boycott

WASHINGTON — As President Trump prepares to deliver his annual State of the Union address Tuesday night, the event will unfold against the backdrop of a widening Democratic protest and mounting resistance from lawmakers who are standing by to balk at the president’s remarks.

More than 30 congressional Democrats have pledged to boycott the address altogether, while others plan to attend alternative events designed to compete with the president’s messaging.

“I think we are going to hear two different States of the Union: One from the president that is going to be full of lies and then you are going to hear the truth,” California Sen. Alex Padilla, who will deliver the Democrats’ Spanish-language response, said at a news conference Tuesday afternoon.

Democrats who plan to skip the president’s formal address to Congress have said their doing so because they do not want to give credence to Trump. Others plan to voice their opposition to Trump by inviting guests who have been affected by his agenda.

California Democrats Rep. Robert Garcia and Rep. Ro Khanna will attend alongside Annie Farmer and Haley Robson, two of the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein, a convicted sex offender whose trafficking crimes have dogged the Trump since he returned to office a year ago.

“I’ve invited Annie to the State of the Union so she can join other survivors and remind the President of his refusal to release all of the Epstein files,” Garcia wrote Monday in a post on X.

The Democratic opposition highlights the tense political moment that Trump is facing early in his second term, when the stakes are high for Republican as they seek to keep control of Congress ahead of the midterm elections.

Trump, who is set to begin speaking at 6 p.m. Pacific time, is expected to frame the moment as one defined by economic successes and fulfilled campaign promises particularly as it related to his administration carrying out an immigration crackdown.

Trump is expected to make an appeal to his religious base as well. He has invited Erika Kirk, the widow of the late conservative activist Charlie Kirk, and intends to use her presence to bring attention to the “tremendous revival of faith” that has taken place since Kirk’s assassination, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on X.

“The president will call on Congress to ‘firmly reject political violence against our fellow citizens’ with Charlie Kirk’s widow in the chamber,” Leavitt said.

The president’s remarks could also shed light on the president’s thinking regarding international conflicts brewing in the Middle East and in Mexico as Trump pressures its southern neighbor to curb drug trafficking.

Another potential issue that could come up in the address is the topic of tariffs, more so after the Supreme Court ruled on Friday that Trup’s preferred tariffs policy was illegal and could not stand without the approval of Congress.

Trump has been adamant that he intends to impose new tariffs in different ways, and has suggested he should not need congressional approval to do so. If Trump insists on imposing new tariffs, his push will be at odds with Republican leaders.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) told reporters on Monday that it would be a “challenge to find consensus on any path forward on the tariffs, on the legislative side.”

However Trump handled the issue of tariffs would underscore the existential moment that Congress is in as it navigates the Trump administration’s second term.

In recent months, Trump’s willingness to sideline Congress in major policy decisions — whether it is trade or national security — have exposed fractures within his own party and deepened partisan divisions.

Tuesday night’s even could highlight those tensions.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) has been critical of the Trump’s use of military force without congressional approval since his administration began blowing up alleged drug boats on the Caribbean Sea late last year.

As Trump says he is considering a military attack on Iran, Schiff is once again raising concerns that Trump is stoking broader conflicts abroad.

“Our allies don’t trust us. Our adversaries don’t fear us,” Schiff said on the Senate floor Tuesday. “When the next crisis comes — and it will come, and it may even be caused by this president — we will find ourselves isolated.”

Trump’s push to have the federal government assert more control over elections could also expose some fractures.

In May, at the behest of Trump, the Justice Department began demanding voter registration data from states across the country. Democrats see the move as a pretext for bogus voter fraud claims down the line, as congressional Republicans tee up new barriers to voter registration through the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act.

“The Trump administration is not being shy about threatening to undermine and steal this November election,” Padilla said. “They know that their record is not just unpopular but has been so harmful to working families that their only hope to stay in power is to initiate a voter purge.”

Democrats’ concerns have been heightened by comments made by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem last week in which she outlined plans to station federal immigration agents at polling stations “to make sure we have the right people voting, electing the right leaders”

Ukraine’s Winter Paralympics team will boycott the event’s opening ceremony next month after Russian and Belarusian athletes were invited to compete under their national flags.

On Tuesday, it was announced six Russian and four Belarusian athletes will take part in alpine skiing, cross-country skiing and snowboarding at the Milan-Cortina Games, which start on 6 March.

Both countries had previously been suspended from Paralympic competition after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, with Belarus an ally of Russia.

In September, the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) lifted its ban on athletes from the two countries competing at the Games.

However, the IPC does not govern the six sports contested at the Paralympics and despite the individual bodies, including the International Ski and Snowboard Federation (FIS), refusing to lift their own bans, Russia and Belarus won an appeal to the Court of Arbitration of Sport against FIS.

As a result, athletes have been able to return to FIS competitions and the 10 Paralympians have been awarded bipartite commission invitations to compete in Italy.

Following an announcement that Ukrainian officials would avoid the entire competition, the country’s National Paralympic Committee now says team members will miss the opening ceremony.

The organisation has also made a “demand that the Ukrainian flag not be used”.

The team will still compete in the Games and “fight for the sporting victories of Ukrainian athletes”.

Earlier this week in its response to criticism over the decision to allow the Russian and Belarussian athletes to compete, the IPC said it was a “democratic organisation and the decision to lift the partial suspension of NPCs Belarus and Russia was taken by IPC member organisations at the 2025 General Assembly”.

In 1994, the Rev. Jesse Jackson declared war on Hollywood.

The civil rights leader, who died Tuesday, set his sights on the entertainment industry, accusing it of “institutional racism” and calling out what he called the lack of representation of people of color and women, an issue that reverberates today.

Jackson aimed his trademark fiery dynamism at studio and network executives, forming the Rainbow Coalition on Fairness in the Media — an offshoot of his Rainbow Coalition that focused on social justice and economic equality — and threatening boycotts against projects that excluded minorities.

Comparing his campaign to the historic march in Selma, Ala., and other civil rights demonstrations during a news conference, Jackson said, “They think they have the right to not include us in recruitment, hiring, promotion, projection, decision making. But we have consumer power, we have viewer power, we have the power to change dials. … The networks have time now to get their house in order. They can begin to change now.”

The pronouncement was a dramatic contrast to Jackson’s 1984 hosting gig on “Saturday Night Live” and his memorable reading of “Green Eggs and Ham” during a 1991 appearance on the sketch variety series.

But despite his characteristic command and media savvy, Jackson’s campaign never gained true momentum, scoring mixed results. Black actors and creators within Hollywood for the most part failed to rally around him, and leaders of some advocacy groups accused him of losing focus. Whoopi Goldberg made fun of him while hosting the 1996 Oscars.

By 1997, the battle had fizzled out and Jackson had moved on to more political concerns.

The clash with Hollywood was first sparked after several Black-oriented shows on Fox, including “South Central,” “Roc,” “In Living Color” and “The Sinbad Show” were canceled in the July 1994. Jackson felt there would not be much improvement in the diversity on the shows in the upcoming fall season.

“We know that significant shows were cut off from Fox this season, and that is of great concern to us,” Jackson said at a news conference at the African American Community Unity Center where he was accompanied by Brotherhood Crusade founder Danny Bakewell and comedian Sinbad, who starred in his own eponymous sitcom.

And Jackson said it wasn’t the only TV network with this problem. “We look at the data we have on NBC. It is substantial. It is ugly. We look at the projected format for CBS this fall. In the real sense, all of them are recycling racist practices. It is called institutional racism. It is manifest not only in their hiring, but in their priorities.”

He added that he was also concerned about what he claimed was poor representation of people of color and women among network news anchors and on writing staffs on prime-time network series. He criticized the prominence of Black actors having major roles that often involved criminal activity.

Jameel Hasan as Homey Jr., left, and Damon Wayans as Homey D. Clown on Fox’s “In Living Color,” which was canceled in 1994.

(Nicola Goode / Fox)

“We have written the networks letters, and the response, by and large, has been defensive as they attempt to justify what is unjustifiable,” Jackson said at the news conference. “While we’re willing to talk, we’re also willing to walk. It’s now time for aggressive direct action.”

In a separate interview, he targeted politically oriented Sunday news shows, saying they excluded Black journalists and news figures: “Those all-white hosts determine their guests and set the political agenda for public policy for Monday morning. That’s not America.”

His newly formed commission was researching network hiring practices and minority images. He vowed that boycotts and other actions would take place if there was not significant change.

But those demonstrations never materialized, and no boycotts were called. Roughly a year after his initial declaration, observers inside and outside the industry said networks had mostly ignored Jackson, and that little had changed.

Some leaders at the time questioned his commitment, saying he did not seem truly dedicated to aggressive action.

Sonny Skyhawk, founder and president of American Indians in Film, one of the organizations that had joined forces with Jackson, said the campaign against the networks should have been stronger.

“I would hate to criticize him for not being more diligent, but it is frustrating,” said Skyhawk in a 1995 interview about the initiative. “I don’t know where (the issue) is or why he is not continuing on this. But I think he got sidetracked on a lot of other things.”

Sherrie Mazingo, who was then head of broadcast journalism at USC, said she was not surprised that the Jackson campaign had lost steam: “What happened last season isn’t new, it’s perennial, and may even be cyclical. Protests and accusations and talk like this goes on all the time, and nothing ever happens. Nothing.”

Mazingo cited similar efforts by the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People in the early 1980s that had attacked Hollywood’s hiring practices. A boycott of films that failed to use Black artists in front of or behind the camera was proposed but never materialized.

“I believe what happens when these things start is that an individual in the organization who is pushing forward on these issues gets tired of banging their head against a brick wall,” Mazingo said. “They make an all-out assault, exhaust a lot of energy and money, and nothing ever significantly changes, except for a token gesture here and there.”

Sumi Haru, who was president of the Assn. of Asian Pacific Artists, said Jackson had been sidetracked by more topical issues such as a conservative power grab in Washington, D.C., and calls for abolishing affirmative action programs.

“He needed to focus his energy on the civil rights initiative, and affirmative action was a much bigger deal,” said Haru.

But Billie Green, president of the Beverly Hills/Hollywood branch of the NAACP, said Jackson’s campaign would have been more effective if it had joined forces with other organizations that had members within the television industry.

Jackson pushed back against the criticism, insisting that the fight against Hollywood “is still very high on our agenda.” He pointed out that he had worked to continue government funding for the Public Broadcasting Service, protested the cancellation of the Nickelodeon series about two Black brothers, “My Brother and Me,” picketed conservative “hate radio” programs and sent out a fax to 8,000 supporters asking them to rally CBS to bring back the family drama “Under One Roof.”

“It’s going to get more intense,” Jackson said.

In 1996, Jackson turned his attention to the Academy Awards, angered that there was only one Black nominee among the 166 artists nominated. He called for picketing in major cities and and said Black people attending the Oscar ceremony should wear a symbol expressing solidarity against what he called Hollywood’s “race exclusion and cultural violence.”

But during the Oscars, which was produced by Quincy Jones, Goldberg, who was hosting, took a swipe at the civil rights leader who was picketing across town.

“Jesse Jackson asked me to wear a ribbon. I got it,” Goldberg said during her opening. “But I had something I want to say to Jesse right here, but he’s not watching, so why bother?” The remark drew applause and laughter from the black-tie audience.

Some leaders, producers and directors were not amused by Goldberg, saying her remarks were insulting and dismissive of a serious fight to gain diversity within the motion picture industry. But others criticized Jackson, calling his action ill-timed and ill-advised. Several of the most prominent African Americans present, including Oprah Winfrey, Sidney Poitier and Laurence Fishburne, did not wear rainbow-colored ribbons as a sign of solidarity with Jackson and his Rainbow Coalition.

Even though he concentrated on other endeavors, Jackson was not totally done with Hollywood. He and the Rev. Al Sharpton spearheaded a protest in 2002 against the comedy “Barbershop” and its jokes about Jackson and ciivil rights icons Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. The two leaders also threatened a boycott against the 2004 comedy “Soul Plane.”

One afternoon late August in a quiet Irish seaside town, a supermarket worker decided he could no longer separate his job from what he was seeing on his phone.

Images from Gaza, with neighbourhoods flattened and families buried, had followed him to the checkout counter.

At the time, Israel’s genocidal onslaught had killed more than 60,000 Palestinians.

His first act of protest was to quietly warn customers that some of the fruit and vegetables were sourced from Israel. Later, as people in Gaza starved, he refused to scan or sell Israeli-grown produce.

He could not, he said, “have that on my conscience”.

Within weeks, Tesco supermarket suspended him.

He requested anonymity following advice from his trade union.

In Newcastle, County Down, a town better known for its summer tourists than political protest, customers protested outside the store.

The local dispute became a test case: Can individual employees turn their moral outrage into workplace action?

Facing mounting backlash, Tesco reinstated him in January, moving him to a role where he no longer has to handle Israeli goods.

“I would encourage them to do it,” he said about other workers. “They have the backing of the unions and there’s a precedent set. They didn’t sack me; they shouldn’t be able to sack anyone else.

“And then, if we get enough people to do it, they can’t sell Israeli goods.”

“A genocide is still going on, they are slowly killing and starving people – we still need to be out, doing what we can.”

From shop floors to state policy

Across Europe, there is labour-led pressure to cease trade with Israel.

Unions in Ireland, the UK and Norway have passed motions stating that workers should not be compelled to handle Israeli goods.

Retail cooperatives, including Co-op UK and Italy’s Coop Alleanza 3.0, have removed some Israeli products in protest against the war in Gaza.

The campaigns raise questions about whether worker-led refusals can lead to state-level boycotts.

Activists say the strategy is rooted in history.

In 1984, workers at the Dunnes Stores retail chain in Ireland refused to handle goods from apartheid South Africa. The action lasted nearly three years and contributed to Ireland becoming the first country in Western Europe to ban trade with South Africa.

“The same can be done against the apartheid, genocidal state of Israel today,” said Damian Quinn, 33, of BDS Belfast.

The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement is a Palestinian-led campaign launched in 2005 that calls for economic and cultural boycotts of Israel until it complies with international law, including ending its occupation of Palestine.

“Where the state has failed in its obligation to prevent and punish the crime of genocide, citizens and workers across the world must refuse Israel and apply pressure on their governments to introduce legislation,” said Quinn.

That pressure, he said, takes the form of boycotting “complicit Israeli sporting, academic and cultural institutions”, as well as Israeli and international companies “engaged in violations of Palestinian human rights”.

The movement also seeks to “apply pressure on banks, local councils, universities, churches, pension funds and governments to do the same through divestment and sanctions”, he added.

Supporters argue that such pressure is beginning to shape state policy across Europe.

Spain and Slovenia have moved to restrict trade with Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank following sustained public protests and mounting political pressure. In August 2025, Slovenia’s government banned imports of goods produced in Israeli-occupied territories, becoming one of the first European states to adopt such a measure.

Spain followed suit later that year, with a decree banning the import of products from illegal Israeli settlements. The measure was formally enforced at the start of 2026.

Both countries’ centre-left governments have been outspoken critics of Israel’s conduct during the war, helping create the political conditions for legislative action.

In the Netherlands, a wave of pro-Palestinian campus protests and public demonstrations in 2025 shifted political discourse. Student demands for academic and trade disengagement became part of broader calls for national policy change.

Later that year, members of the Dutch parliament urged the government to ban imports from illegal Israeli settlements.

Meanwhile, Ireland is attempting to advance its Occupied Territories Bill, first introduced in 2018, which would prohibit trade in goods and services from illegal settlements in occupied Palestinian territory, including the West Bank.

Progress, however, has stalled despite unanimous backing in the lower house of Ireland’s parliament, the Dail.

Paul Murphy, an Irish pro-Palestine member of parliament who, in June, attempted to cross into Gaza, told Al Jazeera the delay amounts to “indirect pressure from Israel routed through the US”. He accused the government of “kicking the can down the road” as it seeks further legal advice.

Pro-Israel organisations are working to oppose initiatives that aim to pressure Israel economically.

B’nai B’rith International, a US-based group that says it strengthens “global Jewish life”, combats anti-Semitism and stands “unequivocally with the State of Israel”, decries the BDS movement. In July 2025, it submitted an 18-page memorandum to Irish lawmakers, warning the bill could pose risks for US companies operating in Ireland.

The memorandum argued that, if enacted, the bill could create conflicts with US federal anti-boycott laws, which prohibit US companies from participating in certain foreign-led boycotts – particularly those targeting Israel.

B’nai B’rith International also “vehemently condemns” the United Kingdom’s recognition of Palestinian statehood and has donated 200 softshell jackets to Israeli military personnel.

Critics say interventions of this kind go beyond advocacy and reflect coordinated efforts to influence European policymaking on Israel and Palestine from abroad.

While lobby groups publicly press their case, leaked documents, based on material from whistleblower site Distributed Denial of Secrets, suggest the Israeli state has also been directly involved in countering BDS campaigns across Europe.

A covert programme, jointly funded by the Israeli Ministries of Justice and of Strategic Affairs, reportedly hired law firms for 130,000 euros ($154,200) on assignments aimed at monitoring boycott-related movements.

Former Sinn Fein MEP Martina Anderson, who supports the BDS movement, previously accused Israeli advocacy organisations of attempting to silence critics of Israel through legal and political pressure.

According to the leaked documents cited by The Ditch, an Irish outlet, Israel hired a law firm to “investigate the steps open to Israel against Martina Anderson”.

She told Al Jazeera she stood by her criticism.

“As the chair of the Palestinian delegation in the European Parliament, I did my work diligently, as people who know me would expect me to do.

“I am proud to have been a thorn in the side of the Israeli state and its extensive lobbying machine, which works relentlessly to undermine Palestinian voices and to justify a brutal and oppressive rogue state.”

Pushback across Europe

In 2019, Germany’s parliament, the Bundestag, adopted a non-binding resolution condemning the BDS movement as anti-Semitic, calling for the withdrawal of public funding from groups that support it.

Observers say the vote has since been used to conflate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.

The European Leadership Network (ELNET), a prominent pro-Israel advocacy organisation active across the continent, welcomed the move and said its German branch had urged further legislative steps.

Meanwhile, in the UK, ELNET has funded trips to Israel for Labour politicians and their staff.

Bridget Phillipson, now secretary of state for education, declared a 3,000-pound ($4,087) visit funded by ELNET for a member of her team.

A coworker of Wes Streeting named Anna Wilson also accepted a trip funded by ELNET. Streeting himself has visited Israel on a mission organised by the Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) group.

ELNET’s UK branch is directed by Joan Ryan, an ex-Labour MP and former LFI chair.

During the passage of a bill designed to prevent public bodies from pursuing their own boycotts, divestment or sanctions policies – the Labour Party imposed a three-line whip instructing MPs to vote against it. Phillipson and Streeting abstained.

The Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill was widely seen as an attempt to block local councils and public institutions from adopting BDS-style measures.

A vocal supporter of the legislation was Luke Akehurst, then director of the pro-Israel advocacy group, We Believe in Israel. In a statement carried by ELNET, he said it was “absurd” that local councils could “undermine the excellent relationship between the UK and Israel” through boycotts or divestment.

“We need the law changed to close this loophole,” he said, arguing that BDS initiatives by local authorities risked “importing the conflict into communities in the UK”.

The legislation was ultimately shelved when a general election was called in 2024. It formed part of broader legislative efforts in parts of Europe to limit BDS-linked boycotts.

Akehurst has since been elected as Labour MP for North Durham, having previously served on the party’s National Executive Committee.

United States Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has claimed that Washington engineered a dollar shortage in Iran to send the rial into freefall and cause protests on the streets.

In December and January, Iran was faced with one of the biggest antigovernment protests the country has seen since the Islamic revolution of 1979, prompted by the severe economic crisis.

Protests over soaring prices in Iran began with shopkeepers in Tehran who shuttered their shops and began demonstrating on December 28, 2025, after the rial plunged to a record low against the US dollar in late December. The protests then spread to other provinces of Iran.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s government responded with force. More than 6,800 protesters, including at least 150 children, are thought to have been killed in a sweeping crackdown by the government on the protest movement.

So, how did Washington create a “dollar shortage” in Iran, ultimately causing the rial to tank? And what effect has that had on the Iranian people?

What is a ‘dollar shortage’?

A “dollar shortage” refers to when a country does not have enough US dollars to pay for things it needs from the rest of the world.

The US dollar is the main currency used in global trade, especially for oil, machinery and loan repayments, which means countries need a steady supply of it.

If exports fall and sanctions block access to the US financial system, dollars can become scarce. As a result, the local currency weakens, prices of imported goods rise, and inflation worsens.

In Iran, a “dollar shortage” was engineered by simultaneously blocking the two main channels of foreign exchange (FX) inflow: Oil exports and international banking access, said Mohammad Reza Farzanegan, an economist at Germany’s Marburg University. The US did this by imposing sanctions on Iranian oil, meaning anyone buying or selling it would be subject to punitive measures.

Given Iran’s dependence on oil for revenue, economic sanctions on its oil can create a severe FX constraint.

“By using secondary sanctions to threaten any global entity trading in dollars with Iran, the US traps Iran’s existing reserves abroad and prevents new dollars from entering the domestic market,” Farzanegan told Al Jazeera.

What has US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said?

Replying to a query about dealing with Iran at a Congressional hearing last week, Treasury Secretary Bessent described the US strategy to send the Iranian currency plunging.

“What we [have done] at Treasury is created a dollar shortage in the country,” Bessent said, adding that the strategy came to a “grand culmination in December, when one of the largest banks in Iran went under … the Iranian currency went into freefall, inflation exploded, and hence, we have seen the Iranian people out on the street.

“We have seen the Iranian leadership wiring money out of the country like crazy,” Bessent added. “So the rats are leaving the ship, and that is a good sign that they know the end may be near.”

Before this, speaking with Fox News at the World Economic Forum last month in Davos, Bessent explained the role US sanctions played in driving the recent nationwide protests.

“President Trump ordered Treasury … to put maximum pressure on Iran, and it’s worked,” he said. “Because in December, their economy collapsed. They are not able to get imports, and this is why the people took to the streets.”

In both instances, Bessent referred to his earlier remarks at the Economic Club of New York, in March last year, when he outlined how the White House would leverage President Donald Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign to collapse Iran’s economy.

In his address there, Bessent said the US “elevated a sanctions campaign against [Iran’s] export infrastructure, targeting all stages of Iran’s oil supply chain”, coupled with “vigorous government engagement and private sector outreach” to “close off Iran’s access to the international financial system”.

What effect did the dollar shortage have in Iran?

In January, the Iranian rial was trading at 1.5 million to the dollar – a sharp decline from about 700,000 a year earlier in January 2025 and about 900,000 in mid-2025. The plummeting currency triggered steep inflation, with food prices an average of 72 percent higher than last year.

In 2018, during his first presidency, Trump withdrew from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, a deal between Iran and global powers limiting Tehran’s nuclear programme in return for sanctions relief.

Since re-election last January, President Trump has doubled down on his so-called “maximum pressure” to cripple Iran’s economy and corner Tehran to renegotiate its nuclear and regional policies. Last month, Trump threatened a 25 percent tariff on countries doing business with Iran.

Through the rigorous blocking of Iran from the global financial system by creating a dollar shortage, the US pushed Tehran towards a severe “import compression, [and as a result, Iran] cannot pay for the intermediate goods and machinery required for domestic production”, said Farzanegan, the economist.

The US strategy, he said, “is particularly devastating because it leverages commercial risk management against humanitarian needs”. In short, Washington’s strategy “makes the small Iranian market a commercial liability” for any company, even if they are only dealing with medicine, for instance, Farzanegan added.

A research paper published by Farzanegan and Iranian American economist Nader Habibi last year found that the size of Iran’s middle class would have expanded by an annual average of approximately 17 percentage points, between 2012 and 2019, if it were not for US action.

In 2019, the estimated size of loss in the middle-class share of the population in Iran was 28 percentage points, the research found.

“People lost their purchasing power, and savings were wiped out,” the economist told Al Jazeera. “This is a long-term destruction of the country’s human capital.”

Besides the US action is the existing vulnerability of Iran’s economic structure, with factors like long-term mismanagement, high rates of corruption and over-reliance on oil revenues making it fragile.

While the US sanctions created external shock, a lack of domestic structural reforms left the government with “no fiscal space to cushion the blow”.

What is the US’s endgame here – and will it succeed?

Bessent’s admission that Washington deliberately created a “dollar shortage” signals the US’s shift towards a total economic warfare narrative.

“This is economic statecraft; no shots fired,” Bessent said at the WEF in Davos last month.

“This admission may complicate the US’s diplomatic standing, as it confirms that the humanitarian channels for food and medicine are often rendered useless if the entire banking system is being targeted for collapse,” Farzanegan said.

Bruce Fein, a former US associate deputy attorney general who specialises in constitutional and international law, told Al Jazeera that this type of economic coercion is “as common as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west”, pointing to economic sanctions against Russia, Cuba, North Korea, China and Myanmar.

However, unlike in other cases where the US has applied economic pressure, Farzanegan said Iran’s case is “a unique experiment due to the duration and intensity of the pressure”.

Unlike Russia, which has a more diversified export base and larger reserves, Iran has been facing varied forms of sanctions for decades since the supreme leader took power in 1979.

“Iran has a sophisticated internal mechanism for sanctions circumvention that makes the ‘dollar shortage’ a game of cat-and-mouse rather than a one-time shock,” the economist said.

With a US armada currently stationed in the Arabian Sea, the US and Iran are in talks to defuse tensions. The US wants three key things from Iran: To stop enriching uranium as part of its nuclear programme, to get rid of its ballistic missiles and to stop arming non-state actors in the region.

Ultimately, observers say, the US wants regime change in Iran.

But Fein said his experience shows that economic sanctions alone “seldom, if ever, topple regimes … Regime change comes externally only with the use of military force.

“Iran’s dollar shortage will not oust the mullahs or Revolutionary Guard,” he said, referring to Iran’s current administrative structure.

The impoverishment of Iranians will diminish, Fein told Al Jazeera, “rather than promote the likelihood of a successful revolution because day-to-day survival will be the priority”.

On January 6, a group of 25 British members of parliament tabled a motion urging global sporting authorities to consider excluding the United States from hosting the 2026 FIFA World Cup until it demonstrates compliance with international law. It followed weeks of mounting pressure across Europe over the political climate surrounding a tournament expected to draw millions of viewers and symbolising international cooperation.

Dutch broadcaster Teun van de Keuken has backed a public petition urging withdrawal from the competition while French parliamentarian Eric Coquerel has warned that participation risks legitimising policies he argued undermine international human rights standards.

Much of the scrutiny has focused on US President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown and broad assaults on civil liberties. The deaths of Minneapolis residents Renee Nicole Good and Alex Pretti during immigration enforcement operations in January triggered nationwide outrage and protests. In 2026, at least eight people have been shot by federal immigration agents or died in immigration detention.

These developments are serious, but they point to a broader question about power and accountability – one that extends beyond domestic repression and into the consequences of US policy abroad. The war in Gaza represents a far deeper emergency.

For decades, Washington has served as Israel’s most influential international ally, providing diplomatic protection, political backing and roughly $3.8bn in annual military assistance. That partnership finances and shapes the destruction now unfolding across Palestinian territory.

Since the day the war began on October 7, 2023, Israel’s military has killed more than 72,032 Palestinians, wounded 171,661 and destroyed or severely damaged the vast majority of Gaza’s housing, schools, hospitals, water systems and other basic civilian infrastructure. Nearly 90 percent of Gaza’s population – about 1.9 million people – has been displaced, many repeatedly, as bombardments move across the enclave. Meanwhile, Israeli forces and armed settlers have intensified raids, farmland seizures and sweeping movement restrictions across Palestinian communities in Jenin, Nablus, Hebron and the Jordan Valley in the occupied West Bank.

By many accounts, Israel is carrying out a genocide.

Across the African continent, this grave assault carries profound historical resonance because organised sports competitions have often been inseparable from liberation struggles.

On June 16, 1976, 15-year-old Hastings Ndlovu joined thousands of schoolchildren in Soweto protesting against the imposition of Afrikaans language education. By the end of the day, he was dead, shot by police as officers opened fire on unarmed pupils marching through their own neighbourhoods.

Hastings was murdered by a regime that viewed African children as political threats rather than students or even human beings. Police killed 575 youths and injured thousands more that day, yet the bloodshed failed to disrupt diplomatic and sporting relations between the apartheid state and several Western allies.

Weeks later, as families buried their children in solemn funerals, New Zealand’s national rugby team, the All Blacks, landed at Jan Smuts Airport in Johannesburg on June 25, ready to play competitive matches inside the segregated republic.

The tour provoked fury among many young African governments. Within weeks, the backlash reached the 1976 Montreal Olympic Games in Canada. Twenty-two African countries withdrew after President Michael Morris and the International Olympic Committee chose not to act against New Zealand.

Athletes who had trained for years packed their bags and left the Olympic Village in Montreal, some after already competing. Morocco, Cameroon, Tunisia and Egypt began the Games before withdrawing as their delegations were urgently recalled by their governments.

Nigeria, Ghana and Zambia pulled out of the men’s football tournament, collapsing first-round fixtures at Montreal’s Olympic Stadium and Varsity Stadium mid-competition. Television viewers worldwide watched empty lanes and abandoned tracks replace what had been promoted as a global event. More than 700 athletes forfeited Olympic participation, including world-record holders Filbert Bayi (1,500 metres) of Tanzania and Uganda’s John Akii-Bua (400-metre hurdles).

African leaders recognised the scale of the decision. Nonetheless, they concluded that their countries’ Olympic participation would give “comfort and respectability to the South African racist regime and encourage it to continue to defy world opinion”.

That moment offers a defining lesson for 2026: Boycotts come at a cost. They demand sacrifice, coordination and political courage. History shows that collective refusal can redirect global attention and force both institutions and spectators to confront injustices they might otherwise overlook.

Nearly five decades later, Gaza presents a similar test amid a deepening and seemingly endless catastrophe.

Take what happened to Sidra Hassouna, a seven-year-old Palestinian girl from Rafah.

She was killed along with members of her family during an Israeli air strike on February 23, 2024, when the home they had sought shelter in was struck amid intense shelling in southern Gaza.

Sidra’s story mirrors thousands of others and reveals the same truth: childhoods erased by bombardment.

These killings have unfolded before a global audience. Unlike apartheid South Africa, Israel’s destruction of Gaza is being transmitted in real time, largely through Palestinian journalists and citizen reporters, nearly 300 of whom have been killed by Israeli air and artillery strikes.

At the same time, the US continues supplying Israel with weapons, diplomatic cover and veto protection at the United Nations. While Trump’s civil liberties abuses are serious, they are not comparable in scale to the devastation endured by Palestinians in Gaza.

The humanitarian toll is measured in destroyed hospitals, displaced families, enforced hunger and children buried beneath collapsed apartment blocks.

The central question now is whether football can present itself as a weeks-long celebration of sporting prowess across 16 host cities in the United States, Canada and Mexico from June to July while the United States continues to sustain large-scale civilian destruction abroad.

African political memory understands these stakes. The continent has witnessed how stadiums and international competitions can project political approval and how withdrawal can destroy that image.

A coordinated boycott would require joint decisions by governments representing the qualified teams – Morocco, Senegal, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Ivory Coast, Ghana, Cape Verde and South Africa – supported by the African Union, regional institutions and the Confederation of African Football.

The consequences would be immediate.

The tournament would lose its claim to global inclusivity, and corporate sponsors would be compelled to confront questions they have long avoided.

Most importantly, international attention would shift.

Boycotts do not end conflicts overnight. They accomplish something different: They remove the comfort of pretending injustice does not exist. The 1976 Olympic withdrawal did not dismantle apartheid instantly, but it accelerated isolation and broadened the universal coalition opposing it.

At present, FIFA’s longstanding political contradictions intensify the need for external pressure. At the World Cup draw in Washington, DC, on December 5, its president, Gianni Infantino, awarded Trump a “peace prize” for his efforts to “promote peace and unity around the world”.

The organisation cannot portray itself as a neutral body while extending symbolic legitimacy to a leader overseeing mass civilian death.

In that context, nonparticipation becomes a critical moral position.

It would not immediately end Gaza’s calamity, but it would challenge US support for the sustained military onslaught and honour children like Hastings and Sidra.

Although separated by decades and continents, their lives reveal a shared historical pattern: Children suffer first when imperial systems determine that Black and Brown lives hold absolutely no value.

Africa’s stand in 1976 reshaped international resistance to apartheid. A comparable decision in 2026 could strengthen opposition to contemporary systems of domination and signal to families in Gaza that their suffering is recognised across the continent.

History remembers those who reject injustice – and who choose comfort while children die under relentless air strikes and occupation.

If African teams compete in the 2026 World Cup as if nothing is happening in Gaza City, Rafah, Khan Younis, Jenin and Hebron, their involvement risks legitimising colonial power structures.

While European critics urge authorities to exclude the US, our history demands a complete withdrawal.

Football cannot be played on the graves of Palestinian martyrs.

Africa must boycott the 2026 World Cup.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.