carries

US forces attack Iran for the ninth consecutive night as one US soldier killed in northern Iraq.

Ali al-Zaidi met US President Donald Trump in the Oval Office on Tuesday as Iraq’s prime minister. He carried the title. The power was another matter.

Eleven weeks earlier, after months of paralysis, the Shia alliance which is known as the Coordination Framework had taken just 25 minutes to choose him. That sudden consensus was forged under intense pressure from Washington DC.

The United States Treasury had frozen Iraq’s dollar lifeline, the cash shipments that fly from New Jersey to the Central Bank of Iraq. Nouri al-Maliki, a former prime minister, and the top contender to return to the premiership had to abandon his plans because of Washington’s veto.

Al-Zaidi, a 40-year-old banker with no political base, was the man left standing.His lack of an established political base is part of his usefulness. He owes his position less to Baghdad’s ballot box than to the pressure exerted by Trump’s Treasury.The banker’s own ledger is not clear.

In 2024, Iraq’s Central Bank barred al-Zaidi’s own institution, Al-Janoob Islamic Bank, from US-dollar transactions as part of a wider crackdown intended to curb illicit dollar flows to Iran. He was never charged. Neither the bank nor the man is currently sanctioned. But the file exists. Its existence could give Washington another source of leverage should al-Zaidi drag his feet.

The real power in Baghdad now sits in one man’s portfolio. Tom Barrack holds three titles at once: ambassador to Turkiye, envoy to Syria, and now envoy to Iraq. His influence rests less on diplomacy than on Washington’s financial leverage over Baghdad. Iraq’s oil revenue sits in an account at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. In April, Washington blocked a cash shipment of nearly $500m drawn from those revenues and suspended parts of its security cooperation. Oil funds roughly 90 percent of Iraq’s budget. Barrack does not need to threaten military force when the administration he represents can reach directly into the financial system on which the Iraqi state depends.

Washington’s demand that Iraq bring all armed factions under state control remains far from resolved. Shia Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr dissolved his Saraya al-Salam militia in late May. Other militias such as Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq and Kataib Imam Ali have announced steps towards handing over their weapons or placing them under fuller state control. That is real movement. But Kataib Hezbollah and Harakat al-Nujaba, the two factions most tightly bound to Tehran, have rejected full disarmament. In their own words, their weapons are not for bargaining. Washington has answered in kind. US strikes killed dozens of Iranian-backed Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) fighters this spring; the Treasury has sanctioned seven militia commanders by name. Baghdad has set September 30 as its disarmament deadline, the same date on which the remaining US forces are expected to leave Iraq. Whether the hardest factions bend by then remains the open question that Washington has yet to answer honestly.

Even Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani’s authority has limits here, as it always has. Al-Sistani’s 2014 fatwa built the PMF’s founding myth. But his call was for men to defend Iraq under the state’s command, not to form independent militias. The hardline factions never answered to Najaf. They answer to Tehran. al-Sistani’s own representative in Karbala has also pressed publicly for exclusive state control of weapons. His influence remains significant, but it has never extended to full control over these factions, and the current standoff is making that reality harder to ignore.

The prize Washington actually wants, however, lies underground. Chevron is negotiating an expanded role in Iraq’s oil sector, while other US companies are pursuing contracts in gas, electricity and export infrastructure. Baghdad wants production up from 4.5 million barrels a day to 7 million within three years, though doing so would require a substantially larger OPEC quota. Western Iraq’s gas reserves, largely untapped, could one day elevate the country into a dominant regional energy player and exporter. This is the potential bonanza al-Zaidi is being asked to unlock in exchange for the loyalty Washington is seeking.

Kurdistan’s place in this emerging arrangement is still unclear. Barrack has called the old Baghdad-Erbil federal model outright “Balkanization”, a structure he blames for letting Iran fill the vacuum. Yet the same envoy spent much of June pressing the prime minister of the Kurdish region, Masrour Barzani, to reactivate the Kurdistan parliament and form a new cabinet, not dissolve it. Read together, these positions suggest a clear message: Washington wants a functioning, cooperative Kurdistan region, firmly inside Washington’s orbit, not an autonomous wildcard and not a vassal of Baghdad’s sectarian blocs either.

Stripped of diplomatic varnish, Washington’s vision for Iraq is this: no militias operating outside the state; no Iranian veto over Iraqi policy; no single sect running the table from Baghdad; a Western economic orientation locked in by contracts, not sentiment; American energy firms as the primary beneficiaries; and a prime minister who answers, in practice, to Tom Barrack before he answers to his own parliament. Whether Iraq is pressured towards the Abraham Accords, whether the old nationalist and Ba’athist-adjacent currents find any oxygen again, whether sectarian parties actually lose their seats at the ballot box, these remain predictions, not settled facts.

What is clear is simpler and starker. Iraq spent two decades as the ground on which Iran and America fought indirectly, through proxies and sanctions. It is now becoming something else: a state whose oil, banking system and militias are all being renegotiated at once under intense US pressure. At the centre of this transformation is a banker-premier chosen in twenty-five minutes and now expected to deliver by September 30.

The Gulf model, from Riyadh and Abu Dhabi to Manama, Kuwait, Doha and Muscat, took decades to lock in. Trump’s Washington wants to compress Iraq’s version into a single presidential term. Whether Baghdad survives that compression intact, or merely changes which capital it answers to, is the question al-Zaidi’s visit left unresolved.

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

When then England manager Gareth Southgate was asked in 2020 whether there was a chance Haaland might have played for the Three Lions, he shut it down quickly.

“With players like him, they’re quite clear where they want to play,” Southgate said. “He feels that allegiance to the country that he’s playing for now and you’re always very respectful of that.”

Haaland was born in Leeds – where his father Alf-Inge was still based, having just left Leeds United for Manchester City – in 2000.

The family moved to Bryne in Norway three years later following his father’s retirement through injury.

The young Haaland’s talent was spotted early and he quickly moved through the youth teams at Bryne before signing for Molde in 2017, managed by Ole Gunnar Solskjaer.

He helped turn Haaland into an attacking force and has often spoken highly of his former player, expressing regret that he could not sign him when he became manager at Manchester United.

The young forward caught the eye during his time at Red Bull Salzburg before his spell at Borussia Dortmund – where he formed a close friendship with England’s Jude Bellingham – really announced him on the world stage.

His move to Manchester City came in 2022 – a transfer many felt had been inevitable given his father’s history and his own love of English football.

Yet even with his rapid ascension to stardom, Haaland continues to return to Norway frequently where he owns several properties.

“Despite Haaland’s global superstar status, he remains the exact same guy,” Norwegian football journalist Andreas Korssund told BBC Sport.

“He knows exactly where he comes from and regularly visits his small hometown in Rogaland. He is incredibly proud of his roots and always makes himself available to the Norwegian press when representing his country.”

Haaland has discussed his desire to run a farm in his home country when he retires and can frequently be spotted strolling around Oslo, where he owns an apartment.

He has leaned into Norway’s Viking history and is fiercely proud of representing his country, as illustrated by leading his team-mates in the Viking Row after beating Brazil.

It is that affinity with his heritage that has also led to him sporting his full title of Braut Haaland on the back of his national shirt – Braut is his mother’s maiden name and combining that with his father’s name is a Norwegian tradition.

“Haaland means everything to Norway,” says Korssund.

“He has become an unprecedented superstar in the world’s biggest sport. For a nation of just over 5.5 million people to produce one of the absolute greatest footballers on the planet is immense.”

U.S. Central Command said it struck Iranian targets today in response to an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) attack on a cargo vessel exiting the Strait of Hormuz on Thursday. This marks the first U.S. kinetic response against Iran since Washington and Tehran signed a Memorandum of Understanding about a peace deal last Friday.

CENTCOM said the strikes were “a powerful response to yesterday’s attack on a commercial ship that was transiting the Strait of Hormuz.” The command added that “U.S. aircraft struck Iranian missile and drone storage locations and coastal radar sites after Iran hit M/V Ever Lovely on June 25 with a one-way attack drone. The Singapore-flagged cargo ship was exiting the Strait of Hormuz along the Omani coast at the time of Iran’s attack.”

That incident “clearly violated the ceasefire,” the command proclaimed. “Furthermore, Iran’s dangerous behavior undermined freedom of navigation as commerce increasingly flows through the vital international trade corridor.”

As we noted yesterday, the attack on the Ever Lovely prompted the U.N. International Maritime Organization (IMO) to pause its plan to evacuate hundreds of ships stuck in the Persian Gulf which has been largely closed since Iran was attacked by the U.S. and Israel.

Earlier on Friday, President Donald Trump told reporters “We’ll find out,” when asked if Iran faced any consequences for the ship attack.

Asked if he considered the ceasefire to still be in place, the president said: “I don’t like the fact that they took a shot yesterday. Actually, four, we knocked down three at a ship, not an allied ship, but a ship, a very expensive ship, and it was fine, but it took a little beating. They shouldn’t be doing that. You’ll find out.”

There was no immediate military response from Iran, a U.S. official told us. However, as we have reported in the past, these kinds of attacks have resulted in tit-for-tat kinetic actions between the two nations. We also do not know the level of command and control the Iranian government has over hardline IRGC elements and if these kinds of attacks are occurring independent of the government leadership’s wishes.

In its post on X, CENTCOM said its forces CENTCOM forces “continue to provide safe passage coordination and support to commercial vessels transiting the strait. The U.S. military remains present and vigilant to ensure all aspects of the agreement with Iran are adhered to, obeyed, and in full force and effect.”

The U.S. and Iran continue to negotiate over a future peace deal, but many sticking points remain, including how the country’s nuclear material will be dealt with and future nuclear operations monitored.

This is a developing story.

UPDATE: 5:56 PM EDT –

After the U.S. airstrikes, Iran reiterated that it will continue to hold at risk shipping in the Strait that does not follow its rules for transit.

“Iran has repeatedly stated that the situation in the Strait of Hormuz will not return to what it was before the U.S. attack on Iran,” the official Iranian IRIB media outlet stated on X. “Any transit through the Strait must follow the routes announced by Iran; otherwise, the security of vessels cannot be guaranteed.”

UPDATE: 8:05 PM EDT-

The IRGC Navy claims it “struck American military targets in the region in retaliation for earlier aggression against Iranian coastal areas,” the official Iranian Press TV media outlet reported.

“The force made the remarks in a statement issued on Friday, saying its reprisal ‘targeted the deployment sites of the US terrorist military in the region,’” the outlet added.

However, there was no visual proof provided of any attack.

CENTCOM declined comment.