conflict

WASHINGTON — Ethnic war in Kosovo is provoking a kind of civil war inside the Republican Party.

In rapid fashion, the conflict in the Balkans is widening a fissure in the GOP over America’s role in the world. While Democrats mostly have supported President Clinton’s course, Republicans are being torn in diametrical directions as Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic’s forces systematically expel hundreds of thousands of ethnic Albanians from Kosovo.

On one side, a band of traditional GOP internationalists–led by Sen. John McCain of Arizona–is urging Clinton to escalate the campaign against Milosevic, even to the point of sending ground troops to drive the Serbian forces from Kosovo.

On the other side, an assertive group of conservative nationalists–led by presidential hopeful Patrick J. Buchanan, but extending into Congress–is arguing that the United States should bring its forces home now and leave the problem to the Europeans. “I think . . . we should tell our partners, ‘Look, we’ve expended, almost exhausted our resources. . . . Now on May 1st, we’re going to be out of there and then you take over from there,”’ Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) argued Sunday.

This dispute marks the first real division in the Republican presidential campaign and, more importantly, a continued shift in the GOP’s center of gravity away from the internationalism that defined it through the Cold War.

Many in the GOP now appear increasingly drawn to an updated version of the old “fortress America” doctrine in which the United States increases its spending on defense but reduces its commitments abroad. Supporters describe this impulse as hard-headed nationalism. Critics, in both parties, deride it as isolationism.

“Republican foreign policy is now mired in pathetic incoherence,” the conservative Weekly Standard magazine said in an editorial last week.

In the first half of the century, the GOP was closely divided between internationalists and isolationists. When the Cold War dawned after World War II, that balance of power tilted toward the internationalists–whose victory was sealed by Dwight D. Eisenhower’s triumph over isolationist Sen. Robert A. Taft of Ohio for the GOP presidential nomination in 1952.

For nearly the next four decades, internationalists dedicated to containment of the Soviet Union held the upper hand in the GOP–even while isolationist sentiment in the Democratic Party grew after the Vietnam War.

A Role Reversal for Democrats, GOP

But the collapse of the Soviet Union eliminated the central rationale for engagement abroad among conservatives and has precipitated something of a role reversal between the parties during Clinton’s presidency. That process has reached a peak in the last few weeks with Republicans leading the opposition to U.S. involvement in Kosovo and Democrats (including many who opposed Vietnam) insisting on America’s obligation to ensure stability abroad.

When the Senate voted last month to authorize airstrikes in Kosovo, 70% of Senate Republicans voted no. Earlier, three-quarters of House Republicans voted against the use of American troops as part of an eventual North Atlantic Treaty Organization peace-keeping force in Kosovo. Virtually all Democrats in both chambers backed Clinton.

Those figures partly reflect Republican skepticism about Clinton’s ability to manage a military conflict and their sheer distrust of the president. But most analysts also see larger forces at work.

“It’s a complex fabric that’s giving us this situation here, from congressional feelings toward this president to the post Cold War fault lines,” said Marshall Wittmann, director of congressional relations at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

It is possible that tensions could sharpen among Democrats, too, if Clinton eventually asks for ground troops. But so far Democrats have offered little dissent from the president’s course.

On the other hand, the outbreak of fighting has widened the disagreement among Republicans. Overshadowed during congressional debates on Kosovo last month, internationalist Republicans have raised their voices since the bombings began.

Most ubiquitous has been McCain. Last week, McCain put off the formal announcement of his bid for the GOP presidential nomination in 2000, saying that it was inappropriate while NATO was at war in Kosovo. But he has been inescapable on television arguing for an escalation against Milosevic, including the use of ground troops if necessary.

“For us to rule out any capability we have to bring this war to a successful conclusion is a mistake,” McCain said.

Others in this camp include Republican Sens. Richard G. Lugar of Indiana and Charles Hagel of Nebraska, 1996 GOP presidential nominee Bob Dole and–more gingerly–Elizabeth Hanford Dole, who has not explicitly backed ground troops but said last week that “no options should be taken off the table.”

In a slightly different place are Republicans–led by former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger–who opposed the original decision to intervene in Kosovo but now say that NATO must do whatever it takes to defeat Milosevic to maintain its credibility.

Yet it remains unclear how much support these internationalists still command in the GOP.

Apart from McCain and Elizabeth Dole, the only other Republican contender who has accepted the possible use of ground troops is Texas Gov. George W. Bush–though his comments have been so tangled and conditional that the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page labeled them “Clintonian.”

Half of the GOP contenders–including former Vice President Dan Quayle and Ohio Rep. John R. Kasich–have opposed the bombing mission from the outset.

On Sunday, Inhofe and Buchanan raised the ante by calling for Clinton to cut off the military action already underway. Jack Kemp, the GOP’s 1996 vice presidential nominee, last week also urged Clinton to call off the attack and reopen negotiations. Rep. Tom Campbell (R-San Jose), who has criticized the mission, plans to introduce a resolution shortly that would require an up or down vote in Congress on whether to end American involvement.

Republicans opposed to the Kosovo mission extend beyond isolationist figures like Buchanan toward leaders with previously unquestioned credentials as internationalists–like Kemp and Quayle. But the GOP case against involvement is resurfacing arguments that echo earlier generations of isolationist thinking on the right.

One line of thought revives pre-Cold War conservative skepticism about excessive U.S. involvement in Europe. Quayle and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) have argued over the last week that, if troops are required in Kosovo, European nations alone should provide them.

Most foreign policy analysts consider that an impractical prescription since the European governments have made clear that they will not commit troops unless the United States does.

Concerns About U.S. Military Deployments

A related line of Republican thinking on Kosovo echoes earlier “fortress America” thinking. This argument holds that Clinton has invested U.S. forces in too many conflicts–from Bosnia to Haiti to Kosovo–that do not truly threaten America’s vital interests.

By making so many deployments, these conservatives insist, Clinton is depleting the U.S. ability to respond to a true crisis–especially because they believe he has not provided enough funds for defense. As Kasich put it recently: “The United States has to maintain its strength and power so it can preserve stability in the world.”

Much like Clinton, the GOP internationalists think that argument is almost exactly backward. They argue that the United States cannot hold its position of world leadership if it walks away from a crisis of this magnitude.

The test of strength for these competing arguments could come in the weeks ahead if Clinton decides to seek congressional support for ground troops.

Iranian and US forces have continued to exchange strikes despite an April ceasefire, fuelling tensions across the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, while raising fears the fragile truce could unravel as mediation efforts continue in Doha.

On Monday, the United States Central Command (CENTCOM) said it carried out new strikes on southern Iran, targeting missile sites and boats allegedly attempting to place naval mines. It said the attacks had been carried out in “self-defence” to protect US troops from threats posed by Iranian forces.

On Tuesday, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said it had downed a US drone and fired at a jet and another drone that entered Iranian airspace, according to state media. Iran also said it retained the “legitimate and definite” right to respond to any violations of the ceasefire.

Since a temporary ceasefire was announced on April 8, Iran has continued to control shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, through which one-fifth of the world’s oil and natural gas supplies are shipped in peacetime, while US forces have enforced a corresponding blockade on Iranian ports. Negotiations for a long-term ceasefire are ongoing, but repeated military flare-ups in the meantime underscore the deep mistrust between the two sides, experts say, as Iran and the US jostle for leverage amid a back-and-forth of peace proposals from both sides.

Here is what has happened since the ceasefire:

April 8: Ceasefire announced after 40 days of war

The US and Israel launched strikes on Iran on February 28, as negotiations between Washington and Tehran progressed via mediators, amid claims that Iran was developing nuclear weapons. While the US and Israel provided no evidence to support their allegation, Iran continued to deny. It responded with missiles and drones targeting Israel and US military and infrastructure assets in the Gulf region and the wider Middle East.

On April 8, following mediation by Pakistan, the two sides agreed to a two-week pause in fighting to allow for further negotiations. Delegations from both countries met in Islamabad on April 11 and 12, but failed to reach a broader agreement, with draft proposals exchanged through Pakistani mediators in an attempt to end the conflict. The ceasefire was extended to allow for more proposals to be exchanged.

At least 3,468 people – aged between eight months and 88 years – have been killed in US-Israeli attacks on Iran since February 28, according to its Ministry of Health. They included seven infants, 376 children and 496 women.

At least 26 Israelis have been killed and 7,791 wounded in Iranian attacks, while the US military has confirmed 13 combat-related deaths across the region. Dozens of people were also killed in the Gulf countries. Lebanon remains the worst hit in the region, where, despite a ceasefire, Israel continues to carry out attacks amid its ground invasion. More than 3,200 people have been killed, according to the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health.

April 10: Kuwait accuses Iran of drone attacks

The ceasefire faced near-immediate strain when Kuwait said seven drones entered its airspace on April 10. It accused Iran and allied armed groups of the attacks.

Kuwait’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned what it described as violations of its sovereignty and airspace. Separately, the US Department of State accused Iran-linked armed groups in Iraq of launching attacks from Iraqi territory. However, Iran denied any role in the attacks, saying it had not targeted any Gulf country since the ceasefire began.

April 12: US naval blockade deepens tensions

Four days into the ceasefire – and following the collapse of direct talks in Islamabad – the US announced a naval blockade targeting maritime traffic entering and leaving Iranian ports, after talks mediated by Pakistan collapsed. The US argued that Iran had benefitted from continuing to export oil, while the Strait of Hormuz was closed to nearly all other shipping.

The blockade formally came into effect the following day, although Washington said vessels travelling to non-Iranian ports would be allowed past.

Iran condemned the move as “illegal”, warning that ports in the Gulf region would not be safe if Iranian ports were threatened.

The blockade came after Iran tightened its control over shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, restricting some foreign ships while allowing passage to countries it viewed as friendly.

The International Maritime Organization has said no country has the right to block shipping in international transit straits.

April 18-22: Ship seizures, attacks at sea

On April 18, Iranian forces fired on two Indian ships in the Strait of Hormuz, which it said did not have permission to pass.

Maritime tensions escalated further on April 20, when US forces seized an Iranian container ship near the Gulf in a move Iran described as an “act of piracy“. CENTCOM and US President Donald Trump said the vessel, the Iran-flagged Touska, had ignored orders to withdraw from its route through the Strait of Hormuz.

Days later, on April 22, the IRGC fired on three ships in the strait and seized two foreign container vessels, the Panama-flagged MSC Francesca and the Liberian-flagged Epaminondas, saying they lacked authorisation to transit the waterway.

The incident came the day after Trump extended the ceasefire while maintaining the US naval blockade on Iranian ports.

May 4: UAE refinery fire blamed on Iran

On May 4, the United Arab Emirates accused Iran of launching missiles and drones at the country, triggering a fire at an oil refinery in Fujairah and wounding three Indian nationals.

The UAE said its air defences had intercepted 12 ballistic missiles, three cruise missiles and four drones launched from Iran. Abu Dhabi condemned what it described as “unprovoked Iranian attacks” on civilian infrastructure.

The UAE said the attacks were the first on its territory since the ceasefire had commenced on April 8. The strikes came as Trump launched a new effort to escort stranded oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, much of which had remained closed since the war began.

Iran’s military warned commercial vessels against accepting US escorts and threatened to attack if they entered the strait. Trump abandoned the effort after one day.

May 14: Commercial vessels targeted again

On May 14, an Indian cargo ship transporting livestock from Africa to the UAE sank off the coast of Oman, while the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations reported that “unauthorised personnel” boarded another vessel near Fujairah and redirected it towards Iran.

India condemned the attack, saying commercial shipping and civilian sailors continued to be targeted despite the ceasefire.

May 17: Drone strike close to UAE’s Barakah nuclear plant

A drone strike has sparked a fire on the perimeter of the Barakah Nuclear Energy Plant in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), raising new concerns over a potential new regional escalation amid a fragile ceasefire between Iran and the United States.

Authorities in Abu Dhabi said the blaze broke out at an electrical generator outside the plant’s inner perimeter in the Al Dhafra region on Sunday. No injuries were reported, and officials said radiation levels remained normal. The UAE did not specifically blame Iran, but said the drones ⁠had been launched from the “western border”.

May 17: Drones intercepted in Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia also said it intercepted three drones fired from Iraqi airspace. The Saudi ⁠defence ministry said it would take “necessary operational measures” in the event of any attempt to violate its sovereignty and security.

Talks continue despite distrust

Diplomatic efforts to secure a broader peace agreement are continuing. Senior officials from Iran travelled to Qatar this week for negotiations aimed at ending the US-Israel war on Iran, with discussions reportedly focused on the release of frozen Iranian assets.

Iran is also seeking sanctions relief for its oil and petrochemical exports during a proposed 60-day period to hold talks about its nuclear programme. A further proposed 30-day timeframe would see the US lift its blockade of Iranian oil ports while Tehran restores commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

Tehran is also seeking guarantees related to a ceasefire in Lebanon, where Israel continues to strike and occupy towns and villages in the south of the country. Meanwhile, Trump is reportedly attempting to link the negotiations to efforts for Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Pakistan to normalise ties with Israel under the Abraham Accords.

Analysts say any agreement remains politically sensitive, with deep distrust persisting as all sides seek leverage to secure a deal they can present domestically as a victory.

Tehran, Iran – “The fundamental principle is distrust towards America” – this is how senior lawmaker Abbas Moghtadaei described the situation to state television on Tuesday afternoon.

It came after an Iranian delegation, led by Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, returned to Tehran from Qatar amid efforts to reach an understanding with the United States on ending the nearly three-month-long war on the country.

Hours earlier, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs accused Washington of committing a “blatant violation” of the shaky ceasefire reached on April 8 by attacking the southern province of Hormozgan on Monday night. It added that the strikes validated the “deep suspicion” Iran harboured towards the US.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said Iranian armed forces fired back and shot down a US-made RQ-4 drone, using a domestically-made air defence system called Arash-e Kamangir – named after a hero in Persian mythology. State television aired footage of the remains of a downed drone.

The US military said it was hitting missile launch sites and Iranian boats attempting to lay sea mines in a “defensive” move, but IRGC commanders said they have the right to retaliate.

On Tuesday afternoon, a tanker reported an external explosion and fuel leak some 60 nautical miles (about 111 kilometres) east of Oman’s capital city Muscat, according to British maritime intelligence. Iranian officials did not comment on the incident.

The escalation comes as the two sides try to hammer out the final details of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoM) that could potentially facilitate increased transit through the Strait of Hormuz, which has largely frozen since the US and Israel launched a wave of strikes on Iran on February 28.

The deal would also grant Iran access to some of its own overseas funds that have been frozen due to US sanctions and offer a pathway for a future agreement over the country’s nuclear programme.

Nicole Grajewski, an assistant professor at Sciences Po’s Center for International Research, said many in the Iranian leadership appear concerned that an agreement could simply provide operational pause, intelligence access or political cover before the US and Israel launch another round of large-scale attacks on the country.

“For the deal to be politically sellable internally, Tehran likely needs to frame it not as capitulation under military pressure but as a managed stabilisation that preserved core sovereign red lines,” she told Al Jazeera.

“That probably means maintaining some form of enrichment capability for now, avoiding immediate surrender of the stockpile, securing meaningful sanctions or asset relief, and preserving regional deterrence structures, at least formally outside the agreement.”

‘Negotiating with the enemy is pure loss’

From relatively moderate Iranian politicians in the government to the most hardline military-security factions, all have pledged that the Islamic Republic will not accede to a deal that amounts to “surrender”.

President Masoud Pezeshkian told state television earlier this week that he wants to assure the international community “we are not after nuclear weapons, we are not after insecurity in the region”.

But Majid Mousavi, the influential aerospace commander of the IRGC, wrote in a post on X, in reference to former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: “As our martyred imam said, negotiating with the enemy is pure loss.”

Mousavi said he would follow the orders of the country’s new supreme leader, Khamenei’s son Mojtaba, who said in a message to mark the Muslim festival of Eid al-Adha on Tuesday, that “nations and territories of the region will no longer be the shield of American bases”. He also predicted that Israel would no longer exist in 15 years’ time, as foreshadowed by his slain father.

Ali Abdollahi, the commander of the Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters and a leading figure in the war, made a first public appearance on Monday to urge the Iranian armed forces to make the “defeat” of the enemy a priority.

“The Americans talk too much and keep changing their story in a moment. We’ve said many times that we will show on the battlefield what we are capable of,” he told state television on the sidelines of a ceremony in Tehran to commemorate Iranian leaders killed during the war.

In his first public message as the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, released on Monday, Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr, who is also a top IRGC general, pledged, “there will be no retreat”.

IRGC commander Ahmad Vahidi has also expressed readiness to resume military confrontations with the US if necessary.

Alex Vatanka, senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, said decision-makers in Tehran are not just concerned about a ‘bad deal’ but also one that could force Iran to give up key leverage in the event of future disputes.

“Hardliners are especially alarmed by any discussion involving Hormuz, sanctions sequencing or nuclear concessions because they increasingly view coercive leverage, especially maritime pressure, as Iran’s main post-war bargaining asset,” he told Al Jazeera. That is why the debate inside Tehran has shifted from ‘should we negotiate?’ to ‘what exactly are we giving up?” he told Al Jazeera.

For a deal to succeed, the Iranian leadership will need to believe that some sanctions relief will be tangible and fast, he added.

Iran will also seek to preserve enough of a deterrence mechanism and symbolic dignity to avoid looking defeated, and ensure that the agreement prevents another war from breaking out in the future.

But as it stands – and there is scant information on it – Vatanka said the emerging memorandum “looks less like a historic peace settlement and more like a ceasefire-management mechanism designed to buy time, reduce immediate war risks, reopen parts of Hormuz, and defer the hardest nuclear questions into later rounds”. This would mean lingering suspicion and uncertainty would persist.

Concern for assassination

Iranian state media pundits have also claimed that senior Iranian figures would be vulnerable to assassination if military operations resume.

“If the US, at any point during the current agreement talks, gains access to our supreme leader, it will strike without any consideration for its other interests or consideration for intermediaries like Pakistan and Qatar,” Nima Akbarkhani, an IRGC-linked pundit, said on state television on Tuesday.

Ali Samadzadeh, another state-linked analyst, claimed the emerging US-Iranian agreement could even be a “honeypot” scheme to draw out leaders.

According to US media outlets, Khamenei, who has not been seen or heard from in public since the start of the war, except for written messages attributed to him, is hiding in an undisclosed secure location where even many government officials have no access to him. US officials have said this has slowed the process of talks.

Sciences Po’s Grajewski said over the next few days, the key issue for the Islamic Republic will be securing internal approval. Hardline factions will also scrutinise any concessions made to the US, even those made as part of a crisis-management memorandum that leaves more difficult issues to be faced at a later date.

“So, the realistic outcome in the near term is probably an unstable interim arrangement rather than a comprehensive settlement,” she said.

“Whether it evolves into something more durable depends almost entirely on whether the follow-on nuclear negotiations produce concrete mechanisms both sides can live with.”

It has been almost nine months since rebel groups imposed a fuel blockade on Mali’s capital Bamako. In late April, the conflict escalated further. The Al-Qaeda-affiliated Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM), along with members of Tuareg separatist movements, launched a coordinated attack on the Malian army and its Russian allies, the African Corps (formerly Wagner), which killed the Malian Defence Minister Sadio Camara.

The rebels seized control of military camps, recaptured the largest northern city of Kidal, and tightened the blockade on Bamako. This latest offensive is part of a long series of rebellions in what the Tuareg call Azawad, an area comprising the regions of Timbuktu, Taoudenit, Kidal, and Gao, which is predominantly populated by Tuareg communities.

The present crisis is compounded by the weakening of the Malian state following the 2021 coup and foreign intervention. In the absence of any serious effort to address it, instability could spill over across the whole Sahel region.

Ever since the country announced independence from France in 1960, Mali’s north has seen repeated upheaval as local Tuareg communities have demanded self-determination. Fourteen years ago, Tuareg groups allied with groups affiliated with al-Qaeda launched yet another rebellion. They managed to seize several cities in northern Mali, and had it not been for a French military intervention in 2013, they could have marched on Bamako.

Two French operations resulted in the weakening of the Tuareg movements and groups affiliated with al-Qaeda. This helped persuade them to participate in negotiations with the government, which ultimately ended with the signing of the Algiers Accords in 2015.

One of the most prominent clauses of this agreement was decentralisation in the Azawad region, which gave local leaders more power. Through this agreement, the Malian government secured the country’s territorial integrity in return for promises like the enhancement of development in the Azawad region, the integration of separatist fighters into the army, and the appointment of their leaders to political positions.

These accords helped maintain relative stability in Mali and the Sahel region by containing the sources of tension and secessionist calls. However, peace did not last long. Several challenges emerged, the most important of which was the failure of the government to honour its commitments to implement development projects in the north.

The situation got worse after the 2021 military coup led by General Assimi Goita. France, Algeria, and members of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) refused to recognise the new authorities in Bamako. As a result, in 2022, the military government expelled French troops, and in 2024, abolished the Algiers Agreement. Thereafter, instead of diplomacy and dialogue, it adopted a militarised approach to controlling the restive north.

These steps strained Mali’s relations with Mauritania, Algeria, and France, with Bamako accusing them of providing logistical support to the rebels and interfering in its internal affairs. Consequently, the Malian state was weakened militarily and economically, as military coordination and trade with neighbours declined.

JNIM and the separatist movements exploited the situation. They sought to choke the capital by attacking key transport arteries where most imports and exports are routed. They disrupted supplies of gasoline and diesel coming from Senegal and the Ivory Coast, and began attacking Moroccan trucks carrying food supplies via Mauritania.

Like in 2012, the alliance between the Tuareg movements and al-Qaeda affiliates has proven successful. It has routed the Malian military, capturing more territory and operating freely close to Bamako.

This time, foreign forces have not been able to help the Malian army, as its Russian allies were forced to withdraw following the attack in late April. Meanwhile, Turkiye has seen its involvement in Mali grow amid growing instability. In early May, following the attacks on the Malian military, Ankara signed several defence agreements with the Malian military government.

The danger here is that the Malian crisis may not be contained only within the political crisis between the government and the separatist movements. It could also invite more foreign intervention as regional and global rivalries transfer onto Malian territory.

There is also the issue of the alliance between Azawadi movements and al-Qaeda affiliates, which could prove to be a ticking time bomb. There are clear contradictions within this relationship, as the two sides have no common ground except the agreement to overthrow the military regime in Bamako. This is why a future war in the north between the Azawadi movements and the Islamist groups is quite likely.

The Malian crisis inevitably has regional repercussions. The ongoing humanitarian crisis could trigger a major migration wave towards Europe and North America. Continuing instability in the north could open more space for the growth of extremist movements, which can expand their attacks across the region. Consequently, the Malian crisis can become a direct security threat to neighbouring countries, the region, and the world.

As the situation stands now, no warring side is able to achieve a decisive military victory. Therefore, a resolution of the conflict can only be achieved through dialogue and negotiation. Bamako needs to seriously consider the grievances of Tuareg communities in the north and their demands.

It is in the collective interest of neighbouring countries and regional powers to bring the parties to the negotiating table and seek peaceful solutions to this crisis. Under the threat of a regional spillover, there is no time to waste.

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

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has announced that her country will host the Iranian national football team during the upcoming FIFA World Cup, due to tensions with the United States.

On Monday, Sheinbaum said that FIFA, the global football governing body, had approached Mexico about hosting Iran, after the US said it did not wish to do so.

“We have no reason to deny them the possibility of staying in Mexico,” Sheinbaum said during her daily media conference.

Previously, Iran had been scheduled to play all three of its group matches in the US.

But the administration of US President Donald Trump has previously said it is not “appropriate” for Iranian team members to be in the country, “for their own life and safety”.

It has yet to grant the Iranian team the necessary visas to travel to the US, despite Trump’s assertion that players and staff would be “welcome”.

Since February 28, the US and Israel have been at war with Iran, and peace negotiations are tense but ongoing.

The head of Iran’s football federation, Mehdi Taj, confirmed on Sunday that the team planned to move its training base from Tucson, Arizona, to the Mexican border city of Tijuana.

Taj explained that team leaders got approval for the move after meeting with FIFA officials in Istanbul, as well as holding an online conference with FIFA’s Secretary General, Mattias Grafstrom.

Switching the team’s base to Mexico, Taj said, would help avoid visa complications, with the team able to travel directly to Mexico aboard Iran Air flights.

But the US-Israeli war against Iran has cast a pall over the World Cup, making the Iranian team’s participation uncertain.

Roughly 3,468 people have been killed in Iran since February’s war began, and more than 26,500 have been injured. Further fatalities have been reported across the region.

The war has also thrown the global economy into turmoil, driving up the costs of fuel and agricultural fertiliser, among other goods.

Iran’s football team has long been a top squad in its region: It currently ranks near the top of the Asian Football Confederation. Its participation in the 2026 tournament marks its fourth straight World Cup qualification.

Trump, however, has sent mixed messages about Iran’s presence at the World Cup, suggesting at times that Iran should sit out the tournament. At other moments, he has expressed ambivalence.

In March, for instance, Politico asked Trump about Iran’s presence at the World Cup. Trump reportedly responded, “I really don’t care”, before calling Iran a “badly defeated country”.

The US, Mexico and Canada are co-hosting the games, with 78 matches in the US alone, including the final. Kick off is on June 11.

Iran is set to play its first two Group G matches in Los Angeles against New Zealand on June 15 and Belgium on June 21, before facing off against Egypt in Seattle on June 26.

The Trump administration’s hardline approach to immigration has raised additional concerns about whether the US will be a welcoming host for fans from around the world.

Already, Trump has moved to suspend visa processing for applicants from nearly 75 countries, including Iran, Brazil, Colombia, Ivory Coast and Senegal, which have teams at the World Cup.

Residents from some of those countries, however, are not required to receive visas to enter the US for short-term visits.

On Monday, Sheinbaum explained that she had been approached by the Iranian team and FIFA officials for help hosting players and staff.

“The United States doesn’t want the Iranian team to spend the night,” Sheinbaum said. “So they asked us, ‘Can we stay the night in Mexico?’ We said sure, no problem.’”

At least 24 people were killed and more than 50 injured when a suicide car bomb detonated on a train carrying soldiers in Quetta, capital of the southwestern Pakistani province of Balochistan, on Sunday.

The attack came amid Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s four-day visit to China, and the day before his meeting in Beijing with China’s President Xi Jinping, marking 75 years of diplomatic ties between the two nations.

Pakistan is among an exclusive group of countries China regards as an “all-weather strategic partner”, with ties featuring close economic, trade and security cooperation.

Responsibility for the train attack was claimed by the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA), an armed Baloch separatist group which, apart from calling for an independent state, also strongly objects to large-scale Chinese investment in the region.

While the BLA has long carried out attacks that have killed civilians and members of the security forces in Balochistan and beyond, there has been a recent uptick in such incidents.

We examine what is behind this increase in attacks:

What happened in Sunday’s attack?

Reporting from the scene, Al Jazeera’s Kamal Hyder said several houses and buildings adjacent to the railway line were severely damaged in the blast, which caused train carriages to overturn and catch fire.

According to local media reports, a state of emergency was declared at public hospitals in Quetta, with doctors and other medical staff ordered to remain on duty.

Footage shared online showed charred vehicles and train carriages lying on their sides, with thick plumes of black smoke rising into the sky.

Pakistan has experienced several attacks by separatist groups in recent months. The attacks have increased in ferocity and have also targeted Chinese workers amid protests over Beijing-backed infrastructural projects in Balochistan.

As part of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor project – one of the main arms of China’s “Belt and Road Initiative” designed to improve trading routes – China’s Xinjiang region has been connected to Pakistan’s deep-sea Gwadar port on the Arabian Sea in Balochistan.

Pakistani Prime Minister Sharif condemned Sunday’s train attack in Quetta in a post on X.

“Such cowardly acts of terrorism cannot weaken the resolve of the people of Pakistan. We remain steadfast in our determination to eliminate terrorism in all its forms and manifestations,” he said.

He added that while initial reports indicated a suicide bombing, this has not been officially confirmed. If it is, Yunas Samad, an emeritus professor of South Asian Studies at the University of Bradford in the UK, told Al Jazeera, “this would reflect tactics that insurgent organisations in the region have increasingly adopted over recent years”.

“There are also persistent claims regarding the circulation of sophisticated weaponry originating from stockpiles left behind after the US withdrawal from Afghanistan,” he said.

Are we seeing a new phase of armed separatist attacks in Balochistan?

According to research gathered by the independent, Islamabad-based think tank Pakistan Institute for Peace Studies, Balochistan recorded at least 254 attacks in 2025 – roughly 26 percent more than in 2024.

A December 2025 report published by independent conflict monitor Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED) found that separatists had also intensified attacks and pressure on security forces. The report said the number of attacks using improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and grenades, mainly targeting convoys and police stations, grew by more than 65 percent in the first 11 months of 2025, compared to the same time period in 2024.

The Global Terrorism Index (GTI) report this year found that there has been more Baloch armed group activity in Pakistan in 2025 as well. The GTI is an annual report published by the Australia-based independent think tank Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP).

Its 2026 report states that the BLA was responsible for Pakistan’s largest terror attack of 2025 – when the Jaffar Express, a train travelling from Quetta to Peshawar, was hijacked in March.

The BLA claimed responsibility and reported that six military personnel had been killed. Hundreds of people were taken hostage from the train, which was carrying 400 passengers.

“What can reasonably be said is that, following the earlier coordinated attack on the Jaffar Express, the Pakistani authorities appear to have intensified security measures around transport infrastructure, military personnel and key lines of communication,” Samad, of Bradford University, told Al Jazeera.

“The fact that this latest incident nevertheless occurred may suggest that militant groups retain a significant operational capability despite those efforts,” he noted.

The group stunned Pakistan’s security establishment in 2022 when it ‌stormed army and navy bases. In August 2024, militants carried out coordinated ⁠attacks across Balochistan, including highway assaults in which passengers were pulled from buses and shot after identity checks.

“While statistics in such conflicts are always contested and should be treated cautiously, they do indicate that the intensity of the conflict has not significantly diminished,” Samad said.

“Whether this constitutes an entirely ‘new phase’ is perhaps too strong a conclusion at present. However, it does appear to indicate a degree of resurgence in militant capability and confidence among sections of the Baloch insurgency.”

Who are the BLA and major Baloch armed groups?

The BLA, which has a suicide squad called the Majeed Brigade, says it is fighting for the independence of Balochistan, a province located in Pakistan’s southwest and bordering Afghanistan to the north and ⁠Iran to the west.

It is the largest of several ethnic separatist groups that have been fighting the federal government for decades. Balochistan’s mountainous border region serves as a safe haven and training ground for both Baloch separatist fighters and Islamist armed groups.

The BLA often targets infrastructure and security forces in Balochistan, but has also struck in other areas – most notably the southern port city of Karachi.

The BLA has deployed women suicide bombers, including in an attack on Chinese nationals in Karachi, and was designated a “foreign terrorist organisation” by the United States in August 2025 in a move welcomed by the Pakistani government. Analysts say BLA is particularly known for its ability to recruit young, often well-educated fighters.

The group, separately, was at the centre of tit-for-tat strikes in 2024 between Iran and Pakistan over what each said were armed group bases on each other’s territory, which brought the neighbours to the brink of war.

What is the Baloch cause?

Home to about 15 million of Pakistan’s roughly 240 million people, according to the 2023 census, Balochistan is the country’s poorest region despite its wealth of natural resources, including coal, gold, copper and gas.

These resources generate significant revenue for the federal government – unfairly, according to the BLA, which wants Balochistan’s natural wealth to belong to its people and rejects federal control over resource extraction and security.

The province is Pakistan’s largest by area, but smallest by population. It has a long Arabian Sea coastline, not far from the Gulf’s Strait of Hormuz oil shipping lane.

Balochistan is also home to one of Pakistan’s major deep-sea ports at Gwadar, a crucial trade corridor for China’s $65bn investment in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a wing of President Xi Jinping’s Belt and Road initiative.

The province is home to key mining projects, including Reko Diq, which is operated by Canadian mining giant Barrick Gold and is believed to be one of the world’s largest gold and copper mines.

China also operates a gold and copper mine in Balochistan.

The province – which was annexed by Pakistan in 1948, six months after partition from India in August 1947 – has a long history of marginalisation. It has since experienced at least five separatist uprisings.

Separatist sentiment was particularly high in the 2000s, around the time the BLA emerged. Analysts of Baloch resistance movements say it was led by Balach Marri, the son of veteran Baloch nationalist leader Nawab Khair Bakhsh Marri.

After the government of military ruler Pervez Musharraf killed prominent Baloch nationalist leader Nawab Akbar Bugti in 2006, the separatist movement escalated.

Rebel fighters have targeted Pakistan’s army and Chinese interests, in particular the strategic port of Gwadar on the Arabian Sea, accusing Beijing of helping Islamabad to exploit the province. Fighters have killed Chinese citizens working in the region and attacked Beijing’s consulate and language centre in Karachi.

More recently, the BLA has also attacked civilians and migrant labourers from other provinces, a shift that officials say marks an escalation in tactics.

Pakistan accuses India and Afghanistan of backing Baloch armed fighters, an allegation both countries deny.

“Baloch separatist groups themselves have, at times, sought to internationalise their cause and last year publicly appealed for diplomatic recognition by India,” Samad said.

“However, establishing clear evidence of direct state support is considerably more difficult, and much of the discussion in this area remains politically contested.”

Hundreds of Baloch activists, many of them women, have protested in Islamabad and Balochistan over alleged abuses by security forces – accusations the government denies.

Over time, the BLA has set itself apart as a group explicitly committed to Balochistan’s full independence from Pakistan. Unlike more moderate Baloch nationalist parties, which press politically for greater provincial autonomy, the BLA has consistently rejected compromise.

Why is this significant now?

Regional stability and international investment

The attack comes as Prime Minister Sharif meets with China’s President Xi in Beijing to discuss economic and security cooperation – something the BLA is strongly opposed to.

The movement could pose a challenge to Pakistan’s attempts to retain Chinese and American investment, experts say, if it reveals a deeper instability.

The Baloch separatist movement is one of the major unresolved questions over Pakistan’s statehood. It is a constant reminder of the challenges of the Pakistani state to stay united, they say.

“More broadly, the persistence of insurgency has had implications for Pakistan’s wider political system,” Samad explained. “Security concerns in Balochistan have increasingly shaped governance and political discourse, strengthening the role of the military and security establishment in national affairs and undermining the democratisation process.”

“Internationally, the issue matters because Pakistan remains a nuclear-armed state of enormous strategic importance,” Samad told Al Jazeera.

“While speculation about state fragmentation is highly premature, any significant escalation in internal instability in a country with nuclear capabilities inevitably attracts international concern. For that reason alone, developments in Balochistan are likely to remain closely watched both regionally and globally.”

Rare-earth metals

Another major issue is that geological assessments suggest Balochistan contains 12 of the 17 rare-earth minerals on the periodic table. Rare earths are critical minerals used to manufacture a vast array of modern items, including batteries, clocks, wiring, military hardware, smartphones and semiconductors, among other technological products.

Since the start of his second term, US President Donald Trump has repeatedly pushed plans to diversify Washington’s stockpile of critical minerals in order to reduce reliance on China, which currently dominates the supply and processing of the world’s rare-earth minerals.

When Pakistan’s Prime Minister Sharif met with Trump at the White House in September 2025, he offered the US access to critical minerals and rare earths.

Then, in December 2025, the US announced a $1.25bn investment in critical minerals mining at Reko Diq to drive “economic growth in Balochistan”.

Tehran, Iran – Iran and the United States have evoked historical and geographical references to the MENA region as the world awaits the announcement of a possible deal to end the conflict between the two countries.

Iranian officials have revived key moments in the nation’s history to drive forward a message of a David-versus-Goliath battle between the two sides, with the underdog ultimately victorious.

This comes as US President Donald Trump announced that a deal with Iran had been “largely negotiated”, with Tehran also indicating there could be an agreement soon. Both sides have been keen to portray any deal to end their 66-day conflict as a victory.

Historic messaging

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei drew parallels to the march of the Romans against the Persians in the third century, with the invading party ultimately being forced to “come to terms” with the latter.

Baghaei also posted an image of Roman Emperor Valerian after he was captured by Persia’s King Shapur I in the year 260. It is an illustration repeatedly drawn on by Iranian authorities in recent months to evoke nationalist sentiments and promote the idea that the country is again bravely standing up to another invading force.

Sunday also happened to mark the anniversary of a more recent conflict, when Iran – under a new revolutionary government still in place today – fought an eight-year war with its neighbour, Iraq, from 1980 to 1988.

Every year, the Islamic Republic celebrates the 1982 recapture of Khorramshahr, a city with an Arabic-speaking majority in the western Iranian province of Khuzestan.

Khorramshahr marked a turning point for the Iranian side in a protracted war that killed hundreds of thousands from both sides, with that battle being one of the bloodiest.

It has been used in government discourse and messaging during the latest war with the US and Israel to symbolise the country’s long history of resistance and determination to maintain the sovereignty of its lands.

Ahmad Vahidi, the commander-in-chief of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), used the battle to signal that Tehran would continue to fight the US and Israel in the region.

“The liberation of Khorramshahr is a lasting model for victory in future Khorramshahr, and the liberation of Quds sharif [Jerusalem], and the destruction of the evil Zionist regime by the axis of resistance and the fighters of the Islamic world,” he said, in reference to Israel.

Masoud Pezeshkian, Iran’s relatively moderate president, linked the event to the current standoff.

“Iran’s Khorramshahr today is the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz,” he wrote on X. “Resistance, sacrifice and fighting off aggression are rooted in the culture of this land.”

Preparing for peace

Mohammad Mokhber, an adviser to Iran’s slain Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said both former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and US President Donald Trump failed to fully recognise Iran’s power when starting a war.

“The first was buried in the trenches of Khorramshahr, while the second has been afflicted with a political crisis in a quagmire created by the Zionist regime,” he wrote on X.

Kazem Gharibabadi, a member of Iran’s negotiating team and its deputy foreign minister for international affairs, linked the issue of Khorramshahr with the United Nations Charter and the country’s current concerns.

“Any nation that falls victim to aggression and occupation has an intrinsic right for legitimate defence to safeguard its territory, independence and integrity,” he said.

Gharibabadi added that Tehran is currently following the same logic of “peace-seeking paired with power, diplomacy paired with integrity and decisive defence”.

First Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref said the recapture of the city in 1982 showed that the new government could defeat aggression on its own terms.

Tehran now aims to “overcome our savage enemy” through holding its ground, he wrote on X.

The latest barrage of messaging from leaders in Tehran came after Trump appeared to suggest that he wanted to take control of Iran.

On his Truth Social account on Saturday, the US president posted a photo of the US flag covering the map of Iran, with the question: “United States of the Middle East?”

In response, the X accounts of multiple Iranian embassies abroad posted a US map covered with the flag of the Islamic Republic, with the question: “United States of Iran?”

The Trump administration has emphasised that it wants a long-term suspension of uranium enrichment in Iran and the extraction of high-enriched nuclear material from the country.

It also wants the Strait of Hormuz – through which one-fifth of the world’s oil shipments normally pass, but which Iran has blockaded – reopened fully without any tolls from Iran, officials have said.

Israeli officials have remained largely silent about a US deal with Tehran, but have reportedly been pushing to resume the war.

Mohammad Abu Mallouh, ​Alaa Zaqlan and their child, Osama, killed in the attack on the Nuseirat refugee camp, medics say.

An Israeli air raid on a home in Gaza has killed three members of a family, including a six-month-old child, medical workers said, as Israel continues to violate the “ceasefire” brokered by the United States last year.

Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital in Deir el-Balah in central Gaza said it received the bodies of a couple and their young child in the early hours of Sunday morning.

Medics identified those killed in the attack on an apartment in the Nuseirat refugee camp as Mohammad Abu Mallouh, his wife Alaa Zaqlan, and their child Osama, the Reuters news agency reported.

Medical workers said about 10 people were wounded in the attack.

There was no immediate comment from the Israeli military.

Since the “ceasefire” came into effect in October, Israel has continued with its near-daily attacks across the besieged Palestinian territory, which Gaza health authorities say have killed nearly 900 people.

Reporting from Gaza City, Al Jazeera’s Hani Mahmoud said Israeli bombing began on Sunday as Palestinians were fleeing following forced displacement orders. He said many people ran while carrying personal belongings, including mattresses.

Separately, Israeli forces continued demolishing homes and civilian infrastructure in eastern Gaza on Sunday behind Israel’s so-called “Yellow Line”, referring to Israeli-designated military zones and buffer areas inside the enclave, he said.

Israeli jets also carried out air raids on Deir el-Balah in central Gaza on Sunday, causing extensive damage near a hospital, Mahmoud said.

Earlier this month, the Gaza Government Media Office said it had documented at least 2,400 Israeli violations in the first six months of the ceasefire, including more than 1,100 air raids and at least 921 shootings targeting civilians.

More than 72,000 Palestinians have been killed since Israel launched its genocidal war on Gaza in October 2023. Israeli officials acknowledged the data was broadly accurate in January, after casting doubt on their credibility for two years.

On Saturday, five police officers and a 13-year-old boy were killed in an Israeli attack.

Talks between Israel and Hamas aimed at reaching a permanent end to the war have stalled, with both sides accusing each other of violating the ceasefire. Israel says Hamas’s refusal to disarm is a key obstacle, while the Palestinian group says negotiations have been paused due to continued violations and restrictions on aid entering Gaza.

Earlier this week, Human Rights Watch said the territory’s humanitarian infrastructure remained in peril, more than six months after the start of the ceasefire.

Overnight Israeli strikes devastated the Nuseirat and Bureij refugee camps in central Gaza despite an ongoing ceasefire, injuring dozens. The strikes targeted residential areas, leaving behind piles of rubble. Israel has now destroyed or damaged around 90% of Gaza’s civilian infrastructure.

United States President Donald Trump has announced plans to deploy an additional 5,000 troops to Poland.

Trump announced the surprise deployment on social media late on Thursday, citing his friendship with right-wing Polish President Karol Nawrocki.

The move came days after a planned deployment to Poland was apparently scrapped and will deepen uncertainty surrounding the Trump administration’s approach to NATO allies and its long-term commitment to maintaining a military presence in Europe. It leaves European partners increasingly unclear about which areas they should prioritise as they formulate defence strategies.

“Based on the successful Election of the now President ⁠of Poland, Karol Nawrocki, who I was proud to Endorse, and our relationship with him, I am pleased to announce that the United States will be sending an additional 5,000 Troops to Poland,” Trump wrote.

Nawrocki welcomed the announcement on social media.

“Good alliances are those based on cooperation, mutual respect, and a commitment to our shared ‌security,” he wrote on Thursday evening.

Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski also welcomed the news on Friday, saying it ensures that “the presence of American troops in Poland will be maintained more or less at previous levels”.

About-face

The announced deployment is a sudden about-face from US declarations of plans to reduce military support to Europe under Trump’s “America First” doctrine.

The US president has for years been lambasting European NATO partners for failing to spend enough on defence. His opprobrium has risen in recent weeks as European states have criticised the US-Israeli war on Iran and refused to join the conflict.

The Pentagon abruptly announced a week ago that it was scrapping the planned deployment of 4,000 troops to Poland.

Earlier this month, Trump announced he was withdrawing 5,000 troops from Germany following a spat with Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who said Washington had been “humiliated” by Iranian negotiators.

The US president later said that he would be “cutting a lot further than 5,000”.

Polish officials have noted that Warsaw pays significant sums towards the cost of US troop deployments. The suggestion of a pullback has caused concern over security in Poland and elsewhere in Europe, as Russia’s war on neighbouring Ukraine continues, with the Trump administration largely ceasing efforts to mediate a ceasefire.

European states report that they are getting to grips with the need to replace US defence capabilities, albeit slowly. However, sources suggest that the erratic policies emerging from the White House are creating confusion over which elements should be prioritised.

“It is confusing indeed, and not always easy to navigate,” Swedish Foreign Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard told reporters ahead of hosting a meeting of NATO foreign ministers on Friday, which will be attended by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

US defence officials are also confused, according to the AP news agency.

“We just spent the better part of two weeks reacting to the first announcement. We don’t know what this means either,” said one official.

‘America First’

The US president has lashed out at fellow NATO members in recent months for failing to support the US-Israeli war on Iran, suggesting Washington could withdraw from the military alliance as a result.

State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott said Rubio would discuss the need for NATO allies to increase defence spending and shoulder greater responsibility at Friday’s meeting of NATO foreign ministers.

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, who has worked hard in recent months to attempt to soothe the US president’s displeasure with his alliance peers, welcomed Trump’s deployment to Poland and cautioned that Europe must become less reliant on the US.

Rubio said before meeting his NATO counterparts in Sweden: “Like any alliance, it ⁠has to be good ⁠for everyone who’s involved. There has to be a clear ⁠understanding of what the expectations are.” ⁠

He also suggested, however, that the meeting is likely to prove less than comfortable.

“The president’s views, frankly disappointment, at some of our NATO allies and their response to our operations in the Middle East – they’re well documented – that will have to be addressed,” he insisted, before adding “that won’t be solved or addressed today”.

While Rubio meets with NATO counterparts, senior Pentagon officials will brief partners at the alliance’s headquarters in Brussels about Washington’s commitment to European defence.

On Tuesday, the Pentagon announced it plans to reduce the number of combat brigades based in Europe from four to three.

Many of Washington’s allies in Europe remain frustrated with Trump’s handling of the war with Iran, which has damaged their economies and prompted some European leaders to question the reliability of the US.

European NATO countries also remain concerned about Trump’s threats to annex Greenland, which is an autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark, a NATO ally.

It remains unclear whether the deployment to Poland announced on Thursday includes the same soldiers as those the Pentagon said would no longer be deployed to the Central European country, or if they will include redeployments from Germany.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says Cuba poses a national security threat to the US.

United States President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have issued new threats of military action against Cuba.

Rubio told reporters late on Thursday that Cuba has been a national security threat for years because of its ties to US adversaries Russia and China, while Trump said he is likely to be the president to finally take action.

The Trump administration, with Cuban-American Rubio at the forefront, has been raising the pressure on the communist-led island in an apparent bid to institute “regime change,” including a fuel blockade that has put the Cuban economy on the edge of collapse.

The push has accelerated in recent days, with the US indicting Cuba’s former President Raul Castro and gathering military forces in the Caribbean.

Rejecting suggestions of “nation building,” Rubio told reporters the issue is one of “national security”. He added that while a negotiated agreement is the US “preference”, the path of diplomacy with Cuba is “not high”.

“Their economic system doesn’t work. It’s broken, and you can’t fix it with the current political system that’s in place,” Rubio said.

Over the years, Cuba has gotten used to “buying time and waiting us out,” Rubio said. “They’re not going to be able to wait us out or buy time. We’re very serious, we’re very focused.”

Separately, President Donald Trump told reporters that US presidents have considered intervening in Cuba for decades, but that it looks like he will be “the one that does it”, adding that he would be “happy” to do so.

In response, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez lambasted Rubio for falsely labelling Cuba a threat.

“The US secretary of state lies once again to instigate a military aggression that would provoke the shedding of Cuban and American blood,” Rodriguez said.

Raised tension

Since returning to office, Trump has slapped Cuba with numerous sanctions, implemented a fuel blockade and overseen a military build-up in the region.

The renewed threats on Thursday came amid rising tensions between the countries.

The US indicted Cuba’s former President Raul Castro on Wednesday, in connection with the 1996 downing of a plane.

On Thursday, Adys Lastres Morera – sister of a high-ranking executive of the Grupo de Administracion Empresarial SA (GAESA) conglomerate, which is controlled by Cuba’s military and controls large swaths of the economy – was arrested.

More sanctions were imposed on the Cuban government in the past week. The US military announced that several navy ships, including an aircraft carrier, had arrived in the Caribbean on Wednesday to take part in maritime exercises with partners in Latin America.

Rubio has noted that Cuba had earlier tentatively accepted an offer of $100m in aid in return for reforms. But he said it was unclear if the US would accept Cuba’s terms, as Washington insists on circumventing the military-backed conglomerate GAESA.

Analysts caution that Trump and Rubio are eyeing a similar course of action in Cuba to the regime change manufactured in Venezuela. Left-wing President Nicolas Maduro and his wife were kidnapped in a military operation in January. They were taken to the US, where Maduro was charged with “narcoterrorism”.

Rubio insists that Cuba poses a serious national security threat to the US because of its security and intelligence ties with China and Russia.

Both countries have criticised the US pressure on the island.

China said on Friday it “firmly supports” Cuba and urged the US to de-escalate tensions and “stop threatening force”.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said: “We believe that under no circumstances should such methods – which border on violence – be used against either former or current heads of state.”

EXPLAINER

US and Iran continue mediated talks, exchanging draft proposals aimed at reaching a formal agreement.

Iran and the United States are continuing mediated talks aimed at ending the conflict, with Iranian media reporting that both sides are exchanging messages and draft proposals to establish a formal framework for an agreement.

Al Jazeera’s correspondent Almigdad Alruhaid reported from Tehran that Pakistani officials were engaged in “intense mediation activity” between the two countries.

The diplomatic push comes as US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said there were “some good signs” for a possible breakthrough. However, US President Donald Trump also warned Washington could take “very drastic” action if Iran refuses to give up its uranium stockpiles.

Here is what we know:

In Iran

• ‘War crime’ on medical research centre: Iran has accused the US and Israel of committing a “war crime” by bombing the Pasteur Institute of Iran early in the war, after The Lancet journal warned that the attack severely damaged a key pillar of the country’s public health system.

• Thousands rescued from rubble: The Iranian Red Crescent said its aid workers rescued more than 7,200 people trapped beneath rubble during US and Israeli attacks, sharing footage of survivors being pulled from destroyed buildings for the first time.

War diplomacy

• Nuclear ‘red lines’ must shift: Doug Bandow, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, said the US and Iran will need to move beyond conflicting “red lines” on Tehran’s nuclear programme for negotiations to make progress. Speaking to Al Jazeera, Bandow said both sides must be willing to compromise and continue serious talks if they want to avoid further escalation and move away from war.
• Rubio sees ‘good signs’ in talks: US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said negotiations with Iran have shown “some progress”, while cautioning that it remains unclear whether a deal can be reached in the coming days. Rubio said President Donald Trump still prefers a diplomatic agreement, but warned Washington has “other options” if talks fail.
• Pakistani mediation efforts intensify in Tehran: Al Jazeera’s Alruhaid said senior Pakistani officials are engaged in “intense mediation activity” in Tehran as efforts accelerate to prevent further escalation. While one senior Iranian official said negotiators were close to a deal and working on draft texts, another source cautioned it was still too early to say whether a final agreement was within reach.

In the US

• US forces at ‘peak readiness’:  CENTCOM said the USS Abraham Lincoln strike group remains at “peak readiness” in the Arabian Sea, sharing images of warplanes taking off as Washington maintains pressure on Iran amid ongoing mediation efforts.

• US reportedly suffers major Reaper drone losses: Iran has destroyed more than two dozen MQ-9 Reaper drones operated by US forces since the conflict began, according to Bloomberg News. The reported losses are estimated at $1bn, nearly 20 percent of the Pentagon’s pre-war inventory.
• US pauses Taiwan arms sales: Acting Navy Secretary Hung Cao told a Senate hearing that Washington has paused a $14bn arms sale to Taiwan to ensure the US has enough munitions for its military campaign against Iran, a move Republican Senator Mitch McConnell called “distressing”.

In Lebanon and Palestine

• Israeli strike kills two in southern Lebanon: The Israeli military said it carried out an air raid that killed two people near the Lebanon-Israel border, after detecting what it described as “suspicious movement” in southern Lebanon.
• US sanctions allies of Hezbollah: The US has imposed sanctions on nine people accused of helping Hezbollah undermine Lebanon’s sovereignty and obstruct efforts to disarm the group, including Lebanese politicians, security officials and Iran’s ambassador-designate to Beirut.

• Palestinian envoy condemns aid blockade: Palestine’s UN envoy Riyad Mansour said Israel is continuing to collectively punish more than two million Palestinians through its blockade on aid and ongoing attacks, warning the world must not become “accustomed to seeing Palestinians killed”.

• US urges humane treatment of flotilla detainees: According to Al Jazeera’s Ali Harb, the US State Department said activists detained by Israeli forces after attempting to break the Gaza blockade “must be treated humanely and consistent with international law”, while also reiterating Washington’s opposition to the flotilla movement.

The indictment of former Cuban President Raul Castro over a 1996 plane shootdown revives a decades-old case at a moment of heightened US pressure on Havana. Al Jazeera’s Kimberly Halkett explains why the timing matters.

May 19 (UPI) — Vice President JD Vance took questions from reporters Tuesday at a White House press briefing

, reiterating President Donald Trump‘s repeated assertion that the conflict in Iran is meant to keep the country from developing a nuclear weapon but that it is “not a forever war.”

“We want to keep the number of countries that have nuclear weapons small, and that’s why Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon,” he said during the briefing, “on top of all the other things that we might be worried about, that they themselves could use it, that they could use it in leverage and economic control or economic negotiations.”

Vance was the second person, following U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, to stand in for White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, who is on maternity leave.

Iran was a dominant topic of the briefing. Vance said the United States has made progress in negotiations despite Iran’s position being “fractured,” but that U.S. forces are ready to attack again if necessary.

“We’re going to take care of business and come home,” he said.

Rubio and Vance are both considered presidential candidate contenders for Republicans in 2028, but the vice president demurred at a question

suggesting the press briefing role could be a sort of audition for candidacy.

“I’m a vice president,” he said. “I really like my job, and I’m going to try to do as good a job as I can.”

Vance also dealt with questions about the Justice Department’s new $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization fund,” which was created to compensate those who say they were unfairly targeted by former presidential administrations.

Some officials have criticized the fund as a way for the government to pay Trump allies who say they were targeted during the Biden administration. Earlier Tuesday, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said he could not rule out payments to convicted Jan. 6 rioters.

“We’re not trying to give money to anybody who attacked apolice officer,” Vance said at the briefing. “We’re trying to compensate people where the book was thrown at them, they were mistreated by the legal system.”

Warning comes after Trump threatened military action against Iran and gave it ‘two to three days’ to strike a deal.

United States President Donald Trump says he has decided to pause an attack on Iran at the behest of Gulf leaders after Tehran sent a new peace proposal to Washington through Pakistan.

On Monday, Trump said there is now a “very good chance” the US could reach an agreement with Iran to prevent Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

An initial, temporary ceasefire commenced on April 8, six weeks into the war. Since then, armed hostilities have largely subsided, but a durable peace agreement remains elusive, with both the US and Iran dissatisfied with each other’s proposed terms.

Also on Monday, Saudi Arabia said it had intercepted three drones, one day after a drone attack hit the Barakah Nuclear Energy Plant in the United Arab Emirates. This has raised more concerns about the potential for renewed military escalation in the Gulf as peace negotiations drag on.

What has Trump said about a new attack on Iran?

Following the reported drone attacks on the UAE and Saudi Arabia on Sunday and Monday, Trump wrote in a Truth Social post: “For Iran, the Clock is Ticking, and they better get moving, FAST, or there won’t be anything left of them. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE!”

Then, later on Monday, Trump wrote another post, saying he had been asked by the leaders of Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE to hold off on a planned attack on Iran scheduled for Tuesday since “serious negotiations are now taking place.”

He added that he had instructed Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Chairman of The Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Caine and the US military not to carry out the scheduled attack. However, he said, he “further instructed them to be prepared to go forward with a full, large scale assault of Iran, on a moment’s notice, in the event that an acceptable Deal is not reached”.

What do we know about the latest peace plan Iran has submitted?

Iran has submitted a revised 14-point peace plan to end the war, the semi-official Tasnim news agency reported on Monday.

Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei told a news briefing on Monday that Tehran’s response to the previous US proposal had been “conveyed to the American side through mediator Pakistan”, according to Tasnim.

Washington and Tehran have exchanged multiple proposals in recent weeks amid a ceasefire that has mostly halted six weeks of fighting. However, the initial direct talks mediated by Pakistan in Islamabad in April stalled, and Trump said last week the ceasefire is “on life support”.

While the specific proposals in the latest plan from Iran have not been made public, Baghaei said demands include the release of its assets frozen abroad and the lifting of sanctions.

“The points raised are Iranian demands that have been firmly defended by the Iranian negotiating team in every round of negotiations,” he said.

Iran has also previously demanded compensation for damage inflicted by US-Israeli attacks, an end to the ongoing US naval blockade of Iranian ports and a halt to fighting on all fronts, including in Lebanon, where Israeli forces continue daily attacks and have mounted a ground invasion in the south of the country.

Washington has urged Tehran to dismantle its nuclear programme and lift a blockade on the Strait of Hormuz, which, before the war, carried one-fifth of the world’s crude oil and liquefied natural gas ‌(LNG) supply.

What are the main sticking points between Iran and the US?

A major point of contention is Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium. During negotiations, Washington has urged Tehran to give away its enriched uranium, a demand Tehran has resisted.

Iran is believed to have about 440kg (970lb) of uranium enriched to 60 percent. A 90 percent threshold of enriched uranium is needed to produce a nuclear weapon. Iran has never officially declared an intention to build nuclear weapons. The US wants this stock to be handed over to it, but Iran is reportedly only willing to consider handing it to a third party – if at all.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told reporters on the sidelines of a meeting of foreign ministers from BRICS nations in New Delhi last week that Iran and the US have reached a “deadlock” on the question of Iran’s “enriched material”.

As a result, he said, the topic is being “postponed” until later stages in the talks. “For the time being, it is not under discussion, it’s not under negotiation, but we will come to that subject in later stages.”

Araghchi confirmed he had spoken to Russian officials about an offer from Moscow to store Iran’s enriched uranium. He said Iran may consider Russia’s proposal at an “appropriate time” and that he appreciates Moscow’s efforts.

“When we come to that stage, obviously we will have more consultations with Russia and see if the Russian offer can help or not,” he said.

The US and Iran are also arguing about whether Iran should be allowed to enrich uranium at all. Under the Obama-era Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, signed with several countries in 2015, Iran was able to continue enriching to 3.87 percent – enough for the development of a nuclear power programme. Trump withdrew the US from that agreement in 2018, despite consistent reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that Iran had stuck to its terms. Now, the US wants a moratorium on all uranium enrichment for a period of up to 20 years, it says.

Another sticking point between the two countries is the Strait of Hormuz in the Gulf.

Since early March, Iran has restricted shipping through the strait, a narrow waterway linking Gulf oil producers to the open ocean and through which 20 percent of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies are shipped during peacetime. Iran has allowed passage by vessels from select countries, but they are required to negotiate transit with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

In its previous proposals to end the war, Iran has mentioned charging fees or tolls for vessels seeking to pass through the state. Washington has repeatedly rejected the prospect. In April, the US announced a naval blockade on ships entering or leaving Iranian ports, further adding to the disruption of global oil and gas supplies.

Iran’s state media reported, citing the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, that technical teams from Iran and Oman met in Oman to negotiate a mechanism for safe transit in the Strait of Hormuz.

A third likely major point of friction – although one which may also be kicked into later discussions – is Iran’s support for a network of “proxy” armed groups around the Middle East which it calls its “axis of resistance”. These include the Houthis in Yemen, who have also caused disruption by launching attacks on Israel-linked ships in the Red Sea in the past, Hezbollah in Lebanon and multiple groups based in Iraq and Syria.

Foad Izadi of Tehran University says US President Trump’s repeated threats of renewed full-scale war are a sign of weakness, coming after 37 days of US bombing failed to force Iran into capitulation.

The Palestinian group Fatah concluded its eighth General Conference late Saturday but the results of the elections of the group’s leadership bodies, the Central Committee and Revolutionary Council, were not announced until Monday afternoon. The delay compelled Wael Lafi, the head of the elections committee in the General Conference, who is also the legal advisor of the Palestinian President, to defend the process and delay.

Even before convening, questions about membership, funding, and the general political direction of the group – which dominates the Palestinian Authority – overshadowed preparations for the General Conference.

Sixty candidates competed for 18 seats in the Central Committee, Fatah’s highest leadership body.

Mahmoud Abbas, the 91-year-old Palestinian President, was unanimously voted as chair ahead of the vote, foreshadowing the results of the elections and Abbas’s tightening grip on power.

Dr Nasser al-Qudwa, who was the only member of the Central Committee to boycott the General Conference, told Al Jazeera, “Mahmoud Abbas engineered this meeting to produce the outcome he wants and he succeeded”. Many Fatah members agree with that assessment.

The election results of Fatah’s top body saw the replacement of half of the incumbent old guard. Those included all but one of Gaza’s representatives in the Central Committee, with Ahmed Hilles, a close ally of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, the only one remaining.

Abbas’s close ally and intelligence chief, Majed Faraj, also won a seat on the Central Committee. Faraj is seen by many in Fatah as a competitor to Hussein al-Sheikh, who Abbas appointed as vice president a year ago.

Another signal of Abbas’s grip on the Congress was the nomination and victory of his son, Yasser, to the Central Committee. That was despite the fact that Yasser Abbas has never held a leadership position at any level in Fatah, and the development has overshadowed Fatah’s argument that the Congress was a sign of democratic vitality and inclusion.

Palestinian detainees secured three seats in Fatah’s top leadership body, with Marwan Barghouti – imprisoned by Israel for more than 20 years – earning the highest number of votes among all competitors.

Another winner is Zakariya al-Zubaidi, a prominent Fatah figure who has been imprisoned repeatedly by Israel over the years. Al-Zubaidi notoriously escaped with five other Palestinian prisoners from Gilboa prison in 2021 only to be recaptured and then freed again in one of the prisoner exchange deals struck between Israel and Hamas during the Gaza genocide.

Fatah and Hamas make up the two main Palestinian political factions, with Hamas dominant in Gaza, and Fatah in the occupied West Bank.

Victory for Abbas?

There were 450 members competing for the 80 seats of the Revolutionary Council, which serves as Fatah’s legislator and in theory has strong sway over Fatah policy choices.

However, the winners appear to be dominated by the party’s insiders.

Absent from the Central Committee for the first time is a representative of Fatah outside Palestine, which is seen by many as a worrying precedent for a movement that has followers across the widespread Palestinian diaspora.

But the new Central Committee has an abundance of technocrats and senior officials working in the Palestinian Authority (PA), like the popular Ramallah Governor Laila Ghannam or the head of the PA’s General Personnel Council Musa Abu Zaid.

“These are not leaders. They are employees. They will do as ordered,” one Fatah official, who spoke to Al Jazeera on condition of anonymity, said.

Dr al-Qudwa views the results as a victory for the Palestinian president, not Fatah.

“President Abbas is the biggest winner,” al-Qudwa said. “He succeeded in completely subduing Fatah to his will.”

A significant proportion of the winners are also current or former PA employees, especially in the security sector.

Most of the old guard were replaced by younger members, but many of that new cohort themselves rose through the ranks of Fatah’s youth movement. Several sons and daughters of former Fatah leaders were also elected despite having no history of involvement or membership in the group, like the daughter of the late chief negotiator Saeb Erekat, Dalal.

Facing crises

Kifah Harb, a prominent Fatah figure who ran unsuccessfully for the Central Committee, confirmed to Al Jazeera that many members had concerns and misgivings about the organisational committee of the Congress.

But she struck a conciliatory tone about the process as a whole.

“As members of the Congress, we are leading members of Fatah and regardless the outcome of the elections, we must stand by it and help Fatah march forward in leading the Palestinian national movement,” Harb said. “There are no alternatives.”

Fatah’s Congress was closely followed by world governments and the Palestinian public, who saw the competition within the group play out in advertisements and posts on social media platforms.

Governments around the world see Fatah leaders as their Palestinian counterparts when it comes to bilateral relations, but Western governments are also demanding reforms in return for increased support to the Palestinian Authority.

Fatah leaders say the Congress is proof of their commitment to reform, pointing to the change of some names and a younger demographic emerging, even if the balance of power ultimately remained firmly in Abbas’s hands.

Whether that placates the international community is one matter, but Fatah will have a tough time getting the Palestinian public on side.

Fatah’s new leaders are faced with the task of resolving several chronic crises, including the PA’s inability to pay civil servants and Israel’s hostile policies – including the unlawful withholding of Palestinian tax revenues, unprecedented land grabs, settler attacks, and the Israeli-made humanitarian disaster becoming entrenched in Gaza.

On Monday, after the announcement of the election results, Fatah offered general policy lines in a statement, but provided no answers on the way forward.

And now it has to content with that future, and a public demand for presidential and legislative elections that will likely become more pressing – one of the many tests that awaits Fatah’s reformulated leadership.

A drone attack that caused a fire close to the Barakah Nuclear Energy Plant in the United Arab Emirates has raised further concerns about nuclear security and military escalation in the Gulf as discussions of peace between Iran and the United States hang in the balance.

Barakah was the first nuclear power station to be built on the Arabian Peninsula. Here is what we know about it:

What is the Barakah Nuclear Energy Plant?

Barakah is a nuclear energy plant located in Al Dhafra, the largest municipal region of the emirate of Abu Dhabi. It is the UAE’s only nuclear power plant.

Construction of the plant began in 2012, and its first reactor became commercially operational in 2021.

The plant is located close to the border with Saudi Arabia, about 225km (140 miles) west of the UAE’s capital city, Abu Dhabi.

The facility features four pressurised water reactors, the most common type of nuclear power reactor. The model used here is the advanced power reactor 1400, a pressurised water reactor design developed in South Korea. Each reactor of this type has the capacity to produce 1,400 megawatts (MW), which is enough to power roughly 1 million homes.

According to the Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation (ENEC), the plant’s reactors produce 40 terawatt-hours (TWh) each year, which is equivalent to about 25 percent of the UAE’s electricity needs. The website for the London-based World Nuclear Association also confirmed that Barakah, when fully operational, meets 25 percent of the UAE’s electricity needs.

According to a September report by the Abu Dhabi media office, Barakah had produced 40TWh of clean energy over “the past 12 months”.

Since nuclear power plants produce a lower amount of carbon dioxide emissions than conventional power plants, the ENEC said Barakah saves up to 22.4 million tonnes of carbon emissions each year, equivalent to removing 4.8 million cars from the roads.

What happened in the attack on Sunday, and how has the UAE responded?

Authorities in Abu Dhabi said a single drone strike caused a blaze to break out at an electrical generator outside the Barakah plant’s inner perimeter in the Al Dhafra region on Sunday. No injuries were reported, and officials said radiation levels remained normal.

The UAE’s nuclear regulator said operations at the Barakah facility had not been affected. “All units are operating as normal,” it said in a social media post.

In a statement, the UAE’s Ministry of Defence said two more drones had been “successfully” intercepted and the drones had been launched from the “western border”. It did not give more details.

The UAE’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs posted a statement on X on Sunday saying the country condemned “the unprovoked terrorist attack” in “the strongest terms”.

The statement added: “The UAE emphasised that it will not tolerate any threat to its security and sovereignty under any circumstances, and that it reserves its full, sovereign, legitimate, diplomatic, and military rights to respond to any threats, allegations, or hostilities in a manner that ensures the protection of its sovereignty, national security, territorial integrity, and the safety of its citizens, residents, and visitors, in accordance with international law.”

There was no immediate claim of responsibility, and the statements by the ministries did not publicly blame any country.

But Anwar Gargash, an adviser to the UAE’s president, wrote in an X post on Sunday: “The terrorist targeting of the Barakah clean nuclear power plant, whether carried out by the principal perpetrator or through one of its agents, represents a dangerous escalation and a dark scene that violates all international laws and norms, in criminal disregard for the lives of civilians in the UAE and its surroundings.”

Gargash’s post appeared to blame Iran and its proxy network of allied armed groups in the region, which Tehran calls the “axis of resistance”.

The launch point of the drones remained unclear, but on Sunday, Saudi Arabia also reported it had intercepted three drones that had been launched from Iraq, where some Iran-allied groups operate. If Iranian Shahed-136 drones, which have an estimated range of 2,000km to 2,500km (1,240 to 1,550 miles), were fired from Iraqi territory, both Saudi Arabia and the UAE would fall well within their reach.

Other reactions

Neighbouring Gulf states Saudi Arabia and Qatar condemned the attack on the Barakah plant.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kuwait also issued a statement denouncing the attack, which it called “heinous”.

The Indian Ministry of External Affairs condemned the attack, calling it “unacceptable”, saying it represented “a dangerous escalation” and urging a return to diplomacy.

Has Iran responded to the incident?

Iran has not claimed responsibility for the drone attacks, and there has been no public statement from Iran about the incident at Barakah.

However, in the aftermath of the drone attacks, United States President Donald Trump wrote in a Truth Social post: “For Iran, the Clock is Ticking, and they better get moving, FAST, or there won’t be anything left of them. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE!”

Iranian Ministry of Defence spokesperson Reza Talaei-Nik said on Sunday that the military is “fully prepared” to confront any new aggression from the US and Israel.

Iran has previously warned that countries where US military assets are deployed or Israeli-linked interests are located are viewed as legitimate targets.

Iran has also accused the UAE of strengthening ties with Israel while reports have emerged that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a “secret” visit to the Gulf state during the US-Israel war on Iran. The UAE has denied this.

US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee also said last week that Israel had deployed Iron Dome air defence systems and personnel to the UAE to help defend against possible Iranian attacks.

What has the IAEA said?

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the global nuclear watchdog, said Sunday’s incident in the UAE had forced one reactor to rely temporarily on emergency diesel generators.

IAEA chief Rafael Grossi expressed “grave concern” and warned that military activity threatening nuclear facilities was “unacceptable”.

How serious could a strike on a nuclear facility be?

Attacks on nuclear power plants are especially worrying because they can risk damaging critical safety systems or reactors, which could release radioactive material into the atmosphere, not only over the country targeted but also across neighbouring states. Radiological material, specifically the hazardous isotope Caesium-137, could be released into the atmosphere.

The release of radioactive material could result in environmental contamination and poses major risks to public health. Water, if contaminated, becomes undrinkable while farmland and fisheries could become unsafe for decades, depending on the isotope released.

Short-term, acute exposure to radioactivity can cause burns and acute radiation sickness, which can be life-threatening.

Prolonged exposure, even to smaller doses, can increase the risk of illnesses such as cancer, especially thyroid cancer and leukaemia. Children and pregnant women are especially vulnerable.

Over the course of the US-Israel war on Iran, energy infrastructure has become a target.

Iran’s only functioning nuclear plant, the Bushehr power plant, has come under repeated attacks in the war. There are fears that damage at Bushehr could contaminate water across the entire Gulf region, most of which lacks groundwater and relies heavily on the desalination of seawater. Desalination plants are not specifically built to filter radioactive material, and not all plants currently are fitted with the technologies required to do so.

EXPLAINER

The fear of renewed US strikes in Iran looms while Israeli attacks continue in Lebanon despite extended ‘ceasefire’.

United States President Donald Trump has warned Iran that the “clock is ticking” to clinch a deal to end the war as reports have emerged that Washington and Israel might be planning to carry out air strikes on Iranian energy infrastructure.

“For Iran, the Clock is Ticking, and they better get moving, FAST, or there won’t be anything left of them,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. “TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE!”

Iranian Ministry of Defence spokesperson Reza Talaei-Nik said on Sunday that the military is “fully prepared” to confront any new aggression from the US and Israel.

Saudi Arabia on Monday said it intercepted three drones, a day after a drone strike hit the Barakah Nuclear Energy Plant in the United Arab Emirates.

Meanwhile, Israel has continued its bombardment of Lebanon despite another “ceasefire” extension.

As the US-Israeli war on Iran continues for its 80th day, here is what we know:

In Iran

• Mohsen Rezaei, a member of Tehran’s Expediency Council and former Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander, issued a warning to the US to lift its blockade of Iranian ports, saying the Iranian military is ready for further confrontation. Rezaei made this warning while speaking to state television.
• Talaei-Nik said the Iranian armed forces are “fully prepared to confront any new potential attack by the US and the Israeli regime against the country”.

War diplomacy

• Mikhail Ulyanov, Russia’s envoy to international organisations in Vienna, suggested in an X post that Iran appoint a special envoy to Moscow, similar to Tehran’s arrangement with China.
• In an X post, Jean-Luc Melenchon, the leading figure of France’s left-wing La France Insoumise party, condemned “European complicity” in the US-Israeli strikes on Iran, which have triggered a wider regional war.

In the Gulf

• The New York Times reported that the Israeli military has operated two “covert” outposts in Iraq’s western desert and killed a shepherd and a soldier in a bid to hide one of the sites near the town of al-Nukhaib.
• After the drone attack on the nuclear facility caused a fire, the UAE Ministry of Defence said two other drones had been “successfully” dealt with after they were launched from the “western border”. It did not elaborate.
• The drone that got through the UAE’s defences hit an electrical generator outside the inner perimeter of the Barakah Nuclear Energy Plant, the Abu Dhabi Media Office said. Radiological safety levels were unaffected, and there were no injuries, it said. The UAE’s Federal Authority for Nuclear Regulation later confirmed that the plant remained safe with no radioactive material released from the strike.
• Saudi Arabia said the three drones it intercepted entered from Iraqi airspace and warned that it would take the necessary operational measures to respond to any attempt to violate its sovereignty and security.

In the US

• Marjorie Taylor Greene, a former US congresswoman and a once-close ally of Trump, has warned in a post on X that any attempt to send US troops into Iran would trigger what she described as a “political revolution”.
• Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, speaking to the NBC broadcaster, urged Trump to “hurt” Iran, including launching attacks on its energy sites, until it agrees to US terms on its nuclear programme. The US and Israel have hit civilian targets multiple times during the war on Iran. Attacks on civilian facilities are considered war crimes under international law.

In Israel

• Israel’s Channel 13 reported that dozens of US cargo planes carrying ammunition from bases in Germany have landed in Tel Aviv.
• Israeli media reported that the military is preparing for renewed hostilities with Iran. The public broadcaster Kan quoted an unnamed security official as saying that Israel would join any new US strikes and target Iranian energy infrastructure.

In Lebanon

• Israeli strikes have continued in southern Lebanon, where Israel issued evacuation orders for four towns and villages and then struck two of those locations.
• Strikes were also reported in Az-Zrariyah on a moving vehicle while another raid in Tayr Debba resulted in some significant casualty numbers, Al Jazeera’s Obaida Hitto reported from Tyre, Lebanon.

Global markets

• Stalled peace efforts between Iran and the US caused oil prices to rise again on Monday. This pushed the price of the global benchmark Brent crude up to about $111 per barrel, close to its highest level in weeks.

United States President Donald Trump has reiterated his threats against Iran, as negotiations to end the conflict between the two countries continue to flounder.

In a Sunday morning post on his platform Truth Social, Trump warned that time was running short before a fresh wave of US military action might be launched.

“For Iran, the Clock is Ticking, and they better get moving, FAST, or there won’t be anything left of them,” Trump wrote in the short, two-sentence message. “TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE!”

The post was the latest example of Trump using violent rhetoric against Iran as his administration struggles to achieve its goals in the war.

Just a day earlier, Trump had posted an AI-generated image of himself atop a military ship, labelled, “It was the calm before the storm.”

The conflict began on February 28, when Israel and the US jointly attacked Iran.

Since then, Trump has put forward a range of objectives for the resulting war, including dismantling Iran’s missile arsenal, severing its relations with regional allies, and ending its nuclear enrichment programme.

On April 7, Trump coupled those demands with a social media post suggesting wholesale destruction in Iran. Critics have likened the post to a call for genocide.

“A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will,” Trump wrote.

Within hours of the post, the US and Iran agreed to a ceasefire that has been in place ever since, though both sides have accused each other of violations.

The US president had previously threatened to attack the country’s civilian infrastructure, including its power plants and bridges, which legal experts warn could amount to a violation of the Geneva Convention.

Separately, in a May interview with Fox News, Trump said Iranian officials will “be blown off the face of the earth” if they attack US vessels.

Iran has denounced such rhetoric and rejected Trump’s demands as excessive.

Mehr, a news agency sponsored by the Iranian government, issued a statement on Sunday saying that the US has offered “no tangible concessions” in its latest proposals.

It also accused the US of seeking to “obtain concessions that it failed to obtain during the war”, a strategy that “will lead to an impasse in the negotiations”.

Separately, a spokesperson for Iran’s armed forces, Abolfazl Shakarchi, was quoted as warning the US against further threats.

“Repeating any folly to compensate for America’s disgrace in the Third Imposed War against Iran will result in nothing but receiving more crushing and severe blows,” he told Mehr.

Reporting from Tehran, Al Jazeera correspondent Almigdad Alruhaid said that the Iranian government has indicated that violent rhetoric from the US will not be tolerated.

“From what we understand, this kind of language is not acceptable here in Tehran. They are projecting defiance rather than [giving] an immediate response to this kind of rhetoric,” Alruhaid said.

He added that the increasingly hostile remarks from both sides signal that the ceasefire could be at imminent risk of shattering.

“Behind all of this rhetoric, there is awareness that the diplomatic window right now is narrowing,” Alruhaid said.

“We do know that there is hard language, hard messaging from both sides — that the finger’s on the trigger on both sides.”

But Adam Clements, a foreign policy analyst, told Al Jazeera there could be a “domestic element” to Trump’s hardline rhetoric, including his latest flurry of messages.

“Of course, Iran would have to take it seriously,” Clements said of Sunday’s post.

“At the same time as well, President Trump is known for his bombastic tweets, his bombastic statements, perhaps for domestic audiences.”

Clements added that it will be critical to watch whether Trump’s statements are echoed by his officials in the coming days, and whether they are also matched by increased military activity.

“ The White House press office has been known to post these type of strange memes, or AI-generated memes and cartoons in the past,” he explained.

“So I think it’s necessary here to sometimes look past some of the political noise, some of the things for show, and really try to pay attention to these clear signals.”