Donald Trump

As anticipated, it ended up being One Battle After Another’s night at the 98th annual Academy Awards, with the political thriller carting away six Oscars out of a total of 13 nominations.

But while Paul Thomas Anderson’s magnum opus continued its march towards award-season domination, there were moments of genuine surprise and subversion in Sunday’s ceremony.

Some of those moments had to do with the current political climate in the United States.

Host Conan O’Brien and his fellow presenters deftly avoided mentioning President Donald Trump by name, but their barbs took direct aim at his policies since returning to office.

Other surprises came from within the filmmaking community itself. For only the seventh time in Oscar history, a tie was announced: Two films had gotten an equal number of votes for Best Live Action Short.

As a result, both the surrealist thriller Two People Exchanging Saliva and the moody bar-room drama The Singers shared the Academy Award.

Here are six key takeaways from the night.

A two-horse race between Sinners and One Battle

The vampire film Sinners came into Sunday night’s ceremony with a record 16 Oscar nominations. But the big question of the night was: How many nods could it actually convert into wins?

Its biggest competition was, of course, Anderson’s One Battle After Another, which had the second highest tally of nominations.

Sinners director Ryan Coogler and Anderson were in direct competition in several top categories, including Best Picture and Best Director.

In both cases, Anderson came out ahead, though he acknowledged how fickle such awards can be.

“ I just want to say that, in 1975, the Oscar nominees for Best Picture were Dog Day Afternoon, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, Jaws, Nashville and Barry Lyndon,” the four-time Best Director nominee said, listing films now considered to be Hollywood classics.

“There is no best among them. There is just what the mood might be that day.”

In the categories for Best Supporting Actor and Best Film Editing, One Battle After Another also triumphed, as well as for the inaugural award for Best Casting.

But in a sign of how well matched their two films were, both Coogler and Anderson emerged from the night with writing Oscars.

Anderson picked up Best Adapted Screenplay award for his use of the Thomas Pynchon novel Vineland, while Coogler made off with the Best Original Screenplay Oscar for Sinners, a work inspired by his uncle’s love of the blues.

Jordan dunks on Chalamet in Best Actor race

Sinners, which won four Academy Awards overall, earned some of the most emotional, nail-biting victories of the night.

In the Best Cinematography category, for instance, Autumn Durald Arkapaw became the first woman to top the field.

It was her first nomination and first win, with Arkapaw besting veteran cinematographers like Marty Supreme’s Darius Khondji and Frankenstein’s Dan Laustsen, both multiple nominees.

Another big win for Sinners came in the form of Michael B Jordan, the actor whom Coogler has cast in every film since his directorial breakout in 2013’s Fruitvale Station.

Jordan, 39, was in a tight race for Best Actor with another young performer, 30-year-old Timothee Chalamet of the 1950s ping-pong drama Marty Supreme.

But Chalamet’s aggressive campaigning may have ultimately sabotaged his prospects. Multiple cracks were taken throughout the night at Chalamet’s recent comments disparaging opera and ballet.

“Nobody cares anymore” about either art form, Chalamet said in an interview last month.

“We can change society through art, through creativity, through theatre and ballet and also cinema,” director Alexandre Singh said pointedly during his acceptance speech for Best Live Action Short.

O’Brien, meanwhile, acknowledged the backlash with a joke about heightened security at the night’s Oscar ceremony.

“I’m told there are concerns about attacks from both the opera and ballet communities,” O’Brien said, before turning to Chalamet. “They’re just mad you left out jazz.”

A conga line of snubs

Given the dominant performances from Sinners and One Battle After Another, plenty of critically acclaimed films left empty-handed, or nearly so.

Guillermo del Toro’s Frankenstein, as expected, earned three wins in technical categories, including Best Production Design, Best Costumes and Best Hairstyling and Makeup.

Netflix’s smash hit KPop Demon Hunters, meanwhile, also fulfilled expectations that it would dominate in its categories, Best Animated Feature and Best Original Song.

But then there were former frontrunners like Hamnet that failed to generate much traction, including for director Chloe Zhao, a past Oscar winner. Out of eight nominations total, it only came away with one win: a Best Actress trophy for Irish performer Jessie Buckley.

Marty Supreme and the Brazilian film The Secret Agent fared worse, however. Despite having nine nominations and being considered an early shoo-in for Best Actor, Marty Supreme scored no wins.

The Secret Agent, which swept the Best Actor and Best Director categories at the 2025 Cannes Film Festival, also earned nothing at this year’s Oscars.

Same was true for the quirky kidnapping drama Bugonia, from Oscar darling Yorgos Lanthimos.

Fears about artificial intelligence

The ceremony, however, did occasionally veer away from the competition between the films to discuss issues facing the film industry and the country as a whole.

Among those was the creeping growth of artificial intelligence (AI) in the creative sector.

In the weeks leading up to the 98th Oscars, an AI-generated video clip had gone viral, appearing to show Hollywood icons Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise in a rooftop brawl worthy of a James Bond movie.

The clip had been generated through AI software developed by the Chinese firm ByteDance, and Hollywood leaders quickly denounced it as a threat to their livelihood, not to mention a copyright infringement.

Those concerns reverberated on the Oscar stage on Sunday, with O’Brien and others addressing the growing use of AI.

“Tonight we are celebrating people, not AI, because animation – it’s more than a prompt,” actor Will Arnett said emphatically as he introduced the animation awards.

O’Brien, meanwhile, joked that, by next year, his hosting gig would be taken by “a Waymo in a tux”.

Trump skewered for threatening free speech

Another concern looming over the night’s Oscar ceremony came in the form of President Donald Trump, who has courted controversy by launching deadly military attacks in Venezuela and Iran, as well as leading a violent immigration crackdown in the US.

At no point was Trump mentioned by name. But his leadership was alluded to throughout the night.

O’Brien, the host, set the tone early on with his oblique jabs at the Republican president in his opening monologue.

“When I hosted last year, Los Angeles was on fire,” the two-time Oscar emcee said in remarks dripping with sarcasm. “But this year, everything’s going great.”

Fellow comedian Jimmy Kimmel was even more direct. Last September, his show was briefly suspended after Trump criticised the comedian.

The head of the Federal Communications Commission, a Trump appointee, subsequently threatened the broadcasting license of the TV channel Kimmel performs on.

“There are some countries whose leaders don’t support free speech. I’m not at liberty to say which. Let’s just leave it at North Korea and CBS,” Kimmel quipped, referring to another channel that cancelled a fellow late-night comedy show.

Several filmmakers honoured at the Oscars likewise waded into the controversies surrounding Trump.

Best Documentary Feature winner David Borenstein, for instance, implied a parallel between his film — an exploration of authoritarianism in Russia — and what is currently happening in the US.

“Mr Nobody against Putin is about how you lose your country,” Borenstein explained.

“What we saw when working with this footage is that you lose it through countless small little acts of complicity: when we act complicit, when a government murders people on the streets of our major cities, when we don’t say anything, when oligarchs take over the media.”

Political speeches avoid mention of Iran war

The Oscars come roughly seven months ahead of the pivotal midterm elections in the US, which could see Trump’s Republican Party lose its majorities in Congress.

But while several filmmakers did hint at their anti-Trump stances, few explicitly denounced his policies.

For example, Norway’s Joaquim Trier, the winner of the Best International Feature category, veiled his criticism in a James Baldwin quote about the duty to protect children.

“Let’s not vote for politicians who don’t take this seriously into account,” Trier said.

No artist during the night referenced the US and Israeli war against Iran either, though its effects were felt among the participants of this year’s Oscar crop.

Writer-director Jafar Panahi, whose work was up for two Oscars on Sunday, has already said he plans to return to his native Iran after the awards season concludes.

Meanwhile, Iranian politician Sara Shahverdi — the subject of a nominee in the Best Documentary Short category — was prevented from attending the Oscars at all due to Trump’s ban on visas for 39 countries.

Palestinian actor Motaz Malhees, star of the Oscar nominee The Voice of Hind Rajab, likewise told media outlets he could not be present at the ceremony due to the travel ban.

The most pointed acknowledgements of the US-led and US-backed conflicts in the world were brief. When Spanish actor Javier Barden took the Oscar stage to present an award, he offered up six words, “No to war, and free Palestine!”

Russian filmmaker Pavel Talankin, meanwhile, made a similar appeal to the audience. “In the name of our future, in the name of all of our children, stop all of these wars now,” he said.

But by and large, the Oscar winners and presenters kept their remarks vague, emphasising global unity over political criticism.

“If I can be serious for just a moment, everyone watching right now around the world is all too aware that these are very chaotic, frightening times,” O’Brien told the audience at the outset of the night.

“It is at moments like these that I believe that the Oscars are particularly resonant. Check it out. Thirty-one countries across six continents are represented this evening, and every film we salute is the product of thousands of people speaking different languages.”

Cinema, he and others argued, transcended borders. The talent on stage was not the US’s alone.

March 15 (UPI) — Taiwan’s defense ministry on Sunday said that more than two dozen Chinese military aircraft and several naval vessels were detected near the island, which comes after a period with relatively few such incursions.

After decreased presence of Chinese incursions into the island’s air defense identification zone (ADIZ) during the last two weeks, China sent 26 aircraft that were spotted around the island – 16 of which violated the ADIZ – and seven naval vessels sailed toward it, The Independent and The Wall Street Journal reported.

China considers Taiwan to be its territory. On a regular basis, it sends military aircraft and naval vessels toward the island, but during 10 of the last 16 days — from Feb. 27 to March 5 and March 7 to 10 — no flights near the island were reported.

On the other days, there were as few as two flights detected.

Taiwan regards the incursions into its airspace and waters as routine harassment, for the most part, but China also has held military exercises close to what Taiwan considers its territory and has threatened to take the island by force if it deems it necessary.

Wellington Koo, Taiwan’s defense minister has said that although there has been a noticeable decrease in aircraft nearing or crossing the ADIZ, the island nation’s military planned to stay on guard.

“We cannot rely on a single indicator like the absence of aircraft,” Koo told The Journal, because naval vessels still circle the island daily.

Analysts have suggested that the decrease in incursions is timed to a meeting of the Chinese legislature, which has happened previously, or be part of a diplomatic or strategic play before U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping meet in Beijing at the end of the month.

United States President Donald Trump has called for a naval coalition to deploy warships to secure the Strait of Hormuz, through which one-fifth of world oil shipments transit, as oil markets reel from supply disruptions caused by the US-Israeli war with Iran.

What is essentially the closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran in response to the attacks by the US and Israel has sent oil prices soaring to more than $100 per barrel.

Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, has promised to keep the maritime artery closed while another top official in Tehran warned that oil prices could shoot up beyond $200 per barrel.

Trump said he hoped a naval coalition could secure the vital waterway, which connects the Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. Iran has struck more than a dozen ships trying to sail through the narrow waterway since the hostilities started two weeks ago.

But will Trump’s solution work?

What has Trump said?

The US president has been facing domestic pressure over starting the war alongside Israel with no endgame or off-ramps in sight.

“On the strait of Hormuz, they had NO PLAN,” US Democratic Senator Chris Murphy wrote in a post on X. “I can’t go into more detail about how Iran gums up the Strait, but suffice it [to] say, right now, they don’t know how to get it safely back open.”

After threatening to bomb Iran more, Trump called on China, France, Japan, South Korea and the United Kingdom to send warships to secure the strait.

Trump claimed “100% of Iran’s military capability” had already been destroyed but added that Tehran could still “send a drone or two, drop a mine, or deliver a close-range missile somewhere along, or in, this waterway”.

“Hopefully China, France, Japan, South Korea, the UK, and others, that are affected by this artificial constraint will send ships to the area so that the Hormuz Strait will no longer be a threat by a nation that has been totally decapitated,” Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social platform.

“In the meantime, the United States will be bombing the hell out of the shoreline, and continually shooting Iranian Boats and Ships out of the water. One way or the other, we will soon get the Hormuz Strait OPEN, SAFE, and FREE!”

Not long after, Trump returned to the keyboard, extending the invitation to all “the Countries of the World that receive Oil through the Hormuz Strait” to send warships, adding that the US would provide “a lot” of support to those who participated.

What has Iran said?

Alireza Tangsiri, commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy, said in a statement that claims by the US about destroying Iran’s navy or providing safe escort for oil tankers were false.

“The Strait of Hormuz has not been militarily blocked and is merely under control,” he said in a statement.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi later doubled down on this, saying the strait remained open to international shipping except for vessels belonging to the US and its allies.

“The Strait of Hormuz is open. It is only closed to the tankers and ships belonging to our enemies, to those who are attacking us and their allies. Others are free to pass,” Araghchi said.

Khamenei – son of the late Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who was killed on the first day of the US-Israeli strikes – suggested in his first statement since taking power that the Strait of Hormuz would remain closed to provide leverage for Iran during the conflict.

What are the challenges in the Strait of Hormuz?

The strait, which is just 21 nautical miles (39km) wide at its narrowest point, is the only maritime passage into the Arabian Gulf (known as the Persian Gulf in Iran). Shipping lanes in the waterway are even narrower and more vulnerable to attacks.

It separates Iran on one side from Oman and the United Arab Emirates on the other.

In brief, there is no way in or out by sea when the Strait of Hormuz is closed.

Alexandru Hudisteanu, a maritime security expert who served 13 years in the Romanian navy, told Al Jazeera that in the type of coalition that Trump is hinting at, “interoperability is the biggest hurdle.”

“That’s the ability of cruises to work together or with different units and different doctrine when basic communication would be an issue,” he said.

Then, there is the geography of the Strait of Hormuz: “a very unforgiving environment to sail with this type of wartime threats”, Hudisteanu said. “Especially difficult under missile threats and these asymmetric potential mines or unmanned systems that could damage or destroy ships.”

Providing escorts to ships would be a costly option, and it would pose risks to participating foreign warships from possible Iranian attacks, which would likely further drag more countries into the ongoing war.

From Iran’s point of view, “the fact that the shoreline is so close and the actual maritime passage is highly congested and confined is an advantage by default,” Hudisteanu added. Geographically, Iran keeps it as a gauntlet, with no way out for the ships unless Tehran allows it.

Another major challenge for any naval coalition trying to secure the passage would be the timeline of any operation.
”The security of the strait could be achieved. It’s just a matter of how much time you need and how many assets you need,” the analyst said. Rushing through it “could have negative implications for the security of the mission and the region”.

How have countries responded?

No country has so far publicly agreed to Trump’s call to send warships to secure the Strait of Hormuz.

London said it is “intensively looking” at what it can do to help reopen the maritime passage. British Energy Secretary Ed Miliband said: “We are intensively looking with our allies at what can be done because it’s so important that we get the strait reopened.”

Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials said Beijing is calling for hostilities to stop and “all parties have the responsibility to ensure stable and unimpeded energy supply.”

Japan said the threshold is “extremely high” to send its warships on such a mission. “Legally speaking, we do not rule out the possibility, but given the current situation in which this conflict is ongoing, I believe this is something that must be considered with great caution,” said Takayuki Kobayashi, policy chief of Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party.

France also confirmed that it will not send ships. The Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs said in a statement on Saturday: “Posture has not changed: defensive it is,” in reference to President Emanuel Macron’s assertion that France will not join the war against Iran.

South Korea, which imports 70 percent of its oil from the Gulf, said it was “closely monitoring” Trump’s statements and “comprehensively considering and exploring various measures … to ensure the safety of energy transport routes”.

Are countries negotiating with Iran?

Some countries have been negotiating with Iran to secure passage for their petroleum shipments.

Two Indian-flagged tankers carrying liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) have sailed through the Strait of Hormuz. New Delhi depends on this passage for 80 percent of its LPG imports.

The war on Iran has caused a critical shortage of cooking gas for India’s 333 million households. New Delhi has long had ties with Iran, but the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi has not condemned the killing of Ali Khamenei. It has condemned Iran’s retaliatory attacks on Gulf countries, where millions of Indian citizens work and send $51bn in remittances home every year.

Iran’s ambassador to India, Mohammad ⁠Fathali, said Tehran had allowed some Indian vessels to pass through the Strait of Hormuz in a rare exception to the blockade but did not confirm the number of vessels.

A Turkish-owned vessel was similarly granted permission last week after Ankara negotiated passage directly with Tehran. Fourteen more Turkish vessels are awaiting clearance.

France and Italy also reportedly opened talks with Iranian officials to negotiate a deal to allow their vessels through the strait, but there has been no official confirmation yet.

“Iran is affecting maritime supply,” Hudisteanu said. “It’s affecting the maritime security of the region and the entire ecosystem and bringing the entire world to the table as the global price for oil and gas increases.”

The decision by United States President Donald Trump to launch a war on Iran has left many international law experts questioning if the world order established after World War II is actually working.

In his second presidential term, Trump seems to be wielding total power without restraint, and the system of checks and balances enshrined in the US Constitution appears to be failing to limit his power.

Since Trump was sworn in in January 2025, he has ordered two unprovoked attacks on independent states, Venezuela and Iran; threatened to annex Greenland; strained traditional alliances with Europe; undermined the United Nations; and rattled international trade with his sweeping tariffs.

Previous constraints set by the UN system and international law appear supplanted by what Trump told reporters in January was a vision of power limited only by his “own morality”.

So what checks are there on Trump? Is he really free to attack states, set tariffs at will and, as leader of the world’s most powerful state, essentially dictate global policy? And if so, why are so many observers now saying his war on Iran is faltering?

Has international law put any checks on Trump?

Not so far.

According to analysts, both his attacks on Venezuela and Iran were in clear breach of international law and the UN Charter, principally the prohibition on the use of force under Article 2(4).

Debates about international law, how it has been geared over the decades to underpin the interests of the West and the US specifically, are hardly new. However, experts said, the Trump presidency has seen even the notional restraints of international law trampled underfoot.

Trump himself has brushed aside international law, saying in January that it would be up to him to decide when and how much international law applied to the US and his actions.

“In many respects, international law has historically served US interests, and self-interest should continue to generate US support for a rules-based order organised around the core principles enshrined in the UN Charter,” Michael Becker, a professor of international human rights law at Trinity College in Dublin who previously worked at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, told Al Jazeera, “But finding value in international law often requires adopting a long-term outlook that does not sit easily with short-term political agendas.”

“In the current geopolitical climate, the capacity of international law to provide a meaningful constraint on US action under Donald Trump has proven negligible,” Becker added. “That seems unlikely to change, especially given the failure by other states to strike a united front against Trump’s gangsterism.”

What about the UN?

Not so much.

From its founding, the role of the UN has been to promote dialogue instead of conflict and provide a global response to international challenges. However, Trump’s relationship with the body, like so many of the president’s associations, has rarely been so straightforward. On the one hand, while appearing to try to supplant the body with his members-only Board of Peace as well as sidelining UN aid efforts in Gaza, he has on occasion sought the legitimacy of the UN for a number of his projects, such as his calls in August for the UN to establish a Support Office in Haiti, to help limit migration to the US.

However, while the support of the UN may be helpful, it is clear that Trump has no intention of abiding by its charter, Richard Gowan, the Crisis Group’s UN director from 2019 to 2025, said.

“While other UN members see the US is breaking international law on a regular basis, they often hold back from criticising Washington too loudly in forums like the Security Council because they fear blowback from Trump,” Gowan said. “So Trump is learning he can sidestep the UN when he wants to and get away with it while occasionally using it for instrumental purposes.”

What about other powers?

Up to a point.

Many countries known as “middle powers”, such as Canada, the United Kingdom, France, and other Western and European states, have proven successful so far in pushing back against Trump’s efforts to unilaterally annex Greenland. But European powers have failed to condemn Trump’s unprovoked war on Venezuela and Iran, exposing their double standards in conflicts in the Middle East and the Global South.

Many analysts expect that a withdrawal of investments in the US by Gulf states, which are bearing the brunt of Iran’s retaliation to US and Israeli attacks, may also hasten the war’s end.

“Middle powers can generate friction but not a veto,” HA Hellyer of the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies in London said. “Collective action – European governments, Gulf states – can raise costs and extract tactical adjustments. The structural imbalance remains: The US retains decisive military, financial and institutional primacy.”

Smaller states often hedge their bets, follow Washington or look to regional alliances for protection, Hellyer added, continuing that while pressure was strongest in Europe, where the US is no longer seen as a reliable security guarantor, the idea of establishing an alternative continues to be a hurdle. “The logic of an alternative model is accepted; the capacity to execute it quickly is not. A prolonged interregnum follows. The Gulf Arab states are in an analogous position,” he said.

In the meantime, Trump and the US are free to act as they choose. “These are exposure-management strategies, pursued until structural dependence on the US security umbrella can be reduced,” he said.

China and Russia have so far criticised the breaches of international law while avoiding clear escalation, and India and other members of the BRICS bloc have largely stayed silent, suggesting a preference for strategic ambiguity over confronting Washington directly.

What about domestic restraints?

Not really.

The US Supreme Court was able to block Trump’s use of tariffs to manage large parts of his foreign policy by rewarding allies with lower tariffs and punishing critics with punitive import duties.

But none of the other traditional guardrails – such as Congress; the Department of Justice, which has provided unwavering support to the president; and even the news media – has contained the president’s ambitions. This isn’t entirely new. Previous presidents have ordered wars without congressional approval. However, with Trump, analysts suggested, it has been systematic.

Powerful US institutions have largely failed to hold the Trump administration accountable, analysts, such as Kim Lane Scheppele, a professor of international affairs at Princeton University, said.

“His base of strong supporters are saying that they are willing to experience short-term increases in gasoline prices if it leads to a friendly government in Iran in the long term. His opponents have been his opponents on everything, so he simply ignores and threatens them,” Scheppele told Al Jazeera.

“Trump pays more attention to market performance than to public opinion, so he started saying that he was minimising costs and saying that the Iran war is short term to boost markets again.”

“What the US is spectacularly missing is leadership to oppose Trump. Congress is not doing its constitutional job to constrain him. The Supreme Court is in his pocket because he packed the court in his first term. Lower court judges are heroic and have done amazing work under serious pressures, but they don’t get foreign policy questions, given the difficulty of anyone getting ‘standing’ … in the area of international matters,” she said, referring to the requirement that parties to a lawsuit must show actual or future direct harm to themselves to bring a case to court.

She noted that lower federal courts, although limited on foreign policy, have repeatedly checked executive overreach on immigration, sanctions designations and emergency powers, often under intense political pressure.

So why are so many people saying Trump’s war is faltering?

In the eyes of many observers, Trump, with no clear war aims or a defined resolution, is in danger of losing control of a conflict that appears to be both growing and reaching into economic areas apparently unforeseen by his administration, so while traditional restraints don’t apply, market forces, like gravity, always do.

Trump has repeatedly said the war would be over soon despite none of his claimed war aims being achieved.

Oil prices have surged due to his attacks on Iran, Tehran’s counterstrikes and threats to shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20 percent of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas passes.

The International Energy Agency’s decision on Wednesday to release 400 million barrels of oil from international petroleum reserves has failed to tame the prices. Iran has warned that oil could hit $200 a barrel as it continues its stranglehold of the waterway.

“Ultimately, the factors that might be most likely to constrain Donald Trump’s neoimperialist impulses – or his willingness to pursue the policy goals of those who have his ear – are the economic fallout from disrupting global energy markets and a broader disenchantment among US voters with his globe-trotting militarism, his rampant self-dealing and his callous disregard for the human costs of war,” Becker said.

Activists gathered outside the White House to protest the war with Iran, reenacting the Minab school strike, a deadly missile attack on a girl’s school in southern Iran that killed more than 170 people during early US-Israeli operations.

Iran has held a funeral for the country’s most influential defence figure, Ali Shamkhani, who was killed in Israeli-US strikes on February 28. Shamkhani was a key figure in Iran nuclear talks, chief of the country’s Defence Council and advisor to the late Supreme Leader. He lost a leg in an Israeli assassination attempt last June.

March 14 (UPI) — President Donald Trump on Saturday said that a coalition of nations affected by Iran choking off the Strait of Hormuz will send warships to open it back up.

Trump said that although the United States and Israel have “destroyed 100% of Iran’s military capability” in its war in Iran, its attempt to close the strait — by attacking ships and possibly laying mines along the shipping route — is affecting global trade.

Iran started to limit traffic in the strait since the war started two weeks ago and on Thursday, Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojaba Khamenei, said it would remain closed as a tactic to pressure the United States and Israel to end their attacks on the country.

The Strait of Hormuz is a significant global trading route, and sees roughly 20% of the global oil and fuel supply pass through it every day.

“Many countries, especially those who are affected by Iran’s attempted closure of the Hormuz Strait, will be sending War Ships, in conjunction with the United States of America, to keep the Strait open and safe,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social, Axios and The Guardian reported.

“Hopefully China, France, Japan, South Korea, the UK, and others, that are affected by this artificial constraint, will send Ships to the area so that the Hormuz Strait will no longer be a threat by a Nation that has been totally decapitated,” Trump said.

On Friday, several news organizations confirmed with the Department of Defense that the USS Tripoli, an amphibious assault ship that was operating in the Philippine Sea, is headed to the Middle East.

The Tripoli brings with it 2,500 Marines of the 31st Marine Expeditionary Group, along with 2,500 more sailors, after U.S. Central Command requested additional military options for the conflict.

The 31st MEU can conduct ground operations, which the Trump administration has not ruled out in Iran, but Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. Dan Caines told reporters at a press conference that the Pentagon plans to go after Iran’s mine-laying capability and its ability to attack commercial vessels.

The administration of President Donald Trump has warned that news outlets could have their broadcasting licences revoked over critical reporting on the war against Iran, accusing the media of “distortions”.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr said in a social media post on Saturday that broadcasters must “operate in the public interest”, or else lose their licences.

“Broadcasters that are running hoaxes and news distortions — also known as the fake news — have a chance now to correct course before their license renewals come up,” Carr wrote.

The warning was the latest apparent threat from Carr, who has repeatedly attracted scrutiny for statements that appear to pressure broadcasters to conform with Trump priorities.

Last year, for instance, Carr called on the channel ABC and its distributors to “find ways to change conduct, to take action” on comedian Jimmy Kimmel, whose late-night show had been critical of the president.

“We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr said of Kimmel on a podcast. ABC temporarily suspended Kimmel’s show in the aftermath of those comments.

Carr’s latest statement prompted swift condemnation from politicians and free-speech advocates, who likened his remarks to censorship.

“This is a clear directive to provide positive war coverage or else licenses may not be renewed,” Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii wrote.

“This is worse than the comedian stuff, and by a lot. The stakes here are much higher. He’s not talking about late night shows, he’s talking about how a war is covered.”

Aaron Terr, the director of public advocacy at the Foundation of Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), likewise denounced Carr for seeking to silence negative war coverage.

“The First Amendment doesn’t allow the government to censor information about the war it’s waging,” Terr said.

Trump denounces war coverage

Carr’s latest statement came in response to a social media post from Trump, accusing the “fake news media” of reporting that US refuelling planes had been struck in an Iranian attack in Saudi Arabia.

“The base was hit a few days ago, but the planes were not ‘struck’ or ‘destroyed’,” Trump said in a Truth Social post. “Four of the five had virtually no damage, and are already back in service.”

He added that reporting to the contrary was intentionally misleading. “Lowlife ‘Papers’ and Media actually want us to lose the War,” he wrote.

The president and his allies have faced accusations that they use the power of the state to penalise dissent and critical news coverage, raising concerns about press freedom.

Polling shows that the war, launched by the US and Israel on February 28, is largely unpopular in the US.

A recent Quinnipiac poll found that 53 percent of voters oppose the military action against Iran, including 89 percent of Democrats and 60 percent of independent voters.

The war has also been condemned by legal experts as a clear violation of international law, which prohibits unprovoked attacks.

Trump, however, has offered shifting rationales as to why he believes Iran posed an imminent threat to US security.

He has also asserted that the war is proceeding successfully, despite ongoing Iranian attacks on US forces across the region and the shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz, a key trade artery.

“We’ve won. Let me tell you, we’ve won,” he told a rally this week in Kentucky. “In the first hour, it was over.”

His administration, meanwhile, has blamed the news media for turning public opinion against the war.

“Yet some in this crew, in the press, just can’t stop,” Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said during a briefing on Friday.

A former Fox News host, Hegseth called for “patriotic” reporters to write more optimistic headlines instead. He denounced TV banners that read, for example, “Mideast war intensifies.”

“What should the banner read instead? How about ‘Iran increasingly desperate’? Because they are. They know it, and so do you, if it can be admitted,” Hegseth said.

He criticised the news outlet CNN, in particular, for a report asserting that the Trump administration had underestimated the chances of Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz.

Hegseth quipped that he hoped a prospective deal would soon place CNN under the control of David Ellison, son of close Trump ally and tech executive Larry Ellison.

“The sooner David Ellison takes over that network, the better,” he added.

Vancouver, Canada – Prime Minister Mark Carney’s efforts to unite Canadians around protecting the nation’s economy from the US are hitting roadblocks as he nears one year in power.

Indigenous peoples across Canada are increasingly divided over Carney’s aggressive push to expand resource extraction and projects on their ancestral lands.

Some experts question how his government can advance its agenda while respecting Indigenous rights enshrined in the country’s constitution.

March 14 will mark one year since Carney, former head of Canada’s central bank, was sworn into office.

After an election last year, his centrist Liberal party formed a minority government with the highest share of the popular vote in 40 years.

A key to Carney’s victory was his pledge to “stand strong” against US trade threats and grow Canada’s economic sovereignty, an assertive approach the prime minister has called “elbows up”.

“In the face of global trade shifts … we will build big and build fast to create a stronger, more sustainable, more independent economy,” Carney said in a statement on March 6.

Part of that push was to create a Major Projects Office to speed up approvals of economic developments, starting by fast-tracking 10 mega-projects.

They include two massive liquefied natural gas (LNG) plants and an open-pit mine in British Columbia, a nuclear plant in Ontario, a Quebec shipping terminal, and wind power in Atlantic Canada.

Those developments are worth 116 billion Canadian dollars ($85bn), the government estimates.

‘Our rights get pushed to the side’

Carney’s approach to the US trade war has gained support from Canadians, according to recent opinion surveys.

A March 3 poll of 1,500 citizens by Abacus Data found that 50 percent say Carney is protecting Canada’s core interests when dealing with Trump — compared with 36 percent with negative views.

“Whenever Canada is threatened, the protectionist nature of the state kind of re-emerges,” said Shady Hafez, assistant politics professor at Toronto Metropolitan University.

“Self-preservation of Canada becomes the priority.”

Hafez, a research associate with the Yellowhead Institute, is a member of the Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg First Nation in Quebec.

He said there are growing concerns in his community and others about Carney’s push to accelerate mega-projects across the country.

“For that to happen, Canada needs land, and it needs resources,” Hafez said, “and it takes those lands and resources from us.”

Blowback was swift after Carney pledged to build a highly controversial oil pipeline to the west coast in a late November deal signed with Alberta, Canada’s oil powerhouse.

Carney’s culture minister swiftly resigned, decrying “no consultation” with Indigenous nations and “major environmental impacts”.

And the Assembly of First Nations (AFN), which represents more than 600 Indigenous chiefs, unanimously passed an emergency resolution opposing a new pipeline.

“First Nations people, we stand with Canada against Trump’s illegal tariffs, but not at the expense of our rights,” AFN National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak told Al Jazeera in an interview. “If you want to fast-track anything, you better make sure that First Nations are being included right off the bat.

“Trying to sideswipe or push aside First Nations people when there’s agreements between provinces and the feds — they have to remember that First Nations are here … and they are to be respected in their own homelands.”

The rights of Indigenous people in the country are enshrined in Canada’s constitution.

But too often, Hafez said, in the name of national prosperity, “Indigenous communities have to suffer.”

“Whenever there’s somewhat of an emergency, our rights get pushed to the side.”

But the resistance to the major projects push isn’t universal.

The First Nations Natural Gas Alliance praised Carney’s “much more aggressive” approach compared with his predecessor on developing energy resources.

But the group’s CEO, Karen Ogen, acknowledged there’s a “highly charged environment” on such issues.

“First Nations communities continue to face significant socioeconomic barriers”, stated the former chief of Wet’suwet’en First Nation. “LNG and natural gas development are not just an opportunity; they are a national imperative.

“Billions of dollars in procurement benefits and revenues are flowing to First Nations.”

Call for collaboration ‘on all major projects’

The trade war with the US has galvanised and united many Canadians — but with little acknowledgement of the impacts on Indigenous communities, said Sheryl Lightfoot, political science professor at the University of Toronto.

Lightfoot is vice-chair of the UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

“These projects, by many accounts, are advancing without full consultation or transparency”, she told Al Jazeera.

“It appears that economic or geopolitical pressures … are being used to justify bypassing Indigenous rights and environmental safeguards.”

But Canada’s Major Projects Office insists it will “seek input, hear concerns and ideas, and work in partnership moving forward” with Indigenous communities — and “will not be skipping over vital project steps including consultations with Indigenous Peoples,” an agency spokesperson wrote in an emailed statement.

“We are unlocking Canada’s economic potential, while respecting our environmental responsibilities and the rights of Indigenous Peoples,”

A significant number of projects on Carney’s fast-track list are concentrated in British Columbia (BC).

Those include two liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals on the Pacific coast — LNG Canada and Ksi Lisims LNG — as well as the electric transmission line to power the sector, and a copper and gold mine.

BC is unique in the country because, historically, very little of its land was subject to treaties between the Crown and First Nations. Canada’s top court has repeatedly ruled in favour of First Nations rights and title in the westernmost province.

All four major projects in the province have proven divisive among the region’s Indigenous peoples — even though several have the backing of individual First Nations governments.

One of those is the massive Ksi Lisims LNG plant, in which the Nisga’a Nation is a direct partner.

Co-developed with Texas-based Western LNG, the mega-project will “benefit all Canadians,” said Nisga’a President Eva Clayton.

In 2000, her nation became the first in BC to reach a modern self-government treaty.

“We are co-developing the Ksi Lisims LNG project on land that our nation owns under our treaty,” she told a parliamentary committee on February 24.

“This project is expected to bring in 30 billion [Canadian] dollars [$22bn] in investment, create thousands of skilled careers, and strengthen Canada’s leadership in low-emission LNG.”

‘Elbows up’ meets opposition

But LNG is fiercely opposed by other nearby First Nations.

Tara Marsden is Wilp sustainability director for the Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs, traditional leaders of the 900-member Gitanyow community.

“We have a lot more concerns and evidence regarding impacts in our territory,” she said.

“The federal government has done zero consultation on their fast-track list and the projects that actually affect our territory.”

Gitanyow oppose the BC projects on the fast-track list as harming their interests.

She said Ottawa cannot ignore First Nations opposition, even if there is support from others like the Nisga’a.

“They have a right to develop in their own territories”, said Marsden. “But if you have maybe 20 to 30 First Nations whose territory would be crossed — and you get maybe three on board — that’s not a resounding consensus.

“They’re just trying to use this small handful of nations to steamroll over everybody else.”

If Canada truly wants to strengthen its sovereignty and economy, she said, it must do so alongside Indigenous people.

“This is something that First Nations across the country have been saying since Carney took the ‘elbows up’ approach,” Marsden said.

“The government has really just ignored that … and actually now back-stopping these mega-projects with taxpayer dollars.”

Free, prior and informed consent

McGill University economics lecturer Julian Karaguesian served for decades in the Department of Finance and Canada’s Embassy in Washington, DC.

He agreed that most Canadians support Carney’s attempt to boost the economy with “nation-building” projects.

“I think they’re a fantastic idea”, he told Al Jazeera. “But we’ve committed to consultations with First Nations, Metis and Inuit people.

“Once we’ve started compromising on economic and social justice … we can create bitterness. First Nations leaders understand the situation we’re in, and I think [Ottawa] can work with them.”

Even on projects endorsed by some First Nations, the international legal principle of “free, prior and informed consent” must still apply to other communities impacted, said Lightfoot.

That’s “not simply a procedural requirement” to rubber-stamp projects, she said.

“It is a substantive right, anchored in Indigenous peoples’ self-determination and their ability to make decisions about matters that affect their lands, communities, and futures.”

And that could risk slowing down Carney’s hopes to speed through projects if there is no Indigenous consensus — potentially tying more divisive ones up in the courts.

“Failure to include Indigenous knowledge and decision-making early in the process,” Lightfoot said, “can undermine the legitimacy and fairness of project approvals.”

Carney’s ratings among First Nations are “mixed,” says AFN’s national chief. One positive, she noted, is his openness to meeting Indigenous leaders raising concerns.

But with many of the prime minister’s economic hopes dependent on building “national interest” infrastructure on First Nations homelands, Woodhouse Nepinak said the relationship needs care.

“Carney is at a crossroads in his personal relationship with First Nations,” she said.

“And we understand First Nations rights are under threat in new ways by this government.”

March 14 (UPI) — President Donald Trump announced that U.S. forces “totally obliterated” every military target on Iran’s Kharg Island, a key port that exports the vast majority of Iran’s oil.

In a post on Truth Social on Friday evening, Trump described the attack as “one of the most powerful bombing raids in the History of the Middle East.”

He said he directed U.S. Central Command to carry out the bombings after Iran halted ships’ passage through the Straight of Hormuz. About 20% of the world’s crude oil passes through the strait.

“For reasons of decency, I have chosen NOT to wipe out the Oil Infrastructure on the island,” Trump wrote.

“However, should Iran, or anyone else, do anything to interfere with the Free and Safe Passage of Ships through the Strait of Hormuz, I will immediately reconsider this decision.”

Kharg Island is about 15 miles south of the Iranian mainland through which about 90% of the country’s oil exports pass, The Washington Post reported. It’s a critical piece of Iran’s economy and a full attack on the oil infrastructure there could hinder Iran’s ability to pay its military.

Iranian officials said the site was “proceeding normally” after the U.S. attack.

In response to Friday’s bombings on Kharg Island, Iran threatened its own attack on key oil infrastructure in the United Arab Emirates, CNN reported.

Oil has been a key factor in the war in Iran, which began Feb. 28 with surprise U.S. and Israeli airstrikes on dozens of Iranian sites. AAA reported Saturday that the average price of a gallon of gasoline was $3.68 in the United States, up 23% since the start of the war.

This could, in turn, have a dramatic impact on other aspects of the U.S. economy, including food prices, jet fuel and fertilizer.

March 13 (UPI) — A State Department official was barred Friday from going to Brazil because of a proposed visit to jailed former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who is in prison for plotting a coup four years ago.

The official, Darren Beattie, was approved for a visa to attend a critical minerals summit next week, but his visa was pulled because the meeting with Bolsonaro was determined to be outside his diplomatic authorization, Brazil’s Supreme Court ruled Thursday, Bloomberg and The Guardian reported.

After the ruling, current Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva ordered his government to revoke Beattie’s visa entirely, at least partially because U.S. President Donald Trump denied Brazilian health minister Alexandre Padilha a visa and revoked visas held by his wife and daughter.

“That American guy who said he was coming here to visit Bolsonaro, he’s been barred from visiting and I have forbidden him from to Brazil so long as they don’t free up the visa of my health minister, which has been blocked,” Lula said Friday.

Bolsonaro is serving a 27-year prison sentence after he was convicted for plotting a coup after losing the 2022 election to Lula.

The charges were based on Bolsonaro’s supporters storming government buildings in January 2023 — a plan that had started in 2021, before the 2022 election — in an effort to prevent Lula from taking office.

Brazilian Foreign Minister Mauro Vieira said that although Beattie’s visa application included the minerals summit and meetings with other Brazilian officials, he only asked for the other meetings after asking for the Bolsonaro visit.

Trump and many within his administration, including Beattie, have been critical of the Brazilian Supreme Court and the country’s officials for jailing Bolsonaro on the coup charges.

“It should be noted that a visit by a foreign state official to a former president in an election year may constitute undue interference in the internal affairs of the Brazilian state, Vieira told the Supreme Court.

Lula and Flavio Bolsonaro, who is the son of the former president, are currently locked in a close race for Brazil’s presidency after a poll found them tied for the first time with 41% of participants, which would lead to a runoff election.

The Brazilian presidential election is scheduled for Oct. 4, and a runoff would be Oct. 25.

Rights groups have slammed United States Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth for saying that “no quarter” will be shown to Iran, as the US and Israel continue their military campaign against the country.

“We will keep pressing. We will keep pushing, keep advancing. No quarter, no mercy for our enemies,” Hegseth told reporters on Friday.

Under the Hague Convention and other international treaties, it is illegal to threaten that no quarter will be given.

Domestic laws, such as the 1996 War Crimes Act, also prohibit such policies. US military manuals likewise warn that threats of “no quarter” are illegal.

Brian Finucane, a senior adviser at the International Crisis Group, a think tank, said Hegseth’s comments appear to run afoul of those standards.

“These comments are very striking,” Finucane told Al Jazeera over a phone call. “It raises questions about whether this belligerent, lawless rhetoric is being translated into how the war is being conducted on the battlefield.”

But Hegseth has publicly dismissed concerns about international law, claiming he would abide no “stupid rules of engagement” and no “politically correct wars”.

His rhetoric has provoked concern among some experts that measures designed to prevent civilian harm are being ignored in favour of a campaign of “maximum lethality”.

Hegseth’s remarks also come after a US strike on a girls’ school in southern Iran that killed more than 170 people, most of them children. The war has left at least 1,444 Iranians dead and millions more displaced.

‘Inhumane and counterproductive’

Prohibitions against declaring “no quarter” go back more than a century, part of an effort to impose restraints on conduct during war.

The Nuremberg trials after World War II upheld that legal standard, as Nazi officials were prosecuted, in some cases, for denying quarter to enemy forces.

“The basic idea is that it’s both inhumane and counterproductive to execute people who have laid down their arms,” said Finucane.

He added that the “mere announcement” of “no quarter” from a government official can itself be a war crime.

The US and Israel have already faced allegations of violating international law during their war against Iran. Experts have condemned their initial strike on February 28 as “unprovoked”, deeming the conflict an illegal war of aggression.

Iranian officials also protested after a US submarine sank a military vessel, the IRIS Dena, off the coast of Sri Lanka, as it returned from a ceremonial naval exercise in India. That attack killed at least 84 people.

While warships are considered legal military targets, Iran has said that the ship was not fully armed, raising questions about whether it could have been interdicted rather than sunk.

US forces also purportedly declined to help rescue sailors from the Dena, even though the Geneva Convention largely requires aid to the shipwrecked. The Sri Lankan navy ultimately helped collect survivors from the wreckage.

Responding to the attack, Hegseth described the sinking of the ship as a “quiet death”. He also told reporters, “We are fighting to win.”

US President Donald Trump himself remarked that he asked why the ship had been sunk, not captured.

“One of my generals said, ‘Sir, it’s a lot more fun doing it this way,’” Trump said.

‘Serious red flag’

The US military has faced criticism for killing civilians in military operations for decades.

That includes during the so-called “global war on terror”, when airstrikes resulted in thousands of civilian deaths, including a 2008 attack on a wedding party in Afghanistan.

Even before the war with Iran, the Trump administration had faced accusations that it violated international law by attacking alleged drug-trafficking vessels in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean.

At least 157 people have been killed in those attacks since they started on September 2.

The Trump administration, however, has never identified the victims nor presented evidence against them. Scholars have condemned the attacks as a campaign of extrajudicial killings.

Analysts say that the Pentagon’s policies of emphasising lethality at the expense of human rights concerns has carried over into its war against Iran.

“Death and destruction from the sky all day long. We’re playing for keeps. Our warfighters have maximum authorities granted personally by the president and yours truly,” Hegseth said during a briefing on March 4.

“Our rules of engagement are bold, precise and designed to unleash American power, not shackle it.”

Sarah Yager, the Washington director at Human Rights Watch, called such rhetoric alarming.

“I’ve been engaging with the US military for two decades, and I’m shocked by this language. Rhetoric from senior leaders matters because it helps shape the command environment in which US forces operate,” Yager said.

“From an atrocity-prevention perspective, language that dismisses legal restraints is a serious red flag.”

While the impact of Hegseth’s rhetoric on combat operations is not certain, a recent report from the watchdog group Airwars found that the pace of the US and Israeli assault on Iran has far outstripped other military operations in modern history.

Reports indicate that the US dropped nearly $5.6bn worth of munitions in the first two days of the war alone. Airwars says the US and Israel hit more targets in the first 100 hours of the Iran war than in the first six months of the US campaign against ISIL (ISIS).

Following Hegseth’s remarks on Friday, Senator Jeff Merkley condemned the Pentagon chief as a “dangerous amateur”. He cited the attack on the Iranian girls’ school as an example of the consequences.

“His ‘no hesitation’ engagement rules set the stage for failing to distinguish a civilian school from a military target,” Merkley wrote in a social media post.

“The result, more than 150 dead schoolgirls and teachers from an American missile.”

March 13 (UPI) — The USS Tripoli, and the 2,500 Marines on the amphibious assault ship, are headed to the Middle East to bolster U.S. military power there as the war in Iran enters its third week.

The Tripoli, along with Marines of the 31st Marine Expeditionary Group, had been operating in the Philippine Sea but is now headed west south of Taiwan through the Luzon Strait, USNI News reported.

Although the Tripoli had been with the USS San Diego and USS New Orleans in the Philippine Sea, it is not clear if the San Diego and the New Orleans are also being moved closer to Iran.

As Iran has closed the Strait of Hormuz to most traffic, and is targeting vessels that transit it, the move comes as U.S. Central Command asked the Pentagon for additional military options in the conflict, Axios reported.

The 31st MEU can conduct ground operations, which have not been announced but have not been ruled out, according to the Trump administration.

The deployment comes as President Donald Trump said he is considering sending U.S. Navy vessels to escort shipping vessels through the strait, the military is planning to take out anti-ship missiles that have been sent by Iran to the area.

CENTCOM is particularly focused on ensuring freedom of navigation in the straight, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. Dan Caine told reporters on Friday, which “means going after Iran’s mine-laying capability and destroying their ability to attack commercial vessels.

Oil prices have surged over the last week after Iran shut down the strait, though Caine noted that some traffic is moving through it.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also said Friday that the military is “dealing with” Iranian attacks on the strait, saying that “we have been dealing with it and don’t need to worry about it.”

Hegseth added that as the military campaign continues and Iran’s military capabilities weaken, the United States has also been taking out Iranian defense companies to prevent the ability to build more weapons.

March 13 (UPI) — A federal judge this week quashed subpoenas the Department of Justice had issued to Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell because they were issued to pressure him into adjusting interest rates.

Judge James Boasberg redressed the DOJ for the subpoenas, saying that their purpose had nothing to do with a probe about renovations at the Federal Reserve in Washington, D.C.

The DOJ in January launched a criminal investigation into Powell’s testimony last year about the renovations, which Powell at the time said were “pretexts” to punish him and the Fed after they did not set interest rates at levels demanded by President Donald Trump.

“The Government has produced essentially zero evidence to suspect Chair Powell of a crime; indeed, its justifications are so thin and unsubstantiated that the Court can only conclude that they are pretextual,” Boasberg wrote in the opinion.

The department in January issued grand jury subpoenas in reference to Powell’s comments about the multi-year project to renovate the Fed’s office buildings during his June 2025 testimony before the Senate Banking Committee.

During a tour of the renovations, Powell disputed Trump’s over-estimates of the renovation’s cost, and threatened to sue him for the “horrible and grossly incompetent job” Powell had done on the project.

Overall, however, Trump has repeatedly ripped into and mused about firing Powell, which he cannot do, because the Fed chair has repeatedly said that interest rate changes would be dictated by only the market, rather than the preferences of any one person.

In the opinion, which was unsealed Friday, Boasberg said he blocked the subpoenas because “a mountain of evidence suggests that the Government served these subpoenas on the Board to pressure its Chair into voting for lower interest rates or resigning.”

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva says Darren Beattie was ‘prohibited from visiting’ Bolsonaro in prison.

The government of Brazil has revoked the visa of Darren Beattie, a far-right adviser to United States President Donald Trump who had planned to visit ex-President Jair Bolsonaro in his prison cell in Brasilia.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva confirmed on Friday that Beattie’s visa has been pulled. He equated it to the US pulling visas from Brazilian officials in Washington, DC.

Among them was Brazilian Health Minister Alexandre Padilha, whose US visa was revoked last year.

“That American guy who said he was coming here to visit Jair Bolsonaro was prohibited from visiting, and I forbade him from coming to Brazil until they release the visa for my health minister,” Lula said during an event in Rio de Janeiro.

Separately, Brazilian officials told news services, including the AFP, that Beattie had lied about the purpose of the visit on his visa request.

Bolsonaro is a far-right ally of President Trump, and he is currently serving a 27-year sentence for his role in a coup plot after Brazil’s 2022 election.

Friday’s decision shows the continued tension between the Brazilian and US governments, even as Trump and Lula have enjoyed warming relations.

Last August, Trump placed Brazil under heavy tariffs — some of the highest in the world — in protest against Bolsonaro’s prosecution. He demanded that the country’s legal system drop the case against Bolsonaro and accused Brazil of persecuting right-wing voices.

After Trump met Lula at the United Nations General Assembly in September and again at a summit for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in October, relations between the two leaders improved.

Lula also reached out by telephone in October in a bid to ease the cumulative 50-percent tariffs on certain Brazilian products. On November 20, Trump responded by issuing an executive order “modifying the scope of tariffs” on Brazilian exports like beef and coffee.

But speculation has remained high that Trump could again intervene in the country’s domestic politics to boost the prospects of the Brazilian right.

Brazil is set to hold a new presidential election in October, where Lula is facing off against Bolsonaro’s eldest son, Flavio.

Lawyers for the imprisoned Bolsonaro had asked the Brazilian Supreme Court to approve a visitation request from Beattie this week, but the court rejected that request on Thursday.

Beattie, a strong critic of Lula’s government, was fired during Trump’s first term in office following reports that he had attended a white nationalist conference.

Bolsonaro, meanwhile, was placed in intensive care on Friday, with hospital officials saying the 70-year-old had a “high fever, a drop in oxygen saturation, sweating and chills” linked to pneumonia.

March 13 (UPI) — Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth downplayed the shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz during a press briefing Friday and claimed 15,000 Iranian targets have been struck.

Hegseth said the U.S. and Israeli air forces are flying over Iran and Tehran Friday, the 13th day of the operation. He claimed that Iran’s air defenses, navy and munitions supply have been defeated.

Iran’s missile volume was down by 90% and its one-way attack drones were down by 95% on Thursday, Hegseth said.

“Today as we speak we fly over the top of Iran and Tehran,” Hegseth said. “Fighters and bombers, all day picking targets as they choose.”

The defense secretary opened Friday’s briefing at the Pentagon, joined again by Gen. Dan Caine, saying that the United States is “decimating the radical Iranian regime’s military in a way the world has never seen before.”

“We said it would not be a fair fight and it has not been,” he said.

Caine lauded the use of the first precision-strike missiles used in combat by the United States, praising the troops that fired them. One of those soldiers was 20 years old and has only been in the U.S. Army for six months.

Caine’s comments on the precision of U.S. strikes come as the military is investigating a deadly strike on an elementary school for girls in Iran that took place on Feb. 28. The preliminary investigation has found that the United States is likely responsible for the attack that killed more than 170 people, most of them children.

“They’ve done all of this with the precision and determination that comes from relentless training and trust in each other and their weapons systems,” Caine said.

Hegseth said the United States is “dealing with” Iran’s attacks on vessels on the Strait of Hormuz, which has dramatically disrupted the oil trade.

“It’s something we’re dealing with, we have been dealing with it and don’t need to worry about it,” Hegseth said. “We’re on plan to defeat, destroy and disable all of their meaningful military capabilities on a pace the world has never seen before.”

Caine later said that there is some traffic moving through the strait.

As Iran’s military capabilities weaken, Hegseth said, more importantly, it does not possess the capability to build more weapons.

“Soon and very soon all of Iran’s defense companies will be destroyed,” Hegseth. “For example, as of two days ago, all of Iran’s ballistic missile production capacity, every company that builds every component of those missiles, has been functionally defeated, destroyed.”

As for Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, Hegseth said he is “likely disfigured.” Khamenei was wounded during the initial strikes by the United States and Israel on Tehran on Feb. 28, which killed his father, former supreme leader Ali Khamenei.

President Donald Trump shared similar speculation about the new supreme leader on Fox News on Friday, saying he believes he is alive but “damaged.”

“I think he probably is,” Trump said. “I think he’s damaged but I think he’s probably alive in some form.”

Miguel Diaz-Canel says discussions held to find solutions ‘through dialogue’ as Washington tightens oil blockade.

Cuban ⁠officials have ⁠held talks with the United States government to seek solutions to the crippling ⁠blockade imposed by Washington, President Miguel Diaz-Canel said, as the Trump administration’s threats to take over the Caribbean nation escalate.

“These talks have been aimed at finding solutions through dialogue to the bilateral differences ‌we have between the two nations,” Diaz-Canel said in a video aired on national television on Friday.

Diaz-Canel said “international factors have facilitated these exchanges”.

He said no petroleum shipments have arrived on the island in the past three months, which he blamed on the US energy blockade.

Critical oil shipments from Venezuela were halted after the US attacked the South American country and abducted President Nicolas Maduro.

Cuba’s western region was hit by a massive blackout last week, leaving millions without power.

The talks come days after President Donald Trump levelled his latest threat at Cuba, saying the White House’s plans for the Caribbean nation may include a “friendly takeover”.

‘Impact tremendous’

Diaz-Canel added that Cuba, which produces 40 percent of its petroleum, has been generating its own power but that it hasn’t been sufficient to meet demand.

He said the lack of power has affected communications, education and transportation, and that the government has had to postpone surgeries for tens of thousands of people as a result.

“The impact is tremendous,” he said.

The president added that the aim was “to determine the willingness of both parties to take concrete actions for the benefit of the people of both countries”.

“And in addition, to identify areas of cooperation to confront threats and guarantee the security and peace of both nations, as well as in the region,” he said.

For decades, severe US economic sanctions on Cuba have crippled its economy and cut it off from global trade. In response, Cuba has depended on oil supplies from foreign allies, including Mexico, Russia and Venezuela.

EU lawmakers in Brussels are worried that the bloc is drifting into the crosshairs of US domestic politics, as the White House launched new trade investigations into EU goods accusing the European Union is “implementing close to zero” of trade commitments.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Next week could prove decisive for the EU–US trade deal struck last summer.

Washington has stepped up pressure on the EU in recent days to implement the agreement cut last summer cut between the head of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen and President Donald Trump, tripling tariffs on the EU.

Still, MEPs have kept the implementation process, which also includes investment pledges from the Europeans in the US, frozen, seeking clarity after the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in February that US tariffs imposed in 2025 were illegal.

The fate of the deal remains uncertain after the White House launched new investigations into EU products this week that could lead to tariffs exceeding the 15% ceiling agreed under the pact.

“It is domestic politics and the worst-case scenario has happened: we got involved,” Croatian MEP Željana Zovko, lead negotiator for the European People’s Party, told Euronews.

She added: “We were waiting for the Supreme Court’s decision but now of course this administration will do its utmost to do it its own way.”

In the days following the court’s ruling, the US administration has looked for new legal grounds for tariffs and invoked Section 122 to impose fresh duties of 10% on EU goods, on top of the 4.8% tariffs already in place under most-favored nation regime.

The provision allows temporary duties for a maximum of 150 days, after which the US Congress would need to agree an extension. The Supreme Court suggested in its initial ruling that the President had exceeded his powers under emergency grounds.

As Washington looks for a way to make the tariff salvo permanent, it is also increasing the pressure on allies by opening new investigations into trading partners including the EU over alleged unfair trade practices. China and India were also targeted.

The probes could pave the way for tariffs above the 15% ceiling agreed in the deal struck in July 2025 by Ursula von der Leyen and Donald Trump in Turnberry, Scotland.

Next week will be pivotal for the EU-US deal

“Now uncertainty is increasing even more for our businesses,” Zovko said.

Since the court ruling, the EU has sought clarity from Washington on whether the Turnberry agreement signed last year still stands or has been broken.

US officials assured EU trade chief Maroš Šefčovič they would stick to the deal, though they have not detailed how the 10% tariffs after the court ruling will be replaced in the long-term. In return, the US expects the EU to implement the agreement fully and quickly.

US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer raised the temperature on Wednesday, lashing at the Europeans on the basis that “the EU has done approximately zero percent of what they were supposed to do for their trade deal with us.”

This week’s investigations should be taken seriously, German MEP Bernd Lange (S&D) told Euronews, despite the erratic moves by the US administration since the court ruling.

“Section 301 will allow the US to differentiate between countries and therefore add pressure to each of them,” he said.

Next week could be pivotal for the EU–US trade deal.

Italian MEP Brando Benifei (S&D) will travel to Washington hoping to meet Greer. He may be joined by Lange, the chair of the EU trade committee, on Monday although a decision has not been made yet.

The trip comes as negotiators in the European Parliament must decide whether to resume work on the agreement or postpone the vote once more. A vote is required to cut EU duties on US goods to zero, as foreseen in the Turnberry deal.

But political groups remain divided.

“When I read what the socialists are saying, I’m losing hope that we will have a vote, despite reassurance given by Iratxe García Pérez [Spanish MEP, chair of the S&D] and Bernd Lange,” a source at the EPP told Euronews.

Benifei said the EU needs a clear political signal from Washington that it will stick to the deal, otherwise “there is no way we can vote on the file.”

March 12 (UPI) — The recent, new delay in NASA’s moon landing program represents the latest in a string of technical, budgetary, workforce and public perception challenges that plague the space agency, a UPI analysis shows.

When flight officials pulled the Artemis II Space Launch System and Orion spacecraft off the launch pad at Kennedy Space Center on Feb. 25 after a recurrence of helium flow problems and pushed the launch back to April at the earliest, it served as another reminder of the space agency’s current assortment of formidable problems.

Those issues include a moon program whose timeline keeps slipping; recurring technical failures and cost overruns with its flagship SLS rocket; a commercial lander — SpaceX’s Starship — that has yet to demonstrate reliability; the effective grounding of the Vulcan Centaur rocket made by United Launch Alliance; the departures of thousands of NASA workers and turnover in its top leadership positions.

The agency announced March 3 it had identified the latest problem with Artemis II as a faulty helium seal in the SLS upper stage, and that it is repairing the assembly, as well as making other fixes to the spacecraft.

But meanwhile, the lag time since the last crewed U.S. spaceflight has now stretched to three full years. This lengthy drought has prompted outside analysts and NASA officials to worry about how public support for the space program is being affected.

“When missions occur every few years, it is easy for people to lose interest,” said Burt Dicht, a leader of the National Space Society, who added he backs a newly announced NASA effort to increase the frequency of launches.

The latest delay has prompted a fresh look at some of the major challenges facing the space agency’s moon effort, as well as more general problems.

Headwinds with partners, personnel issues

One of the more pressing issues with the Artemis program is its dependence on SpaceX’s Starship Human Landing System, or HLS, as the initial human lander that will put the first U.S. astronauts on the lunar surface.

Elon Musk’s company signed a contract with NASA in 2021 to provide the lander, but struggled in 2025 to perfect the mammoth Starship V3 rocket necessary for a key element of the HLS mission, according to a report issued by NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel and released last month.

The Starship V3 incorporates upgraded Raptor engines to provide it with the required performance for low-Earth orbit flight and on-orbit operations, and its development is deemed crucial for transferring fuel to an orbiting tanker.

How it performs will “ultimately determine the number of refueling missions required for the HLS mission,” which is now pegged at roughly 12 fueling flights, the report’s authors wrote.

“The development and test progress necessary for a version of Starship that has not yet flown in time to support a human lunar landing mission within the next few years appears daunting and, to the panel, probably not achievable,” they wrote.

SpaceX announced Feb. 26 that the first Starship V3 had left its build site at Boca Chica, Texas, and had begun prelaunch testing.

In 2023, NASA selected Blue Origin, owned by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, to develop a second human landing system to compete with the HLS. Its Blue Moon Mark 2, to be launched aboard a New Glenn rocket, is to be tested twice and then carry a crew to the moon in late 2028.

New critical report

But NASA’s Office of Inspector General, in a report issued Tuesday, looked at both programs to carry astronauts to the moon and advised that the agency faces significant technical and programmatic risks that threaten mission timelines and crew safety.

The report said NASA is not fully adhering to “test like you fly” principles, particularly for uncrewed demonstration missions, and has not yet ensured that SpaceX’s Starship lander will meet manual control requirements for astronauts.

The inspector general also noted gaps in hazard‑mitigation planning and insufficient testing of critical systems, especially given the complexity of both SpaceX’s and Blue Origin’s lander architectures.

The report also warned that NASA the capability to rescue astronauts in the event of a life‑threatening emergency during lunar surface operations, echoing limitations from the Apollo era.

And it concluded that SpaceX and Blue Origin face technical challenges likely to cause additional delays, with SpaceX’s schedule slipping beyond its earlier 2027 target and even the revised 2028 goal remaining uncertain.

The report recommends stronger risk‑management practices, more realistic scheduling and more rigorous testing to ensure crew safety and mission success.

Meanwhile, NASA’s larger operations also could be affected by problems encountered in the new Vulcan Centaur rockets made by United Launch Alliance.

Vulcan launches halted

The U.S. Space Force last week temporarily halted all national security launches using the rocket after the same booster malfunction occurred twice, according to comments made by Col. Eric Zarybnisky at a meeting last month in Colorado.

The Vulcan Centaur program was established by ULA to reduce costs and eliminate reliance on the current workhorse Atlas V Russian-supplied RD-180 engine and is primarily meant to meet U.S. military needs.

But the program benefits NASA as well, giving it greater flexibility and transport capability for launching of payloads, the space agency said.

NASA also continues to struggle with an exodus of workers, including thousands of crucial senior staff, which some analysts believe is impacting its moon and Mars exploration goals due to a loss of expertise.

Nearly 4,000 agency employees last year chose to accept “deferred resignations” as part of the Trump administration’s efforts to slash the federal workforce — a move that reduced NASA’s employee roster by more than 20% to some 14,000, NASA spokesperson Cheryl Warner told NPR in June.

Still, even amid all of those issues, the agency was able to dodge the biggest potential bullet of them all — a proposed 24% reduction in its budget issued by the White House, which would have been the biggest cut in agency history.

That threat all but evaporated when Congress agreed on a $24.4 billion NASA spending bill in January, representing a mere 1.7% budget reduction.

The NASA administrator’s job itself remained unfilled throughout 2025, as President Donald Trump withdrew his nomination of Isaacman. Trump ultimately changed course, and Isaacman was confirmed by the Senate on Dec. 17.

Major changes for the Artemis program

Of all the difficulties faced by NASA, the technical problems and cost overruns of the Artemis program itself have emerged as perhaps the most high-profile.

The Feb. 25 postponement was the second recent delay for Artemis II, which is to send four astronauts on a “slingshot” fly-by around the moon. Last month, NASA pushed back the launch to March after engineers discovered what they called a significant hydrogen leak during a wet dress rehearsal.

NASA said Thursday it plans to roll the Artemis II Space Launch System rocket and Orion capsule back out to the launchpad next week, aiming for a launch in April.

The rollout wis to begin March 19, with an eye at launching as early as the evening of April 1, NASA officials said during a press briefing.

The original target date for landing astronauts on the moon — 55 years after the United States first did it — was 2024. When that was announced in 2019, many observers thought the target date was too optimistic.

The effort’s total cost after NASA recently added nine new elements now exceeds $20 billion, the Government Accountability Office reported last summer. Three of those elements have racked up a total of $7 billion in cost overruns.

NASA has made efforts to get a handle on the overruns through its Moon to Mars Program Office, the GAO said, but warned that each new delay to mission dates can create a cascading effect of increased costs across multiple programs that function independently of each other.

Clear warnings

And in its report from last month, the NASA safety panel sounded clear warnings about the “ambitious timeline” for developing the Human Landing System, given its “intricate operational design” and :complex concept of operations,” as well as other serious safety concerns surrounding the Artemis program.

Taken together, the issues posed a “high safety risk,” the panel concluded, which “casts doubt on the current Artemis III timeline and the feasibility of the Artemis III mission goals.”

In the wake of the latest issues, Isaacman announced a major revamp of Artemis under which the expected moon landing was pushed back from Artemis III in 2027 to Artemis IV in 2028.

“We have to rebuild core competencies,” he told reporters Feb. 27, blaming the repeated delays on too-infrequent launch schedules (known as the “launch cadence”), which he said causes “muscle memory” to “atrophy.”

“This is just not the right pathway forward,” he asserted, while revealing that a moon landing with Artemis III in 2027 has been deemed too ambitious and will instead now be attempted with Artemis IV in 2028.

Artemis III will instead now serve as a mission to perform tests on connecting with lunar landers in low-Earth orbit, as well as to test equipment that will go on Artemis IV.

Meanwhile, to bump up the launch cadence to once every 10 months rather than every three years, Isaacman announced a standardization of the SLS rocket fleet to “essentially near ‘Block-1’ configuration.”

The idea, he said, is to reduce the complexity of the massive rocket and to “accelerate manufacturing, pull in the hardware and increase launch rate, which obviously has a direct safety consideration to it, as well. You get into a good rhythm launching with greater frequency, you get that muscle memory.”

To do that, he added, “we need to rebuild and strengthen the workforce here at NASA. … We have to rebuild core competencies. The ability to turn around our launch pads and launch with frequency greater than every three years is imperative,” he said, pointing to the histories of the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and Space Shuttle programs, when “the average launch cadence was closer to three months.”

The decision to simplify and standardize the SLS starting with Artemis IV also means the agency will no longer need to use the $1.5 billion Mobile Launcher 2 at Kennedy Space Center, which is still under construction and has faced its own cost overruns and delays.

Experts’ reactions

Experts who have been closely following the development of Artemis expressed a range of opinions about whether the latest moves are the right ones for the moon program and the U.S. space program generally.

Kenny Evans, a fellow in science, technology and innovation policy at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy in Houston, told UPI the glitches and the resulting negative perceptions of the program are indeed tied to the drawn-out launch cadence.

“The extended periods between SLS launches have given NASA fewer chances to test out hardware — and less cover for when things go wrong,” he said. “That has long been a valid criticism of the SLS program and a source of bad press — for example, the fueling issues in prior wet dress rehearsals.

“Working out kinks, as visible and expensive as they are, should be seen as net positives rather than programmatic failures,” he said.

“Frankly I’m relieved to see the timeline revamp,” Evans added. “The Artemis schedule Isaacman inherited had absolutely no chance of meeting its prior targets, and I’ve been impressed by his willingness to address the hard truths about the program.

“In terms of safety, making Artemis III a system test will provide NASA a much needed opportunity to remove as much risk as possible before attempting a lunar landing for Artemis IV,” he said while noting he is “particularly enthusiastic” about the NASA leader’s stated commitment to strengthening its workforce, “especially in light of cuts to agency staff.”

Meanwhile, the National Space Society’s Dicht, said his interactions with students, engineers, long-time space advocates and the public have shown him there is “real enthusiasm for progress in the space program,” but that new momentum is needed.

“I believe NASA Administrator Isaacman’s proposals to improve launch cadence, strengthen the workforce and standardize the SLS are positive steps that can help stabilize the Artemis program and move it toward a sustained return to the moon,” Dicht said.

“Whether it is SLS or any other rocket, these are extraordinarily complex machines,” he said. “Increasing the cadence of launches and ensuring the workforce is well-trained and consistently engaged helps build the operational experience, or ‘muscle memory,’ that improves reliability and the likelihood of mission success.”

While there is steady and palpable excitement over humankind’s first return to the moon since 1972 among committed enthusiasts, “there remains a segment of the public, including some social media influencers, who interpret technical issues as a sign that the program is failing,” he said.

“When missions occur every few years it is easy for people to lose interest,” Dicht said. “If the program can move toward a more regular rhythm, possibly two flights per year, it will attract attention and reinforce the sense that progress is being made.”

Similar to Apollo 9

Spaceflight historian and science author Amy Shira Teitel, creator of The Vintage Space YouTube channel, said the revamp “doesn’t particularly surprise me,” noting the decision to change Artemis III’s moon landing mission into a test flight is reminiscent of Apollo 9 in March 1969.

In that mission, a three-astronaut crew carried out vital tests while in low-Earth orbit to prepare for the historic Apollo 11 moon landing four months later.

“The plan to land Artemis III while still not having the lander ready or even chosen, from what I could tell, seemed like trouble waiting to happen, so the idea of going back to Apollo 9 and testing the hardware/mission in Earth orbit seems both safe and like it should have been the first step before going to the moon,” she told UPI in emailed comments.

The author of Breaking the Chains of Gravity: The Story of Spaceflight before NASA has questioned the overall purpose, cost and broader implications of the moon-to-Mars effort, contending it lacks a compelling justification other than “going for the sake of going” while the highly successful and popular International Space Station is scheduled to be scrapped in 2030.

All of the Artemis changes, Teitel said, are “emphasizing how hard it is, and how insane it is to be looking at canceling the ISS without a replacement and just focusing on the moon-to-Mars pipeline without any kind of long-term infrastructure or planning.

“And the endless issues with SLS — why are we adding more launches?” she asked. “We know this system is flawed. It feels like retrofitting a mission into the hardware to justify the … launch cost.”

Washington, DC – In September, the United States began launching dozens of deadly military strikes against alleged drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific.

Nearly half a year later, remarkably little is known about the strikes. The identities of the nearly 157 people killed have not been released. Any purported evidence against them has not been made public.

But a group of United Nations and international law experts are hoping to change that on Friday, when they testify at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR).

The international hearing will be the first of its kind since the strikes began on September 2, and rights advocates hope it can help lead to accountability as individual legal cases related to the strikes proceed.

Steven Watt, a senior staff lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union’s human rights programme, said the goal of the hearing will be threefold.

“Our ask will be to conduct a fact-finding investigation into what’s going on,” Watt said.

The second aim, he continued, would be “to assert or to arrive at a conclusion that there is no armed conflict here”, in what would be a rebuke to US President Donald Trump’s previous claims.

Finally, Watt said, he hopes the proceedings will yield long-sought transparency from the Trump administration on “whether or not they have a legal justification for these boat strikes”.

“We don’t think there are any,” Watt added.

‘We don’t know the names’

The experts set to testify at Friday’s hearing said the IACHR has a unique mandate to uncover the truth behind the US strikes.

The commission, based in Guatemala City, Guatemala, is an independent investigative body within the Organization of American States, of which the US was a founding member in 1948.

While the Trump administration has claimed it has a right to carry out the deadly attacks as part of a wider military offensive against so-called “narco-terrorists”, rights groups have decried the campaign as a series of extrajudicial killings.

They argue that Trump’s deadly tactics deny those targeted of anything that approaches due process.

Legal experts have also dismissed Trump’s claims that suspects in drug-related crimes are equivalent to “unlawful combatants” in an “armed conflict”.

Few details have emerged from the air strikes. Several families have come forward, however, to informally identify the dead as their loved ones.

Victims are said to include 26-year-old Chad Joseph and 41-year-old Rishi Samaroo, who were sailing home to Trinidad and Tobago when they were killed in October, according to relatives.

A complaint filed against the US government said both men travelled often between the islands and Venezuela, where Joseph found work as a farmer and fisherman, and Samaroo laboured on a farm.

The family of Colombian national Alejandro Carranza, 42, have also said he was killed in September when the US military attacked his fishing boat off the country’s coast.

The US has yet to confirm the victims’ identities, and only two survivors have ever been rescued in the 45 reported strikes.

A clearer picture of what happened will be a significant step towards accountability, according to experts like Watt.

“[The IACHR] is uniquely positioned to identify who all these persons are,” Watt said. “We just know the numbers from the United States. We don’t know the names or the backgrounds of these people.”

The IACHR has launched a range of human rights investigations in recent decades, including probes into the 2014 mass kidnapping of 43 students in Iguala, Mexico, and a series of murders in Colombia from 1988 to 1991 dubbed the Massacre of Trujillo.

The commission has also examined US policies, including extrajudicial detentions at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, during its so-called “global war on terror”.

The IACHR has the power to seek resolutions to human rights complaints or refer them for litigation before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

Just last week, the court ordered Peru to pay reparations to the family of a woman who died during a government-led forced sterilisation campaign in the 1990s.

The Carranza family has filed its own complaint to the IACHR, and the families of Joseph and Samaroo have also lodged a lawsuit against the US in a federal court in Massachusetts.

Angelo Guisado, a senior staff lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), said a fuller accounting of the US actions is needed to prevent future abuses. He is among the experts testifying on Friday.

“You can’t normalise assassinating fishermen off the coast of South America,” Guisado told Al Jazeera. “That’s just sadistic and an abomination to the rules-based order that we’ve created.”

“So we hope that the commission can do some investigation.”

A war against ‘narco-terrorists’?

One of Guisado’s goals for Friday’s hearing will be to unpack the Trump administration’s argument that the attacks are necessary from a national security standpoint.

Even before the US strikes began, the Trump administration began framing the Latin American drug trade as an existential threat to the US.

As part of that re-framing, the administration borrowed messaging from its “global war on terror”, taking the unorthodox approach of labelling several cartels “foreign terrorist organisations”.

Speaking last week at a meeting of Latin American leaders, White House security adviser Stephen Miller maintained there is no “criminal justice solution” to drug cartels.

Instead, he affirmed that the US would use “hard power, military power, lethal force, to protect and defend the American homeland”, even if that meant carrying out deadly operations throughout the Western Hemisphere.

Guisado, however, noted that the administration has admitted that the targeted boats were largely carrying cocaine, not the highly addictive fentanyl responsible for the majority of US drug overdoses.

He explained that the administration has done little to prove its claims that drug traffickers are part of a coordinated effort to destabilise the US.

Such hyperbolic language, Guisado added, could be used as a smokescreen to conceal illegal actions.

“When you invoke national security interest, it seems as if scrutiny and any legitimate analysis or condemnation gets pushed to one side in favour of an ersatz martial law,” Guisado said.

“The idea that you could just proclaim anyone a narcoterrorist and do whatever you want with them is just so repugnant to our system of fairness, justice and law.”

Watt, meanwhile, said he hopes the IACHR will draw a clear “line in the sand”, separating drug crimes from what is conventionally considered an armed conflict.

He also would like to see the IACHR clearly outline the US’s human rights obligations.

“But even if there was an armed conflict — of which there isn’t — the laws of war would prohibit the type of conduct that the United States is engaging in here,” Watt explained.

“It would be an extrajudicial killing. It would be a war crime.”

Transparency or accountability

Friday’s hearing will only be an initial step towards accountability, and critics question how effective the IACHR will ultimately be.

The US has regularly shrugged off human rights probes at international forums, and it is not party to entities like the International Criminal Court in The Hague, raising barriers to the pursuit of justice.

Despite being a member of the OAS, the US has also not ratified the American Convention on Human Rights, one of the organisation’s founding documents.

It is, therefore, unclear how binding any IACHR decisions could be, although Watt argued that it is “longstanding jurisprudence of the commission that the declaration imposes obligations on non-ratifying member states”.

Still, legal experts said Friday’s hearing may yield clarity on the Trump administration’s legal argument for the boat strikes.

The IACHR has said US government representatives are set to appear at the hearing.

To date, the US Department of Justice has not released the Office of Legal Counsel’s official reasoning for the boat strikes, considered the foundational legal document for the military actions.

A separate memorandum from that office addressed the US abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro on January 3, which it framed as a drug enforcement action.

That memo touched on the boat strikes, but it only served to raise further questions about Trump’s rationale.

“This will be an opportunity for the United States to put its case before the commission,” Watt said.

“But of course, it depends on US cooperation,” he continued. “They’re going down there, but it’ll be interesting to see what they actually say”.

Al Jazeera’s Tohid Asadi shows the aftermath of US-Israeli airstrikes on a residential neighbourhood in Iran, where rescue teams have been searching for survivors among the rubble.

Iranian explosive-laden boats appear to have attacked two fuel tankers in Iraqi waters, setting them ablaze and killing one crew member, after projectiles struck three vessels in Gulf waters, according to reports.

The ships targeted in late-night ⁠attacks on Wednesday in the Gulf near Iraq were the Marshall Islands-flagged Safesea Vishnu and the Zefyros, which had loaded fuel cargoes in Iraq, two Iraqi port officials told the Reuters news agency.

“We recovered the body of a foreign crew member from the water,” one port security official said, as Iraqi rescue teams continued searching for other missing seafarers. It was not immediately clear which ship that person was linked to.

One Iraqi port security source said Zefyros is flagged ‌in Malta and provided Reuters with a list of crew names.

Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Baghdad, Iraq, Mahmoud Abdelwahed, said the tankers were loaded with crude oil from the Umm Qasr port in southern Iraq in the Basra province, and were attacked soon after their voyage got under way.

“Iraqi officials say this is a flagrant violation of Iraq’s sovereignty given the fact this act, they say, of sabotage has happened in Iraq’s territorial waters,” Abdelwahed said.

Reuters said that reports of the use of explosive-laden unmanned surface vessels, which Ukraine has used with great effect in its war with Russia, come as Iran has blocked oil shipments from transiting the key Strait of Hormuz, through which one-fifth of ⁠the world’s oil transits but has been blocked amid the United States-Israeli war on Iran.

Reuters, citing two unnamed sources, also reported on Wednesday that Iran ‌has deployed about a dozen mines in the strait, while US President Donald Trump said US forces had struck 28 Iranian mine-laying vessels, amid warnings by Trump of severe repercussions should Iran lay mines in the key waterway for global shipping.

Strait of Hormuz sealed

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) have warned that any ship passing through the Strait of Hormuz will be targeted.

The Thai-flagged Mayuree Naree dry bulk vessel was struck by “two projectiles of unknown origin” while sailing through the strait earlier on Wednesday, causing a fire and damaging the engine room, the ship’s Thai-listed operator Precious Shipping said in a statement.

“Three crew members are ⁠reported missing and believed to be trapped in the engine room,” Precious Shipping said.

“The company is working with the relevant authorities to rescue these three ⁠missing crew members,” it said, adding that the remaining 20 crew members had been safely evacuated and were ashore in Oman.

Images shared by Thai news outlet Khaosod English showed what were reported to be crew members of the ship after their rescue by Oman’s navy.

The IRGC said in a statement carried by the semi-official Tasnim news agency that the ship was “fired upon by Iranian fighters”, suggesting the first direct engagement by the IRGC, who have previously fired missiles or drones.

The Japan-flagged container ship ONE Majesty also sustained minor damage on Wednesday from an unknown projectile 25 nautical miles (about 46 kilometres) northwest ⁠of Ras al-Khaimah in the United Arab Emirates, two maritime security firms said. Its Japanese owner Mitsui OSK Lines and a spokesperson for Ocean Network Express, its charterer, said the vessel was struck while at anchor in the Gulf, and an inspection of the hull revealed minor damage above the waterline.

All crew are safe, they said, adding that the vessel remains fully operational and seaworthy. The owner said the cause of the incident remained unclear and was under investigation.

A third vessel, a bulk ‌carrier, was also hit by an unknown projectile approximately 50 nautical miles (about 93km) northwest of Dubai, maritime security firms said.

The projectile had damaged the hull of the Marshall Islands-flagged Star Gwyneth, maritime risk management company Vanguard said, adding that the vessel’s crew were safe. Owner Star Bulk Carriers said the ship was hit in the hold area while it was anchored. There were no crew injuries and no listing.

The US Navy has refused near-daily requests from the shipping industry ⁠for military escorts through the Strait of Hormuz since the start of the war on Iran, saying the risk of attacks is too high for now, sources familiar with the matter told Reuters.