crisis

It diversified energy supplies, built LNG terminals and reduced its dependence on Russia.

Europe thought it had learned its lesson after the war in Ukraine.
But today it’s facing another energy shock.

And this time it may be even worse, as the war in Iran disrupts supply through the Strait of Hormuz.

It’s happening when EU gas reserves are unusually low.

That means Europe will be competing with Asia to fill its storage tanks, which might force the price of LNG even higher.

Electricity bills are climbing.

Industry is under pressure.

Governments are stepping in to cushion the blow.

In a sharp escalation in the Middle East conflict, energy production itself is now in the firing line.

Iran targeted facilities across the Gulf – including the world’s largest liquefied natural gas hub in Qatar.

It was retaliation for an Israeli strike on an Iranian gasfield hours earlier.

Energy prices are soaring, and countries from Asia to Europe are scrambling for alternative supplies.

But, for Asia – the world’s largest LNG buyer – this is a severe energy shock.

The region depends on Gulf supplies to keep its lights on, its factories running, and its people fed.

ANOTHER major airline is cancelling hundreds of flight routes due to ongoing fears of rising fuel costs.

The Iran conflict has seen the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important shipping routes.

This has had a knock-on effect on the cost of fuel, which has reached new highs.

And a number of airlines have since had to reduce their flight schedule to avoid spiralling costs.

United Airlines is the latest to confirm that it would be cutting five per cent of flights in the second and third quarters of 2026.

With up to 5,000 flights a month – working out to around 4,000 domestic and 800 international routes – this means it affects around 250 flights a month.

NOT SO EASY

EasyJet warns Brits to book summer holidays NOW to avoid more price hikes

GOLD STAR

World’s best airlines for 2026 revealed and one in the UK makes the list

And with this set to last until the end of summer, it means thousands of passengers will be affected.

While the affected flights haven’t been confirmed, it will mainly affect the “less profitable” routes so including midweek flights, as well as overnight and Saturday routes.

United Airlines has the world’s largest airline fleet with more than 1,075 aircraft.

United Airlines‘ Chief Executive Scott Kirby said the cancellations were due to fears of oil rising to as much as $175 (£131) a barrel, and remaining above $100 (£75) until the end of next year.

This would mean the airline’s fuel costs would rise to $11billion (£8.2billion) – double the profit of their best year which was $5billion (£3.7billion).

They warned: “There’s no point in burning cash in the near term on flying that just can’t absorb these fuel costs.”

It’s not just the cost of fuel but how much is being used by airlines as well.

The closure of airspaces and Middle East airports, particularly Dubai which is one of the world’s busiest, has forced airlines to fly alternative – and longer – routes, which burn more fuel.

Other airlines have already confirmed they would be cancelling flights due to expected fuel costs.

Air New Zealand has cancelled 1,100 fights, although said it would mainly affect domestic routes.

This works out to around 44,000 passengers.

And Scandinavian airline SAS said it would be cancelling 1,000 flights next month, also affecting domestic routes primarily.

UK airlines are less affected for now, as most have ‘hedged’ oil prices – meaning paying a fixed price for a set amount of time.

Ryanair boss Michael O’Leary said the rise in jet fuel costs “won’t affect our costs and it won’t affect ​our low fares.”

Major airlines like British Airways and Virgin Atlantic have also cancelled a number of flights to the Middle East as places like the UAE remain on the not-save-to-travel list.

IEA may release more oil as the Iran war hits supply, with chief Fatih Birol warning of a severe global energy crisis.

Workers in India’s textile hub Surat are returning home after days without cooking gas, as an LPG crisis linked to Iran war disruptions halts supplies. Industries face shutdowns, while authorities invoke emergency measures to prioritise households.

When the United States and Israel launched joint strikes on Iran on February 28, the Strait of Hormuz—the narrow waterway through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil passes each day—effectively ceased to function as a shipping corridor. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps responded by warning off tanker traffic, and within days maritime transit had fallen to nearly zero. The consequences were immediate and severe: Brent crude has not dropped below the $100 threshold since March 13 and touched $119 on March 19 following Israeli strikes on Iran’s South Pars gasfield and retaliatory Iranian attacks on energy infrastructure in Qatar and the UAE. For Venezuela, a country sitting atop the world’s largest proven reserves but producing around 900,000 to one million barrels per day (a fraction of its historical capacity of over 3 million in the late 1990s) the disruption arrived at a peculiar moment. It was not a crisis of Venezuela’s making. But how Caracas responds to it may define the country’s energy trajectory for years to come.

On paper, the arithmetic is striking. Alejandro Grisanti, director of Ecoanalítica, estimates that Venezuela receives approximately $400 million in additional revenue for every extra dollar in the average crude price. This figure, at current price levels, represents a fiscal windfall without precedent in the post-Maduro transition. Venezuelan crude exports had already rebounded sharply in February to around 788,000 barrels per day (up from a depressed 383,000 bpd in January, when the post-Maduro-arrest disruption had frozen trade flows), with US refineries absorbing the majority of shipments directly through Chevron or energy intermediaries. Of course, production and exports are different things: Venezuela produces roughly one million bpd but consumes some 230,000 bpd domestically, meaning effective export capacity sits considerably below gross output.

The Hormuz disruption accelerated the export recovery dynamic: with Gulf supply stranded and Asian buyers scrambling for alternatives, Venezuelan crude became a more attractive proposition. Washington has responded in kind. On March 18, the US Treasury issued a broad license authorizing established American entities to conduct transactions with PDVSA directly, a landmark shift after years of near-total sanctions isolation, explicitly framed as a supply-side response to the Iran war. There are structural constraints baked into the relief: payments cannot flow directly to sanctioned Venezuelan entities but must pass through US-controlled accounts, and transactions involving Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, or designated Chinese entities remain prohibited. The US will allow the oil trade, but it will control the cash flow.

The production ceiling, however, remains a formidable obstacle, and not merely a financial one. Venezuela’s Orinoco Belt produces extra-heavy crude with an API gravity typically in the 8–16° range and high sulfur content, which cannot simply be blended into a market substitute for the medium-sour grades displacing from the Persian Gulf. To reach export markets, Orinoco crude must either pass through an upgrader—facilities like Petropiar, which converts it to a synthetic crude of around 26° API—or be diluted with imported naphtha or lighter crude to create exportable blends like Merey. This means Venezuelan barrels serve a specific refinery profile: predominantly the cooking-capable refineries along the US Gulf Coast, which are well-suited to process heavy, sulfurous feedstocks. They are not a drop-in replacement for Middle Eastern crude, but a complementary supply for a defined segment of global refining capacity.

The US military backstop, the reformed hydrocarbon law, and now the broad PDVSA sanctions relief have together reduced the perception of expropriation risk and policy reversal that kept capital at bay for two decades.

ExxonMobil, whose assets were expropriated twice under chavismo, announced it would send an evaluation team to Venezuela within weeks, with Senior Vice President Jack Williams acknowledging the company’s heavy oil expertise from Canadian operations in Kearl and Cold Lake. The caveat was pointed: “Today it’s uninvestable,” CEO Darren Woods had said in January, and Williams’ more cautious optimism reflects the institutional memory of a company burned twice.

Chevron and PDVSA have meanwhile agreed on preliminary terms to expand Petropiar into the adjacent Ayacucho 8 block of the Orinoco Belt, while Shell is in advanced talks to develop the Carito and Pirital fields in eastern Monagas. These are among the few areas that produce the light and medium crude needed as diluent and blendstock for Venezuela’s heavy exports. Delcy Rodríguez has projected fresh oil investments of $1.4 billion for the year under the amended hydrocarbons law. These are meaningful steps. But a preliminary deal and a production ramp are different things. Rystad Energy estimates that simply holding production flat at around 1.1 million bpd requires $53 billion in upstream investment over 15 years, and getting to 2 million bpd by 2032 would demand $8–9 billion per year in sustained capital.

What has shifted—materially and quickly—is market sentiment about Venezuela as an investable destination, and the trajectory is meaningfully positive. Dozens of US hedge funds, asset managers, and energy investors are organizing trips to Caracas in the coming weeks: Signum Global Advisors is running a two-day conference in Venezuela from March 22–24 with 55 participants, roughly half of whom are bondholders who own or have recently purchased Venezuelan government and PDVSA debt (both in default since 2017).

Separate delegations invited by Trans-National Research and other groups are arriving, with agendas featuring meetings with Rodríguez and PDVSA CEO Héctor Obregón. The interest marks a sharp break from the isolation of the Maduro years. Country risk, while still elevated in absolute terms, has been repriced substantially since January: the US military backstop, the reformed hydrocarbon law, and now the broad PDVSA sanctions relief have together reduced the perception of expropriation risk and policy reversal that kept capital at bay for two decades.

Venezuela’s challenge is to use this window of geopolitical necessity to lock in investment commitments, debt restructuring negotiations, and production agreements that survive the normalization of oil markets.

What investors are now stress-testing is no longer whether Venezuela is open for business, but whether the legal and institutional architecture is durable enough to support long-horizon commitments. As analysts at Debatesiesa have noted in examining Venezuelan financial markets, sentiment can shift on headlines, but binding investment decisions require structural reforms and credible enforcement mechanisms. The framework is improving; the question is whether it improves fast enough, and on a stable enough trajectory, to convert this geopolitical moment into a genuine investment cycle.

The deeper question the Hormuz crisis forces is one of timing and durability. Oil prices are now trading above $110 per barrel and analysts at Wood Mackenzie and Rystad are no longer dismissing scenarios above $150 while the conflict shows no sign of imminent resolution, with Pete Hegseth signaling the “largest strike package yet” against Iran on March 19. The EIA, in its latest forecast issued prior to these newest escalations, projected Brent to remain above $95 through the next two months before falling below $80 in the third quarter of 2026 if supply flows gradually normalize. Whether that normalization materializes is the variable on which everything else depends. Venezuela’s challenge is not simply to capture today’s price premium, but to use this window of geopolitical necessity to lock in investment commitments, debt restructuring negotiations, and production agreements that survive the normalization of oil markets.

The country has rarely faced a more favorable confluence of factors: surging global demand for its barrels, a reformed legal framework for private investment, an unprecedented degree of US political and financial backing, and prices that make otherwise marginal projects viable. Whether Caracas—and the Rodríguez administration in particular—has the institutional bandwidth to convert a crisis into structural recovery, rather than another cycle of windfall and waste, is the defining question of Venezuela’s energy sector in 2026.

Health and environment advocacy groups in the United States are suing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw a key 2009 climate change ruling known as the “endangerment finding”.

That finding had established that greenhouse gases are a risk to public health and environmental safety, given that they are the primary drivers of climate change. It formed the legal basis for many regulatory policies aimed at curbing climate change.

When US President Donald Trump, who has called climate change a “hoax” and a “con job”, rescinded the declaration in February this year, the EPA supported the move, deeming it the “single largest deregulatory action in US history”.

The lawsuit, filed on Wednesday this week, alleges that the Trump administration’s decision will risk the health and welfare of US citizens.

“Repealing the Endangerment Finding endangers all of us. People everywhere will face more pollution, higher costs, and thousands of avoidable deaths,” Peter Zalzal, the associate vice president of clean air strategies at the Environmental Defense Fund, one of the plaintiffs, said in a statement.

Trump’s revocation of the endangerment finding is the latest in a series of steps he has taken to prioritise deregulation, boost fossil fuel production and reverse climate regulations.

But Trump is not the first US president to enact policy damaging to the environment. Here’s how decades of US policy have harmed the environment before he arrived in the White House

What is the ‘endangerment finding’?

The endangerment finding was established under the presidency of Democrat Barack Obama. It states that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare.

That ruling allowed the EPA under President Obama to move forward on policy aimed at limit the release of greenhouse gases in the US, Michael Kraft, professor emeritus of political science and public and environmental affairs at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, told Al Jazeera.

Under the endangerment finding, power plants were required to meet federal limits on carbon emissions or risk being shut down. This forced oil and gas companies to invest more to detect and fix methane leaks, curb flaring, and improve tailpipe and fuel‑economy standards to enable automobile companies to manufacture more efficient, lower‑emitting vehicles.

What does rescinding it mean?

“By allowing for increased pollution, these recent changes [by the Trump administration] will harm practically every single person on the planet,” Washington, DC-based policy researcher Brett Heinz told Al Jazeera.

“People living near fossil fuel facilities will be some of the most immediately affected, as they will be exposed to the new air and water pollution unleashed by deregulatory policies,” Heinz added.

Without the endangerment finding in place, the EPA has lost a key legal basis on which to limit greenhouse gas emissions, making it easier for coal plants, oil refineries and petrochemical complexes to run older, dirtier equipment for longer, expand without installing modern pollution controls, and emit more soot, smog‑forming gases and toxic chemicals into nearby communities.

Heinz explained that higher greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels in power plants, cars and industry as well as continued deforestation will also amplify the dangers posed by natural disasters. This is because increased warming exacerbates heatwaves, storms, floods and droughts, and raises sea levels – all of which turn existing natural hazards into more frequent and more destructive disasters.

“The only people who will benefit from these decisions are a small handful of wealthy fossil fuel executives and shareholders, who will see healthy profits while the world grows sick. These fossil fuel elites, many of whom contributed money to Trump’s presidential campaign, have now gotten a return on this investment,” Heinz said.

Experts say that Trump’s decision to entirely do away with environmental policy is unlike any president before him.

“The White House’s tidal wave of new pro-pollution policies is completely unprecedented. While past administrations have modified environmental rules, the second Trump administration is essentially trying to eliminate them entirely. So far, this has been the most radically anti-environmental presidency in American history,” Heinz said.

How have previous US presidents endangered the environment?

Trump is by no means the first US president to enact policy which is damaging to the environment, however.

Under Republican Theodore Roosevelt, who was president from 1901 to 1909, Congress passed the Reclamation (Newlands) Act of 1902, which treated land and rivers primarily as raw material for large infrastructure projects rather than as ecosystems in need of protection.

This was furthered by Democrat Harry Truman, who was president from 1945 to 1953 and pushed for rapid post‑war industrial and suburban expansion by commissioning the construction of interstate highways and promoting car‑centric development.

Under Republican Dwight Eisenhower, who was president from 1953 to 1961, the interstate highway system burgeoned, and the private car became a developmental priority in the US.

While Republican Richard Nixon, who was president from 1969 to 1974, signed key environmental laws, he also backed massive fossil‑fuel expansion. Under Nixon, the highly toxic herbicide, known as Agent Orange, was used by the US military during the Vietnam War.

Republican Ronald Reagan, who was president from 1981 to 1989, appointed people to the EPA and the Department of Interior who pushed for expanded oil, gas, coal and timber extraction on public lands.

To facilitate this, they favoured deregulation and industry interests, and rolled back existing environmental policy, slashing budgets for EPA enforcement of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, easing rules on toxic emissions and pesticides, and opening up more federal land – including wilderness and wildlife habitat – to oil, gas, mining and logging activities.

Republican George W Bush, who was president from 2001 to 2009, refused to ratify the 1997 UN-backed emissions reductions Kyoto Protocol and actively undermined global climate negotiations by formally withdrawing US support for Kyoto in 2001, appointing senior officials who questioned climate science, and pushing voluntary, industry-friendly approaches instead of binding emissions cuts.

While Obama, who was president from 2009 to 2017, introduced several landmark climate regulations, he also oversaw the fracking boom, making the US the world’s largest oil and gas producer, and locking in long-term fossil infrastructure.

Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, involves blasting water, sand and chemicals into shale rock to release oil and gas, a process believed to cause methane leaks, groundwater contamination, heavy water use and increased local air pollution.

Democrat Joe Biden, who was president from 2021 to 2024, approved large fossil projects such as the Willow project in Alaska. This involved oil development on federal land in the National Petroleum Reserve, projected to pump hundreds of millions of barrels of crude over several decades.

Figures released by the the US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) suggested that the project would release 239 million to 280 million tonnes of greenhouse gases over its lifetime. The project, approved in 2023 and ongoing, was projected to continue for 30 years.

Biden also backed LNG export growth by approving new and expanded export terminals and long‑term export licences, allowing companies to lock into multidecade contracts to ship US gas to Europe and Asia.

Is this a partisan issue?

No.

“The failure of US policymakers to aggressively tackle global warming is not so much a Democrat versus Republican matter,” Steinberg said.

“It’s neoliberalism, a form of corporate freedom, that is the heart of the problem. A bipartisan consensus on the need for economic growth has led to a general trend toward weakening environmental regulations,” he added.

The US once led the world in conservation by creating an extensive national park system in the 19th century, Ted Steinberg, a history professor at the US-based Case Western Reserve University, told Al Jazeera.

“That was then. US corporate interests, especially the fossil fuel industry, combined with the one-party political system, in which both Republicans and Democrats indenture themselves to the business class, have caused the United States to drag its feet on global warming,” Steinberg said.

What is the history of Washington’s impact on the environment?

The US has historically been the largest contributor to global warming, experts say.

“As in most countries, US environmental policy has been a response to the problems caused by industrialisation and urbanisation, starting in the mid-19th century and proceeding from there, happening at the local, state and national levels,” Chad Montrie, a history professor at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, told Al Jazeera.

“Much of that policy has been limited and inadequate, especially when corporations were able to exert their influence, but in some cases, it has been ahead of what other nations were doing,” Montrie, who specialises in environmental history, added.

There was a time when environmental policy was bipartisan. The EPA was, in fact, created by Republican President Richard Nixon in 1970.

“It wasn’t until the rise of pro-business politics in the 1980s that Republicans like President Reagan took a hard turn against environmental protections,” Heinz said.

“The Democratic Party continues to believe in environmental protection and climate-friendly policies to some degree, while the Republican Party has become one of the few political parties worldwide that completely denies the scientific facts around climate change.”

How does this affect the rest of the world?

“US policy often sets the standards for policy in other parts of the world, both because of its cultural influence and because of the control that the US has over global bodies like the International Monetary Fund,” Heinz said.

“Right now, the US is actively pushing dirty fossil fuels on the rest of the world and even threatening some of its allies for trying to negotiate new environmental agreements.”

Heinz explained that this pressure, coupled with soaring energy prices, seems to have convinced Europe to retreat from some of their climate goals. Household electricity prices jumped by about 20 percent across the European Union between 2021 and 2022, according to Eurostat data.

Heinz said that if the latest United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP negotiations are any indication, global climate ambition appears to be on the decline right now.

The latest conference concluded in November 2025 in Brazil with a draft proposal which did not include a roadmap for transitioning away from fossil fuels, nor did it mention the term “fossil fuels” at all. This drew rebuke from several countries attending the conference.

“So long as Donald Trump remains in office, the hope of future generations relies upon the nations of the world coming together and acting responsibly to preserve a healthy environment at a time when the United States has gone truly mad.”

WASHINGTON — In the escalating war in Iran, the State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs would ordinarily be at the center of the geopolitical fray.

Typically led by a veteran diplomat, the bureau’s role would be to coordinate U.S. foreign policy across an 18-country region, much of which has become a chaotic battlefield scarred by drone and missile strikes as the U.S. and Israel remain locked in conflict with Iran.

The Trump administration for a time put Mora Namdar, a lawyer of Iranian descent with limited management experience, in charge before later moving her to a different post. One of her credentials was her contribution to Project 2025, a conservative think tank’s blueprint for the second Trump administration. Namdar’s last Senate-confirmed predecessor was a longtime Middle East expert who had been with the department since 1984 and had served as the U.S. ambassador to the United Arab Emirates.

Now that bureau is also working with far fewer resources. The administration’s most recent budget proposed a 40% cut to the bureau, though Congress eventually enacted less dramatic cuts. The administration also eliminated the dedicated Iran office, merging it with the Iraq office.

Staff reductions and management choices hamper emergency response

These kinds of personnel and management choices — coupled with President Trump’s moves to shrink government and confine decision-making to a tight circle — are limiting the ability of the United States to handle a global emergency, according to interviews with more than a dozen current and former U.S. officials, many of whom recently left government.

In divisions of the State Department that typically would handle the Iran response, numerous veteran diplomats with decades of collective experience were fired, retired or were reassigned — replaced by more junior officials or political appointees. The administration cut more than 80 staffers in Near Eastern Affairs, according to numbers compiled by a State Department employee who was terminated last year based on surveys of colleagues. (The department does not release official figures on Foreign Service officer staffing levels but did not dispute the number.)

The Trump administration has left the assistant secretary position in charge of Near Eastern Affairs vacant, along with key ambassadorships in the Middle East. Four of the five supervisors in the bureau have temporary titles.

The current and former officials, some of whom asked for anonymity to discuss sensitive internal matters during an active conflict, paint a portrait of an understaffed government workforce struggling to execute the president’s agenda. Those who remain tell colleagues that their analysis, recommendations and advice go unheeded.

The State Department vigorously disputed those assessments.

“As far as we can tell, AP’s entire ‘report’ on the evacuations does not include any conversations with people actually involved. Instead, it relies on ‘outside’ or ‘former official’ sources that have no idea what they are talking about. We walked AP through specific inaccuracy after specific inaccuracy — indeed how the whole premise was wrong,” State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott said.

More than 3,800 State Dept. employees departed since Trump took office

The State Department saw a departure of more than 3,800 employees since President Trump took office through a combination of reductions in force, staffers taking the Fork in the Road deferred resignation plan and ordinary retirements. According to estimates by the American Foreign Service Association, the labor union that represents foreign service officers, senior foreign service ranks were disproportionately represented in the layoffs compared to their share of the overall workforce.

“He’s making choices without the larger expertise of the United States government that would flag issues of consequence,” said Max Stier, CEO of the nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service, a nonprofit group that studies federal workforce issues. “Sometimes government is slow-moving because there are a lot of different factors that need to be balanced against each other.”

For instance, the administration appears to have been caught off guard by what would happen once the U.S. struck Iran — something Trump himself acknowledged this week when he expressed surprise that Tehran retaliated with strikes on American allies in the region. “Nobody expected that. We were shocked. They fought back,” Trump told reporters this week.

Pigott said staffing reductions “are not having any negative impact on our ability to respond to this operation, our ability to plan, and our ability to execute in service to Americans.” He added that the department “rejects the premise that key decisions were made without meaningful input from experienced professionals.”

But Iranian retaliation on U.S. allies was predictable, according to former officials, as well as previous war games and conflict models run by both the U.S. military and private organizations. The National Security Council, which Trump has pared, typically would have presented the president with analysis from experts within the bureaucracy.

Instead, decisions are made by a small group of officials close to the president without the planning or coordination of the larger machinery of government, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who also serves as the president’s national security adviser.

“In the Trump Administration, decisions are made by President Trump and senior administration officials and not by no-name bureaucrat leakers who whine to the press about not being consulted about highly classified operations,” White House spokesperson Dylan Johnson said.

Advice from career officials often went unheeded

“In the time that I was there, there was no policy process to speak of,” said Chris Backemeyer, who served in Near Eastern Affairs as a deputy assistant secretary of state before resigning last year. Backemeyer was a major proponent of the Iran deal that Trump abandoned. He recently left government to run for Congress as a Democrat in Nebraska.

“They did not want to hear any advice from career people,” said Backemeyer.

Namdar was later moved to be the head of Consular Affairs, the part of the department responsible for providing assistance to American citizens overseas and issuing visas to foreign visitors.

When the U.S. made the decision to strike Iran, Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee offered embassy staff in Jerusalem the opportunity to evacuate — a sign that he knew strikes were coming. But some other embassies in the region did not make similar arrangements — leaving nonessential personnel and their families stranded in a war zone.

The department said it has been issuing travel warnings since January and was fully staffed to handle the crisis the moment the strikes were launched.

Evacuation planning was chaotic

Still, little planning appears to have gone into how to evacuate the Americans who were living, working, visiting or studying in many of the countries that became engulfed in the conflict — in part because the White House seems to have underestimated the possibility of the strikes expanding into a prolonged multi-country war, as evidenced by Trump’s own remarks.

After Iranian attacks on allies like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, the State Department began calling for Americans to leave the region. But numerous former Consular Affairs staffers say such planning should have begun long before U.S. strikes started.

In a statement posted to social media, Namdar only told Americans to evacuate several days into the conflict, when airspace was largely closed and many commercial flights were unavailable.

“The messaging that went out to American citizens — after the U.S. struck Iran — was woefully late and, initially, confusing,” said Yael Lempert, who served as U.S. ambassador to Jordan until 2025. Lempert is one of five former ambassadors expected to speak about the department’s failures at an event Thursday at the American Academy of Diplomacy in Washington.

Other poorly executed evacuations, such the Biden administration’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, have drawn criticism.

But this time they’re compounded by the loss of experienced people, officials say. Consular Affairs has lost more than 150 jobs in the Trump administration due to a combination of reductions in force, dismissals of probationary employees and retirements, according to a U.S. official who asked for anonymity — though other parts of the department were hit much harder.

The department notes that it has offered assistance to nearly 50,000 Americans impacted by the conflict, with more than 60 flights evacuating citizens from the region. In total, the department says more than 70,000 Americans have been able to return home since the outbreak of hostilities on Feb. 28.

Democrat says personnel reduction imperiled safety

“The loss of experienced personnel through these RIFs has clearly undermined the Bureau of Consular Affairs’ ability to fulfill its most important mission, to protect Americans abroad,” Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement.

Language skills at the department are also atrophying. Thirteen Arabic speakers and four Farsi speakers, all trained at taxpayer expense, were among employees let go, according to a draft letter being circulated by former foreign service officers.

It can cost $200,000 to train a foreign service officer in a language. The letter estimates that the total number of people fired by the State Department in the name of efficiency received more than $35 million in taxpayer-funded language training and more than $100 million in total training and other career development.

The State Department has set up two temporary task forces to deal with the crisis in the Middle East. One aims to bolster the capacities of Near East Affairs and another is aimed at helping Consular Affairs evacuate Americans.

A group of more than 250 Foreign Service officers were part of the administration’s reduction-in-force last year but still remain on the State Department’s payroll. Many have volunteered to return to the department to work on either a task force or do any other job that needs to be done with the outbreak of a global crisis.

“I haven’t been given any separation paperwork. I still have an active clearance. I could go back to the department tomorrow, either to backfill or staff a task force,” said one foreign service officer who asked for anonymity because they are still technically on the department’s payroll and are not authorized to speak to the press. “I will do the scutwork jobs.”

The department hasn’t responded to their offer but said in a statement that the task force is “fully staffed.”

Tau writes for the Associated Press.

THERE could be trouble ahead for those who have booked holidays to far-flung destinations as airlines are warning of even more flight cancellations.

The rising price and shortage of jet fuel caused by the Iran crisis means airlines may be forced to axe longer journeys.

Following the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the price of jet fuel has risen sharply from $90 (£67) per barrel to as much as $200 (£150) per barrel – with oil traders now also expecting a shortage of it in the coming weeks.

As a result, there’s a rising risk of airlines cancelling services especially to long-haul destinations.

This is because airlines heading to far-flung places may not have enough fuel for the return journey.

The Times reported that the problem could even go on until summer quoting an industry source that said it could “take up to six months to get back to normal” – which sees us through to August.

ALL IN

The CHEAPEST all-inclusive holidays in May half term – from £259pp and kids go free

EGG-CELLENT CHOICE

The cheapest all-inclusive holidays this Easter break – from just £192pp

Some airlines are already taking action to preserve fuel. Earlier this week, Air New Zealand said that it will be cutting back on flights until May 2026.

The airline will see roughly a five per cent reduction in its services which works out to around 1,100 flights.

Following suit, Scandinavian Airlines System (SAS) announced that it would be cancelling 1,000 flights.

Certain countries, like Vietnam have now warned that flights could be cancelled from April, affecting the Easter break.

Meanwhile, China and Thailand have halted exports of fuel to maintain their own supplies – which in turn will affect airlines operating in other countries.

Closer to home, Brits could be affected as some of its jet fuel is imported from the likes of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

International Air Transport Association said that “Europe is among the most exposed, with 25–30 per cent of its jet fuel demand originating from the Persian Gulf.”

Meanwhile, Watson Farley & Williams, the energy, infrastructure and transport law firm, said: “If airports and airlines’ stocks of fuel are depleted for any length of time, airlines will cease to be able to fuel their aircraft and will have to reduce their operations.

“This may have far-reaching consequences.”

This implies that there could be a knock-on effect for airlines later on, too.

It added that “further flight cancellations can be expected, even by airlines operating from home bases where there is a reliable supply of fuel.”

Certain UK airlines are less affected for now because they have secured some of their fuel at a fixed price for a certain amount of time.

These include Ryanair, easyJet, British Airways and Virgin Atlantic.

Ryanair boss Michael O’Leary said the rise in jet fuel “won’t affect our costs and it won’t affect ​our low fares.”

For more on the Iran crisis, British Airways has cancelled all flights to Dubai until June.

Yet, these two beautiful holiday islands with direct UK flights are seeing ‘huge demand’ as Brits swerve from Dubai, says TUI boss.

March 17 (UPI) — A magnitude 5.8 earthquake struck eastern Cuba early Tuesday, hours after the island’s national power grid collapsed, leaving nearly the entire country without electricity and compounding an already severe economic and social crisis.

The U.S. Geological Survey reported the quake at magnitude 5.8, while Cuba’s National Seismological Research Center measured it at 6.0. The epicenter was located off the coast of Guantánamo province and was widely felt across eastern Cuba.

State local newspaper Granma reported no fatalities or significant material damage.

The tremor followed the total disconnection of Cuba’s National Electric System shortly before 2 p.m. Monday, the sixth nationwide blackout in roughly 18 months. The Ministry of Energy and Mines said on X that the causes remain under investigation.

The outage left nearly 10 million people without electricity, disrupting water pumping, telecommunications and Internet service. Residents relied on candles, torches and battery-powered radios, according to a report by Mexican broadcaster TV Azteca.

The ministry said the failure affected the entire country, including Havana. The U.S. Embassy in Cuba issued a security alert saying no information was available on when power would be restored.

Energy Minister Vicente de la O Levy said on X that authorities are following established protocols and working to restore electricity to the country’s largest generating units.

Independent outlet Diario de Cuba reported that the government has yet to explain the collapse, which coincided with renewed protests in Havana and growing signs of public discontent.

Officials initially said service was being partially restored through localized “microsystems” in several provinces, prioritizing essential facilities while attempting to restart major thermoelectric plants. Full recovery could take time, especially due to fuel shortages that have limited distributed generation since January.

Frequent blackouts have slowed industrial activity and strained public services nationwide. Recent demonstrations in several cities have resulted in arrests.

Official figures show the Cuban economy has contracted more than 15% since 2020. Much of the state-run industrial sector remains idle and essential services have deteriorated sharply.

Independent experts estimate that fully restoring the power system would require between $8 billion and $10 billion, sums widely seen as beyond the reach of the Cuban economy.

Days after President Miguel Díaz-Canel acknowledged talks with the United States to address longstanding disputes, the government announced measures to allow greater entry of private capital, including from U.S. companies and Cuban expatriates in Miami.

In an interview with state-run Canal Caribe, Vice Prime Minister Óscar Pérez-Oliva Fraga said investors could own private companies on the island and access the financial sector. He confirmed that Cuban emigrants may become partners or owners of private businesses without living in Cuba and may associate with local firms under the Foreign Investment Law.

They also would be allowed to enter the national financial system, open foreign currency accounts and create cooperation and investment funds with authorization from the Central Bank.

Pérez-Oliva Fraga said the measures respond to demands from the diaspora and aim to expand its role in economic development as the government seeks to attract foreign capital and diversify the private sector.

He said “Cuba’s doors are open” to foreign investment, including U.S. companies, while again blaming the U.S. embargo for the island’s energy crisis and fuel shortages.

On Monday, President Donald Trump said he would have “the honor of taking Cuba,” describing the country as weakened after decades of rule by what he called violent leaders.

“You know, all my life I’ve heard about the United States and Cuba. When will the United States have the honor of taking Cuba? That would be a great honor,” Trump said from the Oval Office, according to CNN.

“Taking Cuba in some way, yes, taking Cuba. I mean, whether you free it or take it, I think I can do whatever I want with it,” he added.

His comments came as senior administration officials have repeatedly said a conflict with Iran could end within days and after Trump suggested that Cuba could be next on his agenda.

As the U.S. wades even deeper into the conflict with Iran, some Democratic and progressive political figures are trying to figure out how to connect the public’s wariness about war with concerns about affordability and the widespread reaction against President Trump’s xenophobic immigration policies.

If you’re looking for a template to do it well, one can be found in the words and actions of a political figure who recently passed away: the Rev. Jesse Jackson.

For while attention after his death has rightfully focused on Jackson’s long involvement with the civil rights movement, the more telling lesson for this moment is how his presidential campaigns connected a concern for addressing domestic disenfranchisement with a resolute stance against U.S. military adventures — a message that built on and echoed the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s landmark 1967 speech against the Vietnam War, economic exploitation and racial injustice.

Jackson’s candidacies in 1984 and 1988 emerged at a moment when the social compacts forged by the labor, civil rights and women’s movements of the 20th century were being systematically undone. Deindustrialization was hollowing out working-class communities. Reaganism was consolidating power around tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation and attacks on unions. A new corporate consensus was hardening — one that increasingly shaped both major parties — prioritizing financial elites while disciplining labor and shrinking the public sphere.

Sound familiar?

Jackson refused to accept that such a right-wing and corporate realignment was inevitable. His Rainbow Coalition was far more ambitious than a candidate-centered campaign. It was an attempt to build an organized, multiracial, cross-class political front capable of contesting the direction of the country itself.

The Rainbow brought together constituencies that conventional political wisdom said could not unite — Black voters in the South, industrial workers in the Midwest, family farmers in crisis, Latino and Native organizers, Arab American activists, peace advocates, labor insurgents and progressive whites.

Jackson’s platform did not treat these groups as symbolic additions to a coalition; it linked their material interests. Farmers facing foreclosure were not an afterthought — the farm crisis was up front. Deindustrialized workers were not rhetorical props — trade, jobs and industrial policy were central. Civil rights were braided together with economic justice.

And crucially, Jackson insisted, as King had, that economic populism could not be separated from anti-militarism.

At the height of the Cold War, amid Reagan’s military buildup and interventionist doctrine, Jackson argued that bloated Pentagon budgets were not abstract line items. They were resources diverted from schools, healthcare, housing and jobs. He connected the violence of abandonment at home to the violence of intervention abroad — and his campaign called for redirecting military spending toward human needs and for diplomacy over escalation.

When Jackson thundered that we should “choose the human race over the nuclear race,” this was not a simple turn of phrase. It was integral to the Rainbow’s moral and economic logic. A government that prioritizes war over welfare, weapons over workers, cannot sustain democratic life.

That clarity feels especially salient today, as the United States continues to pursue military interventions and proxy conflicts whose legality and human cost are deeply contested. Once again, defense budgets swell while public goods strain. Once again, dissent against war is treated as disloyalty. Jackson rejected that false choice decades ago. He understood that militarism abroad reinforces inequality and immorality at home.

Jackson’s 1988 campaign captured millions of votes, won primaries and caucuses across the country and forced issues into the Democratic Party that party elites preferred to sideline. He demonstrated that a progressive program grounded in the lived experiences of ordinary people — rural collapse, urban disinvestment, plant closures, racial injustice and war — could assemble a national constituency.

Unfortunately, after Jackson’s last campaign, the Rainbow’s experiment in independent organizational life was folded too tightly into the mainstream Democratic Party. While that seemed a strategy to achieve a broader front, it meant that the progressive anchor was unmoored — and the effort dissolved before it could truly mature.

But the lessons of that era may be more relevant than ever.

Today, we again confront an ever-ascendant rightward turn buttressed by concentrated corporate power and normalized militarism. As in Jackson’s day, some leaders seek to deflect our attention, blaming economic challenges on the proximate “other” — in his era, Black women taking welfare, in our era, immigrants taking jobs — rather than those with power.

Jackson understood that defeating reactionary politics required isolating it — not only morally, but structurally — by assembling a coalition larger than the right’s base and rooted in shared material demands. He understood that hope had to be organized and that peace had to be part of prosperity. His campaigns showed that racial justice, labor rights, rural survival, gender equality and anti-war politics were not competing claims but interlocking ones.

Protest has surged in the United States, particularly after the excesses in Minnesota. But protest alone does not prevent consolidation. Nor do narrow electoral bargains that leave the underlying corporate and military consensus intact.

At a time when both parties remain deeply entangled with corporate and defense interests, remembering the promise of the Rainbow is not nostalgia. It is instruction.

Rishi Awatramani is a postdoctoral scholar in sociology at USC, where Manuel Pastor is a professor of sociology and the director of the Equity Research Institute.

Islamabad, Pakistan — The war launched by the United States and Israel on Iran has already killed more than 1,400 people, set off retaliatory attacks by Tehran targeting Gulf nations and Israel, and pushed global oil prices above $100 a barrel.

Now, eighteen days into the conflict, aid agencies and countries neighbouring Iran are increasingly concerned about a potential refugee crisis.

The United Nations refugee agency, UNHCR, estimates that 3.2 million people have already been displaced in Iran since US-Israeli strikes began on February 28. For now, the number of people physically crossing Iran’s borders remains comparatively modest. But this is what could happen next, and has put Iran’s neighbours on high alert.

Iran borders seven countries: Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iraq, Pakistan, Turkiye and Turkmenistan. Iraq shares the longest frontier, stretching for almost 1,600km (994 miles).

Each of these states faces its own political pressures, economic limitations and security concerns.

But pressure on the ground in Iran is mounting. The country’s Red Crescent Society reports that more than 10,000 civilian sites have been damaged since the war began, including 65 schools and 32 medical facilities, while more than 1,400 people have been killed in the US-Israel attacks. Strikes have hit residential areas in Tehran, Shiraz and Isfahan.

Meanwhile, commercial flights out of Iran have been suspended as airspace is closed.

Eldaniz Gusseinov, head of research at the geopolitical advisory firm Nightingale International, noted that because strikes have so far been concentrated largely on Tehran and western and southwestern Iran, other parts of the country — especially provinces bordering Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan are absorbing much of the internal displacement.

“If the strike pattern remains the same, internally displaced people inside Iran will increasingly concentrate in provinces located near those states, creating the preconditions for cross-border movement,” the Almaty-based analyst told Al Jazeera.

And things could get worse. If Tehran, a city of about 10 million people, were to lose its electricity grid or water supply in a US-Israel attack, for instance, residents could be forced to leave en masse.

“Infrastructure destruction does not produce the gradual, manageable flows that the Syrian war initially generated. It produces sudden, massive displacement, driven by the collapse of basic urban services,” Gusseinov said.

Turkiye fears repeat of Syrian migration crisis

Among Iran’s neighbours, only Turkiye, Iraq and Pakistan have extensive experience of hosting large refugee populations.

Imtiaz Baloch, an independent researcher focusing on conflicts in Pakistan and Central Asia, said that if the crisis in Iran deepens, many Iranians could seek refuge in neighbouring states, particularly Iraq and Turkiye.

Analysts say no country faces greater political exposure than Turkiye.

“Turkiye is currently hosting many refugees from Syria and other countries. A new influx of Iranian migrants would likely intensify the humanitarian burden and create new challenges for both host countries and international relief agencies in the coming days,” Baloch said.

Turkiye shares a 530km (329-mile) border with Iran and allows visa-free entry for Iranian citizens. It already hosts the world’s largest refugee population, including roughly 3.6 million Syrians, and anti-immigrant sentiment has hardened within domestic politics over the past decade.

Turkiye’s interior minister, Mustafa Çiftçi, said earlier in March that the government had prepared three contingency plans for the war in Iran.

The first involves intercepting migration flows within Iranian territory before they reach the border. The second proposes establishing buffer zones along the frontier. The third would allow refugees to enter Turkiye under controlled conditions as a last resort.

Turkish authorities say they have already strengthened the border with Iran, adding 380km (236 miles) of concrete wall, 203 optical towers and 43 observation posts – undertaken, according to a Turkish Ministry of National Defence statement issued in January, as the US was building up its armada in the Gulf late last year.

“Although there is currently no mass migration detection at our borders, additional measures have been taken on the border line, and these measures will be implemented if needed,” the Defence Ministry stated on January 15.

So far, this has not been necessary. According to Turkish government data on the movement of people from Iran, 5,010 entered Turkiye from between March 1 and 3, while 5,495 exited.

But Turkiye has felt the effects of the war’s spillover in other ways. On March 9, NATO confirmed it had intercepted an Iranian ballistic missile over Turkish airspace. The debris landed near Gaziantep, in the western-most part of the country, about 50km (31 miles) from the Syrian border. Iran denied that it was behind the attack on Turkiye.

Crisis on an unprecedented scale?

What makes the current situation in Iran particularly urgent is the scale of its population, say analysts.

Syria had approximately 21 million people at the start of its civil war. Iran has roughly 90 million. The Syrian conflict caused more than 13 million people to be displaced, including more than 6 million who fled the country.

A proportionate displacement from Iran would represent a humanitarian crisis with few modern parallels. To put it into perspective, if a country of 90 million experienced the exact same scale of crisis as Syria, nearly 56 million people would be forced to flee their homes, and nearly 26 million of them would become international refugees.

Gusseinov said such a scale of displacement and the capacity of international aid agencies is “fundamentally mismatched”.

Furthermore, Iran itself hosts one of the world’s largest refugee populations: about 3.7 million displaced people, most of them from Afghanistan.

“Any mass displacement from Iran, therefore, creates a dual crisis: Iranian civilians fleeing outward, and Afghan and Iraqi refugees who were already in Iran being displaced a second time, or pushed back to countries that cannot absorb them,” he said.

Iraq and the South Caucasus face difficult choices

Although most population movement is still taking place within Iran rather than across its borders, Iran’s neighbours do have cause for concern, analysts say.

“Iran’s neighbouring countries are already dealing with their own crises, which limits their ability to absorb a potential refugee influx. Countries such as Syria, Iraq, Azerbaijan, Pakistan, and Afghanistan are facing varying degrees of economic, political, or security challenges. These internal pressures make it difficult for them to accommodate a large influx of refugees,” Gusseinov told Al Jazeera.

Iraq, which shares Iran’s longest border, faces a particularly complex situation.

The country is not only a potential destination for Iranian refugees, but has also been caught in military exchanges between Washington and Tehran. US forces have targeted armed groups operating from Iraqi territory, while Iran and pro-Iran armed groups have struck – or attempted to strike – US military and diplomatic positions inside the country.

The UN’s International Organization for Migration says disruptions on the Iranian side of the border have led to the closure of several crossing points, although Iraqi crossings remain technically open. Meanwhile, the UNHCR says it is monitoring developments closely, and that the Iraqi government would lead any emergency refugee response.

The semi-autonomous Kurdish region of northern Iraq, which, unlike the rest of the country, still allows visa-free entry for Iranian passport holders, adds another layer of complexity.

The region hosts several Kurdish armed groups, some of which have reportedly been in discussions with Washington about receiving military support in return for joining the war against Iran. The development has prompted Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to strike Kurdish positions inside Iraqi territory.

Baghdad has publicly stated that it will not allow its territory to be used to infiltrate Iran, but experts on the region say its ability to enforce the position is limited.

Further north, the South Caucasus states of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia have each expressed concern while attempting to carefully balance relations with both Washington and Tehran.

Azerbaijan has closed its land borders to routine traffic, requiring government approval for any crossing, while Armenia’s border with Iran, which is just 44km (27 miles) long, remains open.

“Armenia is a small economy already absorbing Russian and Ukrainian migrants,” Gusseinov said.

Pakistan and Afghanistan confront overlapping crises

To Iran’s east lie Pakistan and Afghanistan, each grappling with existing refugee pressures.

According to the UNHCR, since October 2023, about 5.4 million Afghans have returned to Afghanistan from Iran and Pakistan, many not by choice.

Following the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan and the Taliban’s return to power in August 2021, a huge wave of Afghans sought refuge across the country’s borders, fearful of economic collapse and security threats.

The UN and international migration agencies estimate that between 1 and 1.5 million Afghans fled to Iran in the immediate aftermath of the US withdrawal, pushing the total Afghan population in Iran to upwards of 5 or 6 million.

Concurrently, hundreds of thousands of newly displaced Afghans crossed into Pakistan, joining a long-established refugee community there and swelling the total number of Afghans in the country to more than 3 million.

In response to this influx and citing domestic economic and security pressures, both Pakistan and Iran initiated aggressive mass deportation campaigns, forcing millions back into Afghanistan. Between late 2023 and the end of 2025, between 2.8 million and 3.5 million Afghans are thought to have been sent back.

Pakistan’s stringent repatriation plans pushed out more than 1.3 million people, while Iran drastically accelerated its expulsions, deporting nearly 2 million individuals in 2025 alone.

According to the UNHCR, in 2026 so far, more than 232,500 Afghans have returned to their country, including 146,206 from Pakistan and 86,253 from Iran.

The primary concern now is that the war in Iran could accelerate these returns, pushing people into communities already struggling to cope and potentially triggering further onward migration. The UNHCR has also warned that largescale and hurried returns of refugees could trigger further instability in the region.

Further complicating the situation, Pakistan and Afghanistan have been engaged in fighting, as Islamabad claims that Afghanistan is providing a safe haven to armed groups launching attacks at Pakistan. Kabul has consistently denied the presence of any such groups on its soil.

Another bout of hostilities in October 2025 led Pakistan to close its borders with Afghanistan. Since then, Afghanistan’s trade and economic ties with Iran have deepened.

“Destabilisation of the Iranian economy, therefore, hits Afghanistan through two channels simultaneously: reduced trade flows and refugee return surges,” Gusseinov said.

Meanwhile, Pakistan faces its own geographical and security challenges.

The country’s border with Iran runs through Balochistan, its largest but most volatile province, where separatist sentiment has simmered for decades. The province has seen an increasing number of attacks by armed groups seeking independence from Pakistan. In February this year, Pakistan’s military concluded a weeklong security operation in the province, and claimed it had killed 216 fighters in targeted offensives.

While Balochistan’s provincial officials say they have sufficient resources to accommodate refugees if large numbers begin arriving across the southern border, researcher Baloch said the reality was more complicated. Any refugee crisis, he said, could make the situation in Balochistan difficult for Islamabad to manage.

“Balochistan’s porous border is next to Iran’s Sistan and Baluchestan province, a region that has historically been home to various separatist groups. Any significant influx of refugees across this border could impose additional security and economic costs on Pakistan,” Baloch said.

AS A RESULT of the Iran crisis, Brits have been looking for different destinations to travel to, with demand rising for some countries.

The conflict in the Middle East has had a ripple effect throughout the travel sector, with Brits being forced to cancel their holidays as the Foreign Office has issued ‘do not travel’ warnings to some destinations.

And now, Brits looking at booking a holiday are choosing destinations closer to home in Europe.

Last week, On The Beach confirmed that they had experienced a drop in demand for popular holiday destinations including Greece, Turkey, Cyprus and Egypt, as a result of growing tensions in the Middle East.

This is despite the Government having no warning against travel to any of the popular holiday regions in these countries.

But on the other hand, TUI has seen increased interest in Greece, as well as Portugal and Spain, as customers look to “familiar destinations”.

Read more on travel inspo

CHEAP BREAKS

UK’s best 100 cheap stays – our pick of the top hotels, holiday parks and pubs

TAKING OFF

I’ve visited 50 countries & this much-loathed budget airline is the world’s best

Neil Swanson, a director at TUI, said: “While we are seeing some cancellations in the affected areas, these are currently outweighed by customers choosing to amend their plans instead,” reports The Guardian.

Hays Travel on the other hand, has seen interest grow for trips to Italy, Malta and Croatia.

And Surrey-based holiday operator Kuoni has seen interest in longer haul destinations such as the Caribbean grow although this also comes with a jump in price as well.

Mark Duguid from Kuoni said: “What we’ve seen is huge increases in flight prices, because the seats remaining are limited – we are talking about seats going up by £1,000 a person for an economy seat, which then prices the holiday out of the market for many customers.”

Pure One Travel founder, Wesley Baker, said: “Travellers are still eager to explore the world, but geopolitical events inevitably influence where people choose to go.

“We are seeing customers pivot towards destinations they perceive as easier and more straightforward to reach.”

The tour operator added that interest has increased for destinations such as Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece.

Baker added: “Many travellers are simply redirecting their plans rather than cancelling them.

“Europe remains extremely popular, while long-haul destinations in Latin America are also attracting interest from travellers looking for something more adventurous.”

According to Expedia, popular European destinations for this spring based on search data include Paris in France; Amsterdam in the Netherlands; Rome in Italy and Majorca and Tenerife in Spain.

Ljubljana in Slovenia has seen a 90 per cent increase in search as well, and Valencia in Spain has seen a 65 per cent increase.

The Sun’s Head of Travel Lisa Minot explained: “There’s no doubt the current crisis in the Middle East is going to have a seismic impact on our holiday habits.

“Reports of travellers stranded in the UAE and across the globe will certainly prompt those looking to travel long haul to look at alternative ways to fly – with direct flights to places like Thailand, the Maldives and Japan sure to be very popular.

“Closer to home, the situation will sadly likely impact destinations like Turkey, Egypt, Cyprus and possibly even Greece.

“And with soaring fuel costs, tour operators will be looking to price alternative destinations competitively.

“But there are other options – our traditional resorts in places like Spain and Portugal are good, safe bets.

“Comparison giant TravelSupermarket has crunched the numbers for this summer and declared Spain’s Costa Calida one of the best-value destinations for this summer.

“Dubbed the ‘warm coast’, this region stretching along the south eastern region of Murcia is one of Spain’s most underrated coastlines with 150miles of beaches, crystal clear waters and the unique Mar Menor lagoon, Europe’s largest saltwater lake.

“Also worth exploring are the likes of Montenegro, Albania and even North Macedonia for cheaper hotel and restaurant costs as well as traditional favourite Bulgaria.”

For more inspiration on where to go on holiday, here are 10 European getaways in the Easter holidays for under £200 per person.

Plus, cheeky 48-hour holidays to Europe’s best cities, beach towns and islands this summer from £167.

DOLLY Parton has issued a major announcement about Dollywood after taking time off for a health crisis.

She opened the amusement park, which is located in her native Tennessee, back in 1986 and it hosts nearly three million guests each year.

Now it’s been revealed that Dollywood is officially open for the new 2026 season.

She shared the exciting news on her Instagram feed with a throwback picture of herself standing at her theme park.

The 80-year-old penned: “I look just like the girls next door… if you happen to live next door to an amusement park.

“@dollywood is officially open for the 2026 season!”

READ MORE ON DOLLY PARTON

GOLLY DOLLY!

Dolly Parton’s $180m Tennessee real estate portfolio revealed

DOLLY GOOD SHOW

Dolly Parton on how she’s defied time as she celebrates 80th birthday

Fans flocked to the comments section to share their excitement as one said: “Yayy I love Dollywood!!”

Another person commented: “The girl next door who owns an amusement park. Because Dolly showed us, girls can do anything.”

Somebody else enthused: “Can’t wait to go back!!”

Yet another expressed: “The Queen of Tennessee, beautiful Dolly.”

While a fifth added: “Going in August – taking a family vacation and Dollywood is definitely on the itinerary.

This comes after Dolly sparked health concerns last fall when she canceled several performances.

At the beginning of fall in 2025, the Tennessee native announced she was forced to postpone her Las Vegas residency after dealing with a number of “health challenges.”

Dolly’s shows were scheduled for six dates in early December at The Colosseum at Caesars Palace.

Tim McGraw subsequently took her place and the rescheduled shows have been set for September 2026.

In her message to fans, Dolly explained that she couldn’t perform due to doctor’s orders and had to undergo “a few procedures.”

“He is telling me to slow down right now so I can be ready for more big adventures with all of you.

“I love you and thank you for understanding.”

She assured fans that she would be back on stage soon, writing, “And don’t worry about me quittin’ the business because God hasn’t said anything about stopping yet.

After taking some time off, she returned last month as she told her fans some exciting news.

Looking incredible while sitting in a colorful room, Dolly delivered the news that East Tennessee Children’s Hospital was officially becoming Dolly Parton Children’s Hospital.

In the video, she explained how she believed every child should grow up healthy and with a fair chance.

She then revealed the hospital’s name change before saying, “I can’t do it all myself,” and asking for people to get involved via her website.

Meanwhile, the caption of the video read: “A new chapter begins.

“East Tennessee Children’s Hospital is proud to share we are becoming Dolly Parton Children’s Hospital.

“Inspired by Dolly’s commitment to children, this transformation represents more than a name change, it’s a promise. A promise to bring hope, healing and world-class care to patients and families across our region.

“Together, we’re building a future where every child has the chance to grow, thrive and feel the comfort of compassionate care.

“The same dedicated team. The same trusted care. Now carrying a name that reflects the heart of our mission. Learn more at DollyChildrens.org.”

SEVERAL cruises have been cancelled amid growing regional tensions in the Middle East, as some ships have been left ‘stuck’ in ports.

A number of cruise lines are cancelling European sailings following a number of ships getting stuck in ports in Dubai, Doha and Abu Dhabi amid conflict in the Middle East.

European cruises cancelled include two Celestyal Cruises sailings on March 20 and March 23 in the Aegean Sea.

This is because the Celestyal Discovery has not yet been able to leave Dubai as it needs to travel through The Strait of Hormuz which is currently closed due to the ongoing conflict in the Middle East.

Guests who were booked on the Greek sailings have been offered a full refund or can opt for cruise credit.

MSC Cruises has cancelled its three remaining winter cruises from Dubai that were due to set sail between March 14 and 28 as MSC Euribia remains docked in Dubai port.

Read more on travel inspo

GO ON

All the little-known websites for cheap or FREE tickets to gigs, theatre & festivals

TAKING OFF

I’ve visited 50 countries & this much-loathed budget airline is the world’s best

Aroya Cruises has also cancelled all cruises for the remainder of the season.

As for TUI, two ships previously stuck in the Strait have resulted in cruises being cancelled up to March 16 for Mein Schiff 4 and March 12 for Mein Schiff 5.

While the final passengers are on their way home via flight, the ships remain in the area.

The main issue for cruise ships at the moment in regards to the conflict, is that since March 2 the Strait of Hormuz has been closed.

This means any ships, so not just cruise ships, are currently not travelling the Strait of Hormuz.

This impacts cruises mainly heading to Doha, Dubai and Abu Dhabi.

Normally, between 10 and 14 cruises travel through the Strait each week during the winter season (November to March).

A spokesperson for AROYA Cruises commented: “Due to ongoing regional operational considerations and in coordination with the relevant maritime and national authorities, AROYA Cruises will not proceed with the remaining sailings scheduled in the Arabian Gulf for the current season.

“All guests were safely disembarked in Dubai on March 7, with the safety, security, and wellbeing of our guests and crew guiding this process.

“We are supporting our guests as they arrange their onward travel and providing guidance and assistance throughout this process.

“The safety, security, and comfort of our guests and crew remain our highest priority and continue to guide every operational decision we make.”

TUI, MSC, Celestyal Cruises, Viking Cruises, Royal Caribbean and Avalon Waterways have been contacted for comment.

What does it mean for British cruise passengers?

The UK government is working to support Brits in all of the impacted areas including the United Arab Emirates.

Official guidance advises Brits who are due to head off on a cruise with stops at the impacted ports to check in with their cruse line to see if their sailing has been cancelled, postponed or rerouted.

For Brits heading on fly-cruises, you should also check with your airline to see if they are still operating your scheduled flight.

Lisa Minot, The Sun’s Head of Travel said: “Six cruise ships are stuck in ports in Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Doha, unable to sail to safer waters without entering the Strait of Hormutz.

“Assistance will be provided to all impacted guests, and cruisers on cancelled sailings will receive full refunds or a future cruise credit to reschedule.”

In other travel news, Brits are cancelling their holidays to Cyprus despite it being on the safe travel list.

Plus, a major airline is cancelling 600 flights across Europe this week.

The war in the Middle East is exposing how dependent the world is on a handful of strategic chokepoints.

The Strait of Hormuz – a narrow waterway in the Gulf – is closed.

The longer this goes on, the faster the global energy map could be reshaped.

From Europe to Asia, countries are facing mounting supply risks and the threat of an inflation shock.

If the conflict between the US, Israel and Iran drags on, alternatives will be hard to find.

But, Russia is shaping up to be a major beneficiary, with soaring prices filling Moscow’s coffers despite Western sanctions.

YOUR holiday sangria or paella could be much more expensive on your next trip to the Spanish islands.

Officials have said that destinations like the Canaries and Balearics will experience a price hike when it comes to food and drink because of the ongoing conflict in the Middle East.

The Spanish islands are incredibly popular with Brits, especially during the summer holidays.

The Canary Islands welcomes up to six million British tourists each year and it’s where you’ll find the likes of Tenerife and Lanzarote.

Meanwhile, around three million tourists visit the Balearics – with over two million heading to Majorca alone.

Both locations are popular thanks to their high temperatures and direct flights from multiple locations across the UK.

EGG-CELLENT CHOICE

The cheapest all-inclusive holidays this Easter break – from just £192pp

DREAMY DEALS

Our pick of the best long haul holidays for short haul prices

Now, industry chiefs have said the increase in cost of food and drink at these destinations will be worse than 2022 when prices shot up after the war in the Ukraine began.

Urgent meetings are already being held in the Balearic Islands and in the Canaries which are very dependent on imports due to their more isolated locations.

In July 2022, inflation climbed to 10.8 per cent in Spain.

President of the Association of Food and Beverage Distributors of the Balearic Islands, Mr Bartolomé Servera is warning of severe increases, which will depend on the duration of the crisis in Iran.

Mr Servera said the new impact will be much greater if the conflict is prolonged as the weight of the Middle East is much greater, especially through the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 per cent of oil and gas pass.

Mr Servera says carriers have already begun to raise prices because the price of fuel has skyrocketed.

Diesel has risen by 32 cents per litre, around 22 per cent; while Gasoline 95 has become between 18 and 20 cents per litre more expensive, which represents 12 per cent.

In addition, it is not ruled out that the barrel of Brent will continue to rise: this Wednesday (March 11) it is around 90 dollars, but this past Monday (March 9) it was close to 120 dollars.

This is likely to then effect everything on the island from hotels and resorts.

The association president said “Milk, eggs, bread, fruit will rise.

“Everything needs fuel for its production or transport, so they will not escape the escalation of costs and producers will have to pass them on to consumers.”

The Canary Islands also fear soaring prices and will meet with transport leaders shortly.

President of the Cabildo de La Gomera, Casimiro Curbelo said official need to be monitoring the impact of the war on the islands and prepare contingency plans.

The Government of the Canary Islands says it is “very attentive” to the consequences of the war in the Middle East and plans to hold a meeting with the transport sector in the coming days in view of the increase in fuel prices.

Faced with this situation, the Government of Spain is working on an aid package, as it did at the beginning of the war in Ukraine, to alleviate the looming rise in prices.

For more on Majorca, here are the hidden gems on the island loved by locals.

And one writer who has visited 100 countries explains why he always goes back to these Spanish islands that Brits love and have the best food and beaches.

Israeli strikes on fuel depots and petroleum logistic sites in Tehran on Sunday saw apocalyptic images coming out of the Iranian capital, as the spilled oil ignited a river of fire, and thick black smoke blanketed the city of 10 million, leaving streets and vehicles covered with soot.

Israel and the United States claimed they were targeting Iranian military and government sites, but government officials and people say civilian structures such as schools, hospitals and major landmarks are increasingly coming under attack. At least 1,255 people have been killed in the strikes since February 28.

What Israeli and US military planners frame as a calculated degradation of state infrastructure is being described by local officials and environmental experts as an act of total warfare, and collective punishment.

Shina Ansari, head of Iran’s Department of Environment, described the systematic destruction of the oil depots as a blatant act of ecocide.

The attacks systematically targeted four major storage facilities and a distribution centre, including the Tehran refinery in the south and depots in Aghdasieh, Shahran, and Karaj. In the Shahran district, witnesses reported unrefined oil leaking directly into the streets as temperatures hovered around 13C (55F).

Ansari from Iran’s Department of Environment stated that the environment remains the silent victim of the war, noting that the incineration of vast fuel reserves has trapped the capital under a suffocating shroud of pollutants.

The medical and environmental fallout is immediate and severe. The Iranian Red Crescent Society warned that the smoke contains high concentrations of toxic hydrocarbons, sulphur, and nitrogen oxides. The organisation noted that any rainfall passing through these plumes becomes highly acidic, posing risks of skin burns and severe lung damage upon contact or inhalation.

Ali Jafarian, Iran’s deputy health minister, told Al Jazeera that this acid rain is already contaminating the soil and water supply. Jafarian added that the toxic air poses a life-threatening risk to the elderly, children, and those with pre-existing respiratory conditions, prompting authorities to advise residents to remain indoors.

The destruction has also forced the Iranian Ministry of Petroleum to slash daily fuel rations for civilians from 30 litres [8 gallons] to 20 litres [5 gallons]. At least four employees, including two tanker drivers, were killed in the depot strikes.

The strategic bombing myth

Major General Mamoun Abu Nowar, a retired Jordanian military analyst, told Al Jazeera that the primary objective of the strikes is to break the resilience of the Iranian people and paralyse the country’s logistics and economy.

“They are preparing the Iranian environment for an uprising against the regime,” Abu Nowar said, adding that the broader goal is to halt state operations and curb Tehran’s regional influence.

However, Abu Nowar raised urgent concerns about the specific munitions deployed, urging Iranian authorities to investigate the bomb fragments given the unusual density of the smoke and the resulting acid rain.

Some military strategists argue that striking an adversary’s vital infrastructure can paralyse the state from the inside out, bypassing the need to fight its military forces directly.

Modern warfare has increasingly relied on this strategic bombing via precision drones and missiles to destroy morale and incapacitate an adversary’s ability to wage war. For Israel, which is engaged in a genocidal war in Gaza and wider regional conflicts, targeting oil depots is viewed as a way to send a coercive message while avoiding a ground war.

However, Adel Shadid, a researcher in Israeli affairs, told Al Jazeera Arabic that the strategy is designed to make life hell for ordinary Iranians in hopes of sparking an uprising. Shadid noted a glaring contradiction in the rhetoric of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who claims to support the Iranian people while overseeing the destruction of their basic means of survival.

Raphael S Cohen, director of the Strategy and Doctrine Program at the RAND Corporation, notes that such bombing campaigns consistently fail to achieve their primary goal of breaking a population’s will. Instead, Cohen argues, strategic bombing typically produces a rally-around-the-flag effect, unifying societies against a common foe rather than causing them to capitulate.

Historical echoes and retaliation

The reality of targeting oil infrastructure rarely aligns with sterile military theory, as history shows that such tactics reliably produce devastating, long-term environmental consequences.

During the 1991 Gulf War, the torching of Kuwaiti oil wells created a regional environmental catastrophe. Similarly, during the battle against ISIL (ISIS) in Iraq, the burning of the Qayyarah oil fields created a “Daesh Winter” that blocked out the sun for months.

The fires released vast quantities of toxic residues, including sulphur dioxide and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, causing severe respiratory illnesses, soil acidification, and long-term carcinogenic risks for the local population.

Meanwhile, Mokhtar Haddad, director of the Al-Wefaq newspaper, told Al Jazeera Arabic that the targeting of energy hubs could trigger a global energy war.

According to Al Jazeera’s Sohaib al-Assa, reporting from Tehran, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has already retaliated by striking the Haifa oil refinery and targeting a US base in Kuwait, signalling that the conflict is no longer confined to military targets.

On Monday, Bahrain’s state-run oil company Bapco declared force majeure after waves of Iranian strikes targeted its energy installations. Iran has also been accused of also targeting energy facilities in other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries.

The South Korean won fell to a 17-year low against the U.S. dollar Monday amid heightened market volatility as oil prices spiked following the expanding conflict in the Middle East.

The won was quoted at 1,495.5 won per dollar at 3:30 p.m., down 19.1 won from the previous session, marking the weakest level since March 12, 2009, when the won-dollar rate hit 1,496.5 won during the global financial crisis.

After opening at 1,493 won, the won-dollar rate touched 1,499.2 won at 10:22 a.m., the lowest intraday level since that day, when the rate reached 1,500 won.

Investor sentiment was dampened by instability in global energy prices. The U.S. benchmark West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude surpassed US$100 per barrel for the first time since July 2022 on Sunday (U.S. time).

The recent decline in the won has also been driven by a broad dollar rally amid concerns that the U.S.-Israeli operation could escalate into a prolonged regional war.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

President Lee Jae Myung on Monday called for authorities to swiftly introduce a cap on local fuel prices, and preemptive responses to cope with surging gas prices and volatility in foreign exchange markets as the U.S.-led war with Iran has intensified in the Middle East.

Lee made the remarks during an interministerial meeting to assess the latest developments following U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran and Tehran’s retaliatory attacks across the Middle East, which have prompted the price of Brent oil to surge through US$100 per barrel.

“As the crisis in the Middle East deepens, uncertainty in the domestic and global economic environment is expanding significantly, posing a considerable burden on the Korean economy relying heavily on global trade and energy imports from the Middle East,” Lee said.

Lee also called for preemptive responses Monday with worst-case scenarios in mind to address the economic fallout from heightened tensions in the Middle East, urging financial stability measures and the exploration of alternative energy routes.

“As it is difficult to predict how the situation will unfold, the government must prepare preemptive response measures with a sense of urgency, keeping even the worst-case scenario in mind,” he added.

Lee urged the government and the Bank of Korea to prepare additional preemptive measures to respond to rising volatility in financial and foreign exchange markets, instructing authorities to expand the 100 trillion-won ($66.8 billion) market stabilization program if necessary.

“We should identify hidden risks and meticulously prepare response measures.”

Lee also called for measures to address uncertainty surrounding energy supplies amid concerns over disruptions to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a major global shipping route.

“We will coordinate with strategic partner countries to promptly explore alternative routes that do not have to pass through the Strait of Hormuz,” he said.

In addition, he urged the government to crack down on collusion between refiners and gas stations, price fixing, and hoarding, calling for strict punishment of violators and the implementation of a price cap system on gasoline and diesel.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.