “solidarity” with Qatar following the deletion of a controversial Foreign Ministry statement over the weekend.

Since its January 3 bombing of Venezuela and kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro, the Trump administration has imposed control over the Venezuelan oil industry. Commodity traders Vitol and Trafigura have been lifting Venezuelan crude before re-selling to final customers, with proceeds deposited in accounts managed by the US Treasury Department.

After an initial arrangement that saw revenues routed through Qatar, US Energy Secretary Chris Wright announced last week that payment for Venezuelan oil is now going directly to US Treasury accounts. Wright visited Venezuela in February. He was hosted by Rodríguez in the presidential palace and toured oil facilities where US energy giant Chevron owns stakes.

Out of an initial deal estimated at around US $2 billion, US authorities confirmed that $500 million have been sent back to Caracas, to be offered by Venezuelan banks to private sector importers in foreign exchange auctions. US officials have also confirmed imports of medical equipment and supplies from US manufacturers. Secretary of State Marco Rubio had vowed that Venezuelan oil revenues would be used for purchases from US companies.

In recent weeks, the Trump administration has issued licenses allowing the export of inputs and software to the Venezuelan oil industry, as well as waivers allowing select corporations to expand crude extraction activities in the South American country.

However, the licenses mandate that all royalty, tax, and dividend payments to the Venezuelan state be deposited in US-managed accounts. Similarly, Washington mandated that contracts be subject to US jurisdiction. Transactions with companies from China, Russia, Iran, Cuba and North Korea remain banned, while PDVSA continues under financial sanctions.

The selective loosening of restrictions followed a pro-business overhaul of Venezuela’s Hydrocarbon Law. The reform, approved in late January, grants private corporations expanded control over operations and sales, a reduced tax burden, and the possibility for disputes to be taken to external arbitration.

Both Venezuelan and US officials, including Trump himself, have urged Western corporations to invest in the Caribbean nation’s energy sector, but executives have expressed reservations given market conditions. ExxonMobil will reportedly send a team to evaluate prospects for a return to Venezuela in the coming weeks. 

The company had its assets nationalized by the Hugo Chávez government in the 2000s after refusing to accept reforms that reinforced Venezuelan state sovereignty over the industry. ExxonMobil pursued international arbitration but ultimately received an award significantly below its compensation demands.

Despite the oil sector opening to US and European interests, Venezuelan crude exports receded in February, according to Reuters, following the wind-down of shipments to China. In 2025, around three-quarters of Venezuelan crude was destined for Chinese refineries. Washington imposed a naval blockade in December and seized several tankers as part of its efforts to exert control over Venezuelan oil exports. Two Chinese-flagged ships turned around while headed to Venezuela in January.

Crude exports are expected to pick up in March, with shipments scheduled for Indian buyers.

Edited by Lucas Koerner in Fusagasugá, Colombia.

Intense US-Israeli bombardment sent flames and plumes of smoke into the night sky across Iran. Strikes hit Sanandaj near a media centre and across an expanse of the capital, Tehran.

Canadian leader also said the US-Israeli attacks on Iran appear to be ‘inconsistent with international law’.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said that he could not rule out his country’s military participation in the escalating war in the Middle East, after earlier saying that the US-Israeli strikes on Iran were “inconsistent with international law”.

Speaking alongside Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in Canberra on Thursday, Carney was asked whether there was a situation in which Canada would get involved.

“One can never categorically rule out participation,” Carney said, noting the question was “hypothetical”.

“We will stand by our allies,” he said, adding that “we will always defend Canadians”.

Carney said earlier that he supported the strikes on Iran “with some regret” as they represented an extreme example of a rupturing world order.

The Canadian prime minister also stressed that his country was not informed in advance of the US-Israeli attack on Iran, in his first remarks since the war was launched on Saturday.

“We were not informed in advance, we were not asked to participate,” Carney told reporters travelling with him in Australia on Wednesday.

“Prima facie, it appears that these actions are inconsistent with international law,” he said.

“The United States and Israel have acted without engaging the United Nations or consulting with allies, including Canada,” he added, according to Australia’s SBS News, while also condemning strikes on civilians in Iran and calling for “all parties … to respect the rules of international engagement”.

Whether the US and Israeli attacks on Iran had broken international law was “a judgement for others to make”, he added.

Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand said on Wednesday that efforts were under way to help more than 2,000 Canadians who have requested assistance from the government to leave the ⁠Middle East region since the war broke out on Saturday.

Anand said about half of all inquiries for help were from Canadians in the United Arab Emirates, more than 230 from Qatar, at least 160 from Lebanon, more than 90 from Israel and 74 from Iran.

Canada’s Foreign Ministry has been instructed to contract charter flights out of the UAE ‌in the coming days, contingent on approval from the UAE government to use its airspace, the minister said.

Commercial ⁠air traffic remains largely absent across much of the region, with major Gulf hubs – including Dubai, the world’s busiest airport for international passengers – largely shut amid the conflict, in the biggest travel disruption since the COVID pandemic.

Repatriation flights chartered by foreign governments, including Britain and France, were due to leave on Wednesday and Thursday, while the UAE opened safe air corridors to allow some citizens to return home.

Under ⁠normal circumstances, thousands of commercial flights would depart the region each day.

In Iran’s major turning points, Hassan Rouhani’s name tends to resurface – even when he is no longer at the centre of decision-making. And as the Islamic Republic enters a sensitive transitional phase after Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was killed in a joint United States-Israeli strike, the question of which figures might be used to calm the domestic arena or rebalance power inside the system has returned to the forefront.

Rouhani, Iran’s former president (2013–2021), a Muslim leader with a doctorate in law, is not an outsider to the system he once promised to “reform”. He is a product of it: a longtime parliamentarian, a veteran of the national-security apparatus, and a former chief nuclear negotiator who rose to the presidency in 2013 as a pragmatist offering economic relief through diplomacy.

The long road through parliament

Rouhani was born in 1948 in Sorkheh, in Iran’s Semnan province. He received religious training in the Hawza system (Islamic religious seminary), then studied law at the University of Tehran, before earning a PhD in law from Glasgow Caledonian University in 1999.

After the revolution, he built his career through parliament. He was elected to the Majlis (Iran’s legislature) for five consecutive terms between 1980 and 2000, giving him practical political experience and longstanding relationships within the elite.

That background explains part of his later image as a “consensus man” more than an ideological confrontational leader: someone who moves within the rules of the game, not outside them.

A ‘third road’ in Iran’s post-revolution politics

To understand Rouhani’s political brand, it helps to place it in a longer arc of post-1979 ideological currents inside the Islamic Republic – an arc often described in Iranian political writing as a sequence of competing “discourses” that nonetheless remained anchored to the revolution and the system’s religious-constitutional framework.

Iran moved through phases that emphasised different priorities: currents sometimes described as “Islamic left”, “Islamic liberalism”, and a more market-oriented turn under former leader Hashemi Rafsanjani; then a period of “Islamic democracy” and “civil society” associated with Mohammad Khatami; followed by a social-justice-heavy, populist register under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

That’s when Rouhani arrived with the language of e‘tedal –or “moderation”.

Within that framework, “moderation” presents itself as an attempt to balance what supporters call the system’s two pillars: the “Republic” (pragmatism, governance, responsiveness) and the “Islamic” (ideals, clerical authority, revolutionary identity). This balance became central to Rouhani’s pitch in 2013: He promised to reduce external pressure, restart economic growth and lower domestic polarisation without challenging the authority structure that ultimately constrains any elected president in Iran.

The negotiator and president

Between 2003 and 2005, Rouhani led Iran’s delegation in nuclear negotiations with the “European troika” (Britain, France and Germany). He gained a reputation as a “pragmatist” among Western diplomats, while Iranian hardliners accused him of making concessions.

Later, that record became a pillar of his 2013 presidential campaign: a negotiator rather than a confrontationist.

In June that year, Rouhani won the presidency in the first round with more than 50 percent of the vote, avoiding a run-off in an election that saw high turnout.

Rouhani’s signature achievement was the 2015 nuclear agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), negotiated between Iran and the P5+1 – the US, China, Russia, France, United Kingdom and European Union.

Under the deal, the US and its allies lifted the bulk of sanctions imposed on Iran, and allowed Tehran access to more than $100bn in frozen assets. In exchange, Iran agreed to major caps on its nuclear programme.

At home, Rouhani sold the deal as a route to normalise the economy and curb inflation.

2017: A second mandate – and first brush with Trump

In May 2017, Rouhani won a second term with about 57 percent of the vote. Many inside Iran read the result as a bet by the country’s people on continued “opening” and reduced isolation.

But the power equation within Iran did not change. The presidency manages day-to-day governance, but it does not decide alone on the security services, the judiciary, the Revolutionary Guards or the core media architecture.

The diplomatic opening proved short-lived. In 2018, US President Donald Trump, in his first term, withdrew Washington from the JCPOA and reimposed sweeping sanctions, sharply limiting the economic gains Rouhani had promised. The reversal weakened Iran’s pragmatists and reformists, who had invested political capital in defending the agreement as the best available route out of isolation–while giving hardliners new ammunition to argue that negotiations with the US cannot deliver durable relief.

Post-presidential year – and a return from political exile?

Rouhani’s presidency ended in 2021, and with the rise of conservative dominance within Iran’s politics, he appeared to be gradually pushed to the margins. He then became a member of Iran’s Assembly of Experts – the body constitutionally empowered to choose the supreme leader.

But in January 2024, the Reuters news agency reported that the Guardian Council barred Rouhani from running again for the Assembly of Experts.

Two years later, after the February 28 strike that killed Khamenei, the country – according to the constitution– entered a temporary arrangement phase until the Assembly of Experts selects a new leader. President Masoud Pezeshkian, Supreme Court Chief Justice Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejei and Guardian Council member Ayatollah Alireza Arafi form the interim leadership council that are in charge until the Assembly of Experts announces its pick for the next Supreme Leader. 

And from the hushed conversations and chatter that have emerged from within Iran’s elite circles over potential candidates for the supreme leader’s role, Rouhani’s name has resurfaced.

That possible return to political life, analysts say, is a testament to what Rouhani represents in Iran’s factional geometry: a governing style that privileges tactical compromise, economic management and controlled engagement – while remaining fundamentally loyal to the Islamic Republic’s constitutional-religious architecture.

As Iran plans Khamenei’s succession, it faces a central question: whether to broaden legitimacy by incorporating pragmatic faces or double down on a security-first posture. Rouhani sits at that crossroads – not the architect of the system, and no longer a principal decision-maker, but a durable indicator of how far Iran’s establishment is willing to bend without breaking.

Israel closes Gaza crossings amid war with Iran, raising fears of famine. Tareq Abu Azzoum explains.

Today’s sinking of an Iranian warship by a U.S. Navy nuclear attack submarine is a hugely significant event in the annals of military history. After all, you have to go back to the final days of World War II to find the last time a U.S. submarine sank an enemy vessel. Since then, however, submarines under the flags of different navies have sunk vessels in combat.

You can catch up with our coverage of the sinking of the Iranian warship here.

In fact, there are some varying accounts as to which U.S. Navy submarine was the last to sink an enemy vessel. The situation at sea as World War II was drawing to a close in the Pacific was a chaotic one, with an increasingly deadly U.S. Navy submarine force tearing through the remnants of Japanese shipping, with subs racking up multiple victories in a short space of time.

With the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) in disarray and with Japan still reeling from the two atomic bombs dropped on it, what was left of its seagoing force provided relatively easy pickings for U.S. submarine commanders.

As such, it was on VJ-Day, or Victory over Japan Day, that U.S. subs claimed their last victims before today’s action.

According to available records, on August 14, 1945, the same day that saw President Harry S. Truman announce Japan’s unconditional surrender, two U.S. submarines sank three Japanese warships.

The first victim — a Japanese submarine — appears to have fallen to the USS Spikefish (SS-404).

Commissioned in June 1944, the Spikefish was a Balao class submarine, the Navy’s largest submarine class, with 120 boats completed. With a surfaced displacement of 1,526 tons, the Balao was around 311 feet long and had a speed of 20 knots surfaced, reduced to 8.75 knots submerged. Moving on the surface at a speed of 10 knots, the boats could cover 11,000 nautical miles.

As of the night of August 13, 1945, the IJN transport submarine I-373 was surfaced in the East China Sea, southeast of Shanghai. Transport submarines of this type were used by the Japanese to transport troops and supplies between mainland Japan and remote islands. Spikefish sighted the Japanese sub on its radar at 8:10 p.m. and also detected emissions from its air-search radar. Spikefish got closer before losing visual contact, after which the I-373 disappeared below the waves. Just after midnight, Spikefish regained radar contact. At 4:24 a.m., Spikefish fired a spread of six Mk 14 torpedoes at a range of 1,300 yards. Two of the torpedoes hit I-373, sinking it. Spikefish surfaced and found five survivors in the water, all of whom refused rescue, a grim reflection of the bitter fighting at this late stage of the Pacific conflict. One IJN crew member was forcibly brought aboard the U.S. sub; his 84 compatriots died.

In previous days, the USS Torsk, a Tench class submarine, commissioned in December 1944, had been marauding in and around the Tsushima Strait, which lies between Korea and Japan. Here, the boat had been picking off Japanese merchant vessels and warships.

The Tench class was essentially an improvement of the earlier Balao and Gato classes, moderately bigger but more strongly built and with more fuel. These boats had a surfaced displacement of 1,570 tons, were also around 311 feet long, and had similar surfaced and submerged speeds to the Balao. Thanks to their additional fuel capacity, the Tench boats had a range of around 16,000 nautical miles.

On August 14, Torsk encountered a medium-sized Japanese cargo ship accompanied by the Japanese Type C escort vessel CD-47, off Maizuru in the Sea of Japan. At 10:35 a.m., Torsk launched a Mk 28 torpedo, an experimental type with acoustic homing. The torpedo smashed a hole in the stern of the escort, which quickly went below the waves. An attempt was made to sink the cargo ship, too, as it entered harbor, but the torpedoes missed.

At around midday, a second Type C escort vessel, CD-13, arrived, apparently in pursuit of Torsk. After firing off a Mk 28 torpedo, Torsk dived for safety. From a depth of 400 feet, Torsk launched a Mk 27 torpedo, a weapon known as “CUTIE,” this time with passive homing. The hydrophone operator on the Torsk then detected a large explosion, indicating the Mk 28 had found its target. The Mk 27 impacted moments later.

While the timings are not entirely clear, CD-13 is widely identified as being the last Japanese warship to be sunk in World War II, and therefore the last enemy vessel to have been sunk by a U.S. submarine until today.

The war still wasn’t over for Torsk, however. With more patrol vessels arriving, plus patrol aircraft, the submarine had to remain submerged for more than seven hours after CD-13 went under. After this date, other Japanese vessels would continue to be sunk by mines that had been laid earlier, including by submarines.

Torsk received two battle stars for its World War II service and is today preserved in the Historic Ships collection in Baltimore.

At a press conference today, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said that the sinking of an Iranian warship by an as-yet unidentified U.S. submarine marked the “first sinking of an enemy ship by a torpedo since World War II.”

This is not true.

The Torsk may have been the last U.S. submarine to have sunk an enemy ship prior to today, but other navies have achieved the same feat.

Back in 1971, during the Indo-Pakistan War, the Indian Navy frigate INS Khukri was sunk by the Pakistan Navy submarine PNS Hangor. The Khukri, with a displacement of around 1,200 tons, became the first warship anywhere to fall prey to a submarine since the end of World War II.

The Falklands War, fought in the South Atlantic in 1982, between the United Kingdom and Argentina, saw the first instance of a nuclear-powered submarine sinking an enemy vessel.

On May 2, 1982, in a somewhat controversial incident, the Argentine Navy cruiser ARA General Belgrano was sunk by a torpedo launched by the British nuclear-powered attack submarine HMS Conqueror, with the loss of over 300 crew.

The controversy around the incident centers upon the fact that General Belgrano was targeted when it was outside a so-called ‘total exclusion zone,’ covering a 200-nautical-mile radius from the Falklands. While there were subsequent protests about the legality of the action, the fact remains that the British had previously warned Argentina that any ships that posed a potential threat to its own task force would be sunk.

Until the sinking of the Russian Navy’s Slava class cruiser Moskva by Ukrainian anti-ship missiles in 2022, the sinking of the General Belgrano was the last time a cruiser was fully destroyed by enemy action.

Another disputed incident occurred in 2010, with the sinking of the South Korean warship ROKS Cheonan.

On March 26, 2010, the Cheonan, a Pohang class corvette, sank in the Yellow Sea, off the country’s west coast, killing 46 of the 104 personnel on board. Exactly why the warship sank remains a matter of conjecture, although a South Korean-led investigation concluded that the vessel was sunk by a North Korean torpedo fired by a midget submarine. The U.S. Navy also stated that the sinking was caused by a non-contact homing torpedo that exploded near the ship. North Korea denied responsibility.

The manner of the sinking certainly appears consistent with a torpedo hit, with an explosion reported near the stern of the ship that caused it to break in half soon afterward.

Since then, the closest we have come to seeing submarines destroying other vessels has been sinking exercises (SINKEX) and similar tests. At times, these have also provided a rare glimpse into the effects of potential adversaries’ submarine weapons capabilities. Case in point, the sinking of a decommissioned Chinese amphibious landing ship by a People’s Liberation Army Navy submarine, seen in the video below: 

The cloak-and-dagger nature of submarine operations means that many details about their use in combat remain closely guarded secrets. In the case of the Cheonan, we may never exactly know what happened to it. For the time being, we also await more information about today’s sinking of the Iranian frigate. What is certain, however, is that this was an unprecedented event, at least as far as the modern U.S. Navy is concerned, and a truly rare action by any standards.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

US and Israel bombard Iran as Israeli forces hammer Lebanon and the widening conflict causes energy prices to spike.

Israel is no longer concealing its intention to forcibly displace Palestinians from their homeland, as it now announces this plan more openly than ever before through official rhetoric at the highest levels, said Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor in a report issued today.

Through actions on the ground and institutional measures designed to reframe the crime as “voluntary migration”, explained Euro-Med Monitor, Israel has attempted to implement its displacement campaign by exploiting the international community’s near-total silence, which has enabled the continuation of the crime and Israeli impunity despite the unprecedented nature of humanity’s first livestreamed genocide.

“Israel is now attempting to carry out the final phase of its crime, and its original goal: the mass expulsion of Palestinians from Palestine, specifically from the Gaza Strip. For a year and a half, Israel has carried out acts of genocide, killing and injuring hundreds of thousands of people, erasing entire cities, dismantling the Strip’s infrastructure, and systematically displacing its population within the enclave. These actions aim to eliminate the Palestinian people as a community and as a collective presence.”

The current plans for forced displacement, said the Geneva-based rights group, are a direct extension of Israel’s long-standing, settler-colonial project, aimed at erasing Palestinian existence and seizing land. What distinguishes this stage, it added, is its unprecedented scale and brutality.

“Israel is targeting over two million people who have endured a full-scale genocide and have been stripped of even the most basic human rights, under coercive, inhumane conditions that make living any sort of a normal life impossible. Israel’s deliberate objective is to pressure Palestinians into leaving by making it their only means of survival.”

Having succeeded in revealing the weak principles of international law, such as protections for civilians based on their perceived racial superiority or lack thereof, Israel is now reshaping the narrative once again.

READ: Gaza reaches WHO’s most critical malnutrition level amid Israeli blockade

“Armed with overwhelming force and emboldened by the international community’s abandonment of legal and moral responsibilities, Israel seeks to portray the mass expulsion of Palestinians as ‘voluntary migration’,” said the group. “This is a blatant attempt to rebrand ethnic cleansing and forced displacement using dishonest language — like ‘humanitarian considerations’ and ‘individual choice’ — and is a direct contradiction of legal facts and the reality on the ground.”

Euro-Med Monitor emphasised that forced displacement is a standalone crime under international law, because it involves the removal of individuals from areas where they legally reside, using force, threats, or other forms of coercion, without valid legal justification.

“Coercion, in the context of Israel’s genocide in the Gaza Strip, goes beyond military force. It includes the creation of unbearable conditions that render remaining in one’s home practically impossible or life-threatening.” A coercive environment includes fear of violence, persecution, arrest, intimidation, starvation or other forms of hardship that strip individuals of free will and force them to flee.

“Israel has already committed the crime of forced displacement against Gaza’s population, having driven them into internal displacement without legal grounds and in conditions that violate international legal exceptions, which only permit evacuation temporarily and under imperative military necessity, while ensuring safe areas with minimum standards of human dignity,” said Lima Bustami, Director of Euro-Med Monitor’s Legal Department.

“None of these standards have been met. In fact, Israel has used this widespread and repeated pattern of displacement as a tool of genocide, aimed at destroying and subjecting the population to deadly living conditions.”

Bustami added that although the legal elements of the crime are already fulfilled, Israel is further escalating it to a more lethal level against the Palestinian people, manifesting its settler-colonial vision of expulsion and replacement. “Now it is attempting to market the second phase of forced displacement — beyond Gaza’s borders — as ‘voluntary migration’: a transparent deception that only a complicit international community — one that chooses silence over accountability — would accept.”

Today, the people of the Gaza Strip endure catastrophic conditions that are unprecedented in recent history, said Euro-Med Monitor. “Israel has obliterated all forms of normal life; there is no electricity or infrastructure, and there are no homes, no essential services, no functioning healthcare or education systems, and no clean water services.”

Indeed, the group’s report notes that around 2.3 million Palestinians are confined to less than 34 per cent of the Strip’s 365 square kilometres. Approximately 66 per cent of the territory has been turned into so-called “buffer zones”, or areas that are completely off-limits to Palestinians and/or that have been forcibly depopulated through Israeli bombings and displacement orders. “Most of the population is now living in tattered tents amid the spread of famine, disease and epidemics and an accumulation of waste, conditions symptomatic of the near-complete collapse of the humanitarian system.”

Moreover, Israel continues to systematically block the entry of food, medicine and fuel; destroy all remaining means of survival; and obstruct any efforts aimed at reconstruction or restoring even the minimum conditions for a healthy life.

“These conditions in place are not the result of a natural disaster,” the Euro-Med report says pointedly. “They have been deliberately engineered by Israel as a coercive tool to pressure the population into leaving the Gaza Strip. The absence of any genuine, voluntary alternative for Palestinians in the enclave renders this situation a textbook case of forcible transfer, as defined under international law and affirmed by relevant jurisprudence.”

READ: Israel advocate says, ‘I’m OK with as many dead kids as it takes’

According to Bustami, “While population transfers may be permitted in certain humanitarian contexts under international law, any such justification collapses if the humanitarian crisis is the direct consequence of unlawful acts committed by the same party enforcing the transfer. It is impermissible to use forced displacement as a response to a disaster one has created, a principle clearly upheld by international tribunals, particularly the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.”

Framing this imposed reality as a “voluntary” migration and an option not only constitutes a gross distortion of truth, said Euro-Med Monitor, but also undermines the legal foundations of the international system, erodes the principle of accountability, and transforms impunity from a failure of justice into a deliberate mechanism for perpetuating grave crimes and entrenching the outcomes of such crimes.

“Repeated public statements from the highest levels of Israel’s political and security leadership have escalated in intensity over the past year and a half, and expose a clear, coordinated intent to displace the population of the Gaza Strip. In a blatant bid to enforce a demographic transformation serving Israel’s colonial-settler agenda, senior Israeli officials — including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir — have publicly called for the expulsion of Palestinians from the Strip and for the settlement of Jewish Israelis in their place.”

Netanyahu expressed full support in February 2025 for US President Donald Trump’s plan to resettle Palestinians outside of the Gaza Strip, describing it as “the only viable solution for enabling a different future” for the region. Likewise, Smotrich announced in March that the Israeli government would back the establishment of a new “migration authority” to coordinate what he termed a “massive logistical operation” to remove Palestinians from the Strip.

Ben-Gvir, meanwhile, has openly advocated for the encouragement of “voluntary migration” coupled with calls to resettle Jewish Israelis in the territory.

The human rights organisation referred to the 23 March decision of the Israeli Security Cabinet to establish a dedicated directorate within the Ministry of Defence, to manage what it calls the “voluntary relocation” of the Gaza Strip’s residents to third countries. “This is evidence that this displacement is not a by-product of destruction or political rhetoric, but an official policy,” it noted. “This policy is being implemented through institutional mechanisms, directed from within Israel’s own security apparatus, with full operational powers, executive structures, and strategic goals.”

READ: Israel bombing kills 4-year-old twin girls as they slept in Gaza

Furthermore, current Defence Minister Israel Katz’s statement on the new directorate confirmed that it would “prepare for and enable safe and controlled passage of Gaza residents for their voluntary departure to third countries, including securing movement, establishing movement routes, checking pedestrians at designated crossings in the Gaza Strip, as well as coordinating the provision of infrastructure that will enable passage by land, sea and air to the destination countries.”

The true danger of establishing such a directorate, said Euro-Med Monitor, lies not only in its institutionalisation of forced transfer, but in the new legal and political reality it seeks to impose. “It rebrands displacement as an ‘optional’ administrative service while stripping civilians of their ability to make free, informed decisions, therefore cloaking a war crime in a veneer of bureaucratic legitimacy.”

Any departure from the Gaza Strip under current circumstances cannot be considered “voluntary”, it added, but rather constitutes, in legal terms, forcible transfer, which is strictly prohibited under international law. “All individuals compelled to leave the Strip retain their inalienable right to return to their land and property immediately and unconditionally. They also have the full right to seek compensation for all damages and losses incurred as a result of Israeli crimes and rights violations, including the destruction of homes and property, physical and psychological harm, the assault on human dignity, and the denial of livelihood and basic rights.”

Under its obligations as an occupying power responsible for the protection of the civilian population, Israel is prohibited from forcibly transferring Palestinians and bears full legal responsibility to ensure their protection from this crime.

The rules of international law, particularly customary international law and the Geneva Conventions, require all states not to recognise any situation arising from the crime of forcible transfer and to treat it as null and void. States are also obligated to withhold all material, political and diplomatic support that would contribute to the entrenchment of such a situation.

“International responsibility goes beyond mere non-recognition,” said the rights group. “It includes a legal duty for states to take urgent effective steps to halt the crime, hold perpetrators accountable, and provide redress to victims. This includes ensuring the safe, voluntary return of all displaced persons from the Gaza Strip, and providing full reparations for the harm and violations they have suffered. Any failure to act in this regard constitutes a direct breach of international law and complicity that could subject states to legal accountability.”

READ: Israeli air strike hits Gaza children’s hospital

Euro-Med Monitor said that the international community must move beyond deafening silence and abandon paltry rhetorical condemnations, which have come to represent the maximum response it dares to make in the face of the livestreamed genocide unfolding before its eyes. “It must act swiftly and effectively to halt Israel’s ongoing project of mass displacement in the Gaza Strip and prevent it from becoming an entrenched reality. This action must be based on international legal norms, a commitment to justice and accountability, and an honest reckoning with the root structural cause of the crimes: Israel’s unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory since 1967.”

Endorsing or remaining silent about Israeli plans to forcibly transfer Palestinians out of the Gaza Strip not only exonerates Israel but rewards it for its illegal conduct by granting it gains secured through mass killing, destruction, blockade, and starvation, said the organisation. “This is not just a series of war crimes or crimes against humanity, it embodies the legal definition of genocide, as established by the 1948 Genocide Convention and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.”

All states, individually and collectively, must uphold their legal obligations and take all necessary measures to halt Israel’s genocide in the Gaza Strip.

This includes taking immediate, effective steps to protect Palestinian civilians and to prevent the implementation of the US-Israeli crime of forcible transfer that is openly threatening the Strip’s population.

“The international community must impose economic, diplomatic, and military sanctions on Israel for its systematic and grave violations of international law. This includes halting arms imports and exports; ending all forms of political, financial and military support; freezing the financial assets of officials involved in crimes against Palestinians; imposing travel bans; and suspending trade privileges and bilateral agreements that offer Israel economic advantages that sustain its capacity to commit further crimes.”

The rights group insisted that states must also hold complicit governments accountable — chief among them the United States — for their role in enabling Israeli crimes through various forms of support, including military and intelligence cooperation, financial aid and political or legal backing.

“The ethnic cleansing and genocide taking place right now in the Gaza Strip would not be possible without Israel’s decades-long unlawful colonial presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. This is the root structural cause of the violence, oppression, and destruction in the besieged enclave,” concluded Euro-Med Monitor. “Any meaningful response to the escalating crisis in the Strip must begin with dismantling this colonial reality, recognising the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, and securing their freedom and sovereignty over their national territory.

“As Israel and its allies must be compelled to abide by the law, international intervention is the only path to ending the genocide, halting all forms of individual and collective forcible transfer, dismantling the apartheid regime, and establishing a credible framework for justice, accountability, and the preservation of human dignity.”

OPINION: Palestinian voices are throttled by the promotion of foreign agendas

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