Explainer

EXPLAINER

The US and Chinese leaders agreed during talks in Beijing that the Strait of Hormuz should remain open to ensure global energy supplies.

United States President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping discussed the Strait of Hormuz during talks in Beijing, with the White House saying Xi agreed the strategic waterway “must remain open to support the free flow of energy” as tensions over the Iran war continue to roil global markets.

Meanwhile, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi urged fellow BRICS nations at a meeting in New Delhi, India, to condemn the US-Israel war on Iran as a violation of international law, insisting Tehran would “never bow to any pressure”.

At the same time, a third round of direct talks between Lebanese and Israeli negotiators is under way in Washington, DC, aimed at ending hostilities, even as Israeli attacks continue across towns and villages in southern Lebanon.

Here is what we know:

In Iran

• Iran urges BRICS to condemn US and Israel: Araghchi told the BRICS+ bloc that Iran was a “victim of illegal expansionism and warmongering” and called on member states to oppose “Western hegemony” by condemning the actions of the US and Israel.
• Iran accuses UAE over war: Araghchi also accused the United Arab Emirates of playing an active role in the war against Iran, saying during the BRICS summit in India that the UAE was “directly involved in the aggression against my country”.
• Iran signals new Hormuz strategy: Iranian media reported that more than 30 ships, including some linked to Chinese companies, were allowed to transit the Strait of Hormuz overnight as Tehran signalled the waterway was “open to all commercial ships” that cooperate with Iranian naval forces.

War diplomacy

• Xi offers help on Hormuz: Trump said Xi Jinping had offered China’s help to open the Strait of Hormuz and pledged not to send military equipment to aid Iran in its war against the US and Israel.

• Trump-Xi summit held amid ‘promise fatigue’: Analyst Drew Thompson said Washington and Beijing remain deeply distrustful after years of unmet expectations, with both sides accusing the other of breaking promises. He described the summit as “carefully managed” and focused on preventing further deterioration in ties.

• US says Israel-Lebanon talks ‘positive’: A US official said talks in Washington on Thursday between Israel and Lebanon about an expiring ceasefire were “positive” and will take place as planned for a second day.

In the US

• Trump wants Iran’s uranium for ‘public relations’: The US president suggested that hunting down Iran’s enriched uranium was primarily for political optics, after Israel demanded it as a goal in the war. “I just feel better if I got it, actually, but it’s – I think, it’s more for public relations than it is for anything else,” Trump told Fox News.
• Trump says Iran must make deal: In the same interview, Trump told Sean Hannity he was running out of patience to reach a truce with Iran as peace talks have stalled. “I’m not going to be much more patient… They should make a deal. Any sane person would make a deal, but they might be crazy,” Trump said.

In Israel

• NYT lawsuit: Israel says it will sue The New York Times after the newspaper published an article by columnist Nicholas Kristof detailing rape allegations by Palestinian detainees against Israeli forces. The Israeli Prime Minister’s Office announced the legal move three days after the report, which was based on accounts from 14 male and female Palestinian victims.

In Lebanon and Syria

• Hezbollah claims attacks on Israeli forces: The group said it launched rockets, drones and artillery attacks on Israeli troops and military vehicles in southern Lebanon, and claimed to have downed Israeli drones.
• Israel-Lebanon talks face uncertainty: According to Al Jazeera’s Manuel Rapalo, Israel is seeking stronger security guarantees and Hezbollah’s disarmament, while Lebanon wants a permanent ceasefire and Israeli troop withdrawal from the south. Rapalo says Hezbollah’s refusal to commit to any future agreement adds significant uncertainty, although diplomats still view the talks as a breakthrough.
• Amnesty urges Israel to conduct Syria war crimes probe: The rights group called for investigations into Israeli raids and shelling in southern Syria, which residents say have destroyed homes and farmland and led to detentions. Israel has also seized additional territory beyond the occupied Golan Heights, in violation of the 1974 disengagement agreement.

South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa has refused to resign over a “cash-in-sofa scandal” that continues to haunt his presidency.

Ramaphosa, who addressed the nation on Monday to declare his intention to remain in his post, is set to face a multi-party impeachment committee, which will investigate allegations that he covered up a 2020 break-in at his private ranch and the theft of more than $500,000, concealing the incident from police and tax authorities.

The committee’s findings could spell his impeachment; however, parliament has not provided a timeframe for the investigation, which has yet to commence.

Analysts say the scandal, which has been dubbed “Farmgate”, has been particularly damaging for a president who rode to power in 2018 on an anticorruption mandate, after the much-criticised presidency of Jacob Zuma. Now, eight years later, the case of the cash found stuffed in a sofa at his game ranch could be what takes Ramaphosa down.

Can the South African president survive? Here is what we know.

What’s the scandal all about?

In February 2020, burglars allegedly broke into Ramaphosa’s luxury private ranch, Phala Phala, in Limpopo province, South Africa, and stole $580,000. The cash was said to have been hidden inside furniture at the farm – hence the “Farmgate” label.

Ramaphosa has been accused of covering up the theft and keeping private efforts to trace the burglars a secret to avoid an investigation into where the money had come from – and why it was hidden in a sofa.

Corruption allegations surfaced when a former head of South Africa’s state security agency walked into a police station in 2022 and accused the president of money laundering in relation to the stolen cash.

Later that year, an independent parliamentary committee found that Ramaphosa “may have committed” serious violations and misconduct. In particular, the panel found he had failed to properly report a theft to police as required under anticorruption laws and “acted in a manner inconsistent with his office”.

At the time, the African National Congress (ANC) had a strong majority in parliament – with 230 seats out of 400. It was therefore able to reject the report and refused to open impeachment proceedings.

But the left-wing Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) challenged this at the Constitutional Court in Cape Town, which, last week, overturned the government’s rejection of the 2022 parliamentary report and referred it to a multi-party impeachment committee for a full investigation.

What has Ramaphosa said?

Ramaphosa has always denied allegations of corruption and maintains that the stolen cash came from selling buffalo.

Since the constitutional court’s ruling last week, Ramaphosa has been facing renewed calls for his resignation, mostly from opposition leaders. In a televised address on Monday, the president refused to step down.

“While there have been calls in some circles that I should resign, nothing in the Constitutional Court judgement compels me to resign my office,” he said.

“Since a criminal complaint was laid against me in June 2022, I have consistently maintained that I have not stolen public money, committed any crime, nor violated my oath of office,” Ramaphosa said in his address, adding that he has cooperated in all investigations.

The president rejected the 2022 report from the independent panel again, saying: “The complaints against me are based on hearsay allegations. No evidence, let alone sufficient evidence, has been presented to prove that I committed any violation, let alone a serious violation of the Constitution or law, or serious misconduct as set out in the Constitution.”

If the committee does find enough evidence against him, it could direct him to be impeached.

It is unclear how long this will take, however. Ramaphosa has pledged to seek a judicial review of the report’s contents, which, in turn, could delay the investigation of the impeachment committee.

What is the process for impeachment?

If a president is found to have violated the constitution or the law, or is unable to perform the duties of office, South Africa’s National Assembly has the constitutional authority to remove him or her.

Beyond the parliamentary investigation that will now begin into the Farmgate scandal, and which can trigger a vote on impeachment, as well, any member of parliament may introduce a motion seeking the president’s removal. The speaker of the National Assembly would then refer the motion to an independent panel of legal experts to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to proceed.

If this panel decides there is a case against the president, lawmakers must vote on whether to begin impeachment proceedings. After this, a specially constituted impeachment committee is established to carry out a detailed investigation into the allegations. This is separate from the investigation beginning now and could take several months.

Once that committee recommends the removal of the president, parliament holds a final vote to impeach the president. Under Section 89 of the constitution, a two-thirds majority is required – meaning at least 267 lawmakers must vote in favour of removal in the 400-seat National Assembly.

Are there other ways to remove Ramaphosa?

Yes, the South African president can be removed from his job via a no-confidence vote in parliament.

Any member of the assembly can propose the no-confidence motion, and it only requires a simple majority of more than 50 percent.

Ramaphosa would need support from coalition partners to survive a no-confidence vote, however. This has already been proposed by at least two opposition parties in parliament.

Another way could be if his ANC party turns against him, as it did with the last president, Zuma, who came in for years of corruption allegations and was finally forced to resign in 2018.

How strong is Ramaphosa’s position?

Ramaphosa is not only the president of South Africa, but also the leader of its most popular party, the ANC. Nelson Mandela was the ANC’s first Black president after apartheid ended in 1994.

In 2024, the ANC stunningly lost its majority in parliament for the first time following more than three decades in power. Today, the ANC holds 159 of 400 seats in the national assembly, or about 40 percent of seats – and Ramaphosa is governing in a coalition with the Democratic Alliance, which has 87 seats, along with other smaller parties.

But Chris Ogunmodede, an independent analyst of African politics, security, and international affairs, based in Lagos, Nigeria, said Ramaphosa would likely survive any impeachment attempts, “simply because of the arithmetic”.

“His numbers in the parliament virtually guarantee that impeachment will not happen,” Ogunmodede told Al Jazeera.

“It hasn’t been easy, but there is a government that seems to be functional and is showing some signs of reinvigoration,” Ogunmodede added. “There’s a lot of uncertainty on the part of the other coalition parties that suggests that they would much rather be on the side of caution and go with the devil they know, and preserve the government by keeping Ramaphosa in power.”

Despite this, the cash-in-sofa scandal has been damaging, he said.

And, under Ramaphosa, the ANC’s popularity has continued to slide. The party’s national vote share fell from 57.5 percent in the 2019 election to 40.2 percent in the 2024 election, marking its worst performance since the end of apartheid.

The South African economy has shown some signs of improvement, however, and given the Ramaphosa government “something to show for the time that it’s been in power”, said Ogunmodede.

Yet the South African government still faces long-term structural concerns about the economy, the country’s institutions, corruption, crime and other issues, the analyst added.

On the back of underlying anti-incumbency, Ogunmodede said the top court’s ruling on the cash-in-sofa scandal “has resurrected many concerns that South Africans have had about the president and his party, and the political institutions of the country more broadly”.

Andriy Yermak, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s former chief of staff and close aide, is now at the centre of the country’s biggest corruption investigation since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022.

Anticorruption authorities named him an official suspect on Monday in an alleged multimillion-dollar money laundering scheme linked to a luxury housing project outside the capital, Kyiv.

Yermak appeared at a Kyiv court on Tuesday for a hearing related to the charges, which are part of a widening probe drawing in other senior figures associated with the president, including his national security chief.

While Zelenskyy is not accused of any wrongdoing, the scandal could potentially threaten Ukraine’s aspirations for European Union membership as it seeks to convince the bloc that its anticorruption drive is on track.

So, what are the charges against Yermak? Are other allies of Zelenskyy also under a cloud of suspicion? And what does this mean for Ukraine’s standing with its Western allies?

What are the charges against Yermak?

Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) say Yermak is suspected of involvement in an organised criminal group that allegedly laundered about 460 million hryvnias ($10.5m) through a luxury real estate project near Kyiv.

Prosecutors are seeking to impose bail of about $5.4m on the 54-year-old while they continue their investigation.

Yermak, who resigned in November, has firmly rejected the claims. In a post on Telegram after a court hearing on Tuesday, he described the accusations as “unfounded”.

“As a lawyer with more than 30 years’ experience, I have always been guided by the law. And now, in the same way, I will defend my rights, my name and my reputation,” he said.

At one point during the hearing, Yermak told reporters that he “owns only one apartment and one car”.

His lawyer, Ihor Fomin, labelled the allegations against his client “groundless” and denied any role by Yermak in laundering funds through the high-end development. Fomin told Ukraine’s public broadcaster Suspilne that “this entire situation has been provoked by public pressure.”

NABU director Semen Kryvonos defended the proceedings, stating that authorities move to issue formal notices only when they believe they possess enough evidence to sustain charges in court. He clarified that Zelenskyy was not subject to any investigation.

But the case has dragged the shadow of corruption closer to the Ukrainian president than ever before. That’s because it isn’t just Yermak who has been caught up in the accusations of fraud.

Have other Zelenskyy allies been implicated, too?

Timur Mindich, a wealthy businessman who was Zelenskyy’s former partner from the entertainment world – the Ukrainian president is a former comedian – has emerged as another leading figure in the scandal. He left for Israel after corruption allegations surfaced last year.

The probe has also brought Rustem Umerov, the head of Ukraine’s National Security and Defence Council, into the crosshairs of the authorities. Umerov, who until last year was Ukraine’s defence minister, is Zelenskyy’s main representative in United States-backed diplomatic efforts to end Russia’s war on Ukraine.

Prosecutors say Umerov has been interviewed as a witness in the luxury real estate development case.

The case is part of a broader anticorruption operation, dubbed “Midas” and led by NABU and SAPO. The operation was first made public in November, when prosecutors accused Mindich of engineering a $100m kickback scheme at Energoatom, charges the businessman has refuted.

Zelenskyy has yet to publicly respond to the allegations involving Yermak. On Monday, a communications aide said it was premature to comment on the case.

Ukraine’s government in July passed a law in an effort to strip the independence of NABU and SAPO, which were established in 2014 after a pro-democracy uprising against the then-government of President Viktor Yanukovych.

Within days, protests broke out against the move, forcing Zelenskyy to reverse course and sign a new law to restore the anticorruption institutions’ independence.

Why does this matter?

The scandal has emerged at a particularly sensitive moment for Ukraine, as Kyiv continues to make the case for military and financial support from its allies in Western Europe and North America.

Last July, US senators Jeanne Shaheen and Lindsey Graham released a strongly worded statement denouncing the attempt by the government to, at the time, curb the anticorruption work of NABU and SAPO.

“One of the most widely used talking points for ending support for Ukraine is that it was awash with corruption,” they said. “We acknowledge that Ukraine continues to make progress on this front and we urge the government to refrain from any actions that undermine that progress.”

Moreover, Ukraine’s bid to join the EU has increased pressure on Zelenskyy’s administration to demonstrate institutional independence and accountability.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz last month cautioned against a quick accession of Ukraine to the EU, saying Ukraine cannot join the bloc due to several key concerns, including ending the war and fighting corruption.

Ukrainian opposition politician Oleksiy Goncharenko said the allegations had now reached a point that Zelenskyy “personally cannot ignore”.

However, Olena Halushka, a board member at the Anti-Corruption Action Centre in Kyiv, said the case against Yermak and others was a “clear example that the checks and balances system really works”.

Speaking to Al Jazeera, Halushka said it proved that in Ukraine there are “law enforcement institutions functioning independently and professionally, exercising their powers in defence of democracy”.

“These institutions were protected by the Ukrainian society and European partners from the political attack last summer, and now we see the tangible results of their activities,” she added.

In a survey conducted on May 6 by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, 54 percent of Ukrainians said corruption was a bigger threat to the country than the war with Russia.

United States President Donald Trump has departed for Beijing ahead of a high-stakes summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping, after weeks of unsuccessful US efforts to persuade China to help bring Iran back to negotiations and ease tensions around the Strait of Hormuz.

The leaders of the world’s two largest economies are due to meet on Thursday and Friday during Trump’s first visit to China since 2017, with talks expected to focus on trade, Taiwan, artificial intelligence and the war involving Iran.

Here is what we know about the upcoming summit and the key issues expected to dominate the agenda.

Why does the Trump-Xi summit matter?

The Trump-Xi summit is a high-level meeting between Trump and Xi Jinping taking place in Beijing as the world’s two largest economies face growing tensions over trade, technology, Taiwan and the Iran war.

The summit is particularly significant because Trump will be the first US leader to visit China in nearly a decade, while the talks also come at a time of heightened geopolitical and economic uncertainty. Originally expected earlier this year, the meeting was delayed by the war on Iran.

Before departing for Beijing, Trump said he and Xi would have a “long talk” about Iran, although he stressed that trade would remain the central focus of the visit.

“Trade remains politically powerful, especially for Trump, because it gives rivalry a language that voters can easily understand,” said Salvador Santino Regilme, associate professor and programme chair of international relations at Leiden University. “Yet the deeper conflict concerns hierarchy, legitimacy and the future architecture of global order.”

Regilme added that both countries remain locked in a relationship shaped by strategic rivalry and deep economic dependence.

“The United States still relies heavily on China’s manufacturing capacity and low-cost production, while China depends on access to US consumers, technology, capital markets and the wider stability of the dollar-centred global economy.”

“This is the paradox of US-China rivalry: each side wants greater autonomy, yet both remain tied to a structure of mutual dependence that neither can easily dismantle without hurting itself,” Regilme added.

What are the biggest issues at the Trump-Xi summit?

Analysts say the US and China are entering the summit with different priorities.

Trump is expected to focus heavily on trade with the aim of securing what he can present as economic wins ahead of November’s midterm elections. Washington has pushed for China to increase purchases of American goods, including Boeing aircraft, beef and soya beans, while also seeking closer investment and trade cooperation.

Beijing, meanwhile, is expected to press the US to ease restrictions on advanced semiconductor exports and roll back measures limiting China’s access to critical chip-making technology. Taiwan is also likely to remain one of the most sensitive and contested issues in the summit.

Trump has also said he plans to raise the case of Jimmy Lai, the jailed Hong Kong media tycoon and pro-democracy figure sentenced earlier this year under Beijing’s national security law.

Beyond bilateral disputes, the two leaders are also expected to discuss the war on Iran, tensions around the Strait of Hormuz and the growing risks linked to artificial intelligence.

The biggest flashpoints include:

Tech vs rare earths

Technology and supply chains are expected to be among the key issues at the summit, as Washington and Beijing remain locked in a widening battle over semiconductors and critical minerals.

The US has tightened restrictions on advanced chips and chip-making equipment going to China, saying the measures are needed to slow Beijing’s military and AI development.

China, meanwhile, controls roughly 90 percent of global rare earth refining, materials essential for semiconductors, electric vehicles, military equipment and electronics, and has responded with tighter export controls on several critical minerals.

Beijing is expected to push for fewer US technology restrictions, while Washington wants China to resume shipments of rare earths and critical minerals after export controls disrupted parts of the American automotive and aerospace sectors.

 Iran war and the Strait of Hormuz

The Iran war is expected to be one of the most closely watched issues at the summit.

Analysts expect Washington to press Beijing to use its influence over Tehran, particularly because China remains the largest buyer of Iranian oil — by far — purchasing more than 80 percent of Iran’s shipped crude exports. US officials have also urged China to support efforts to reopen and secure the Strait of Hormuz, a vital route for global energy supplies.

The conflict has also increased pressure on China’s economy and energy security. About half of China’s crude oil imports come from the Middle East, while disruptions in the Gulf have left commercial shipping vulnerable to attacks and delays.

“I have no doubt that Trump is going to at least try to enlist Xi Jinping to assert some pressure for the Iranians to come back to the table and agree to a settlement,” said Dan Grazier, a senior fellow and director of the National Security Reform programme at the Stimson Center.

Experts say Iran may be one of the few areas where US and Chinese interests overlap, as both countries benefit from stable energy flows through the Gulf.

“Both sides would like to see the strait opened,” said Gregory Poling, director and senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), but he noted Beijing is unlikely to align itself too closely with Washington’s approach towards Tehran.

While China wants shipping through the Strait of Hormuz restored, Poling argued the diplomatic and strategic pressure created by the disruption is falling far more heavily on Washington.

“It is not China being humiliated in the strait … It’s the US.”

Taiwan: An existential problem

Taiwan is expected to be one of the most sensitive issues, with Beijing repeatedly warning that it remains the biggest source of tension in US-China relations.

China claims the self-ruled island as part of its territory and has increased military pressure on Taiwan in recent years through regular air and naval operations around the island.

Tensions have risen further under Taiwanese President William Lai Ching-te, whom Beijing has sharply criticised because his party views Taiwan as already sovereign.

The US officially recognises the communist mainland as China but is legally committed under the Taiwan Relations Act to support Taiwan’s self-defence, a policy that has long angered China. Washington has approved tens of billions of dollars in military sales to Taiwan over the years, including an $11bn package announced last year, and Trump recently said he discussed the issue with Xi ahead of the summit.

Analysts say Taiwan will be paying close attention to what Trump and Xi say publicly after the summit, especially on defence and arms sales.

“What matters is the precise wording,” Regilme said. “Whether Trump reaffirms support for Taiwan’s defence, whether he sounds ambiguous on arms sales, and whether he gives Xi any rhetorical opening to claim that Washington is restraining Taipei.”

Regilme said Beijing is likely to push for limits on US arms sales and stronger political restrictions on Taiwan, while also discouraging any movement towards formal independence. At the same time, Taipei fears it could become part of a broader geopolitical bargain between Washington and Beijing.

“In great-power politics, small words often carry large consequences, especially for those whose survival depends on the credibility of others,” Regilme added.

Tariffs

Trade is also expected to be a sticking point after years of friction between the US and China over tariffs and economic competition.

The latest trade dispute intensified last year when Trump imposed new tariffs on Chinese goods. China responded with its own tariffs.

At the height of the dispute, tariffs on some goods climbed above 100 percent, prompting concerns about the impact on global trade and supply chains.

The two countries later agreed to temporarily lower tensions through a trade truce reached during talks in South Korea. As part of the deal, China agreed to buy more US agricultural products, including soya beans, while Washington rolled back some tariffs.

What would count as a successful outcome for Trump and Xi?

Analysts say a successful outcome for Trump would likely need to be visible and easy to sell politically at home. That could include Chinese purchases of US goods, movement on tariffs, cooperation on Iran, or progress on rare earth exports.

“Trump’s foreign policy style places enormous value on the public performance of dealmaking, so the optics of success may matter almost as much as the substance,” Regilme said.

For Xi, success would mean preserving stability without appearing to bow to Washington, while securing greater economic predictability and recognition of China as a global power.

“A comprehensive trade deal seems unlikely because the structural sources of rivalry remain unresolved,” Regilme added.

Instead, he said a limited agreement is more likely, potentially involving tariff pauses, purchase commitments, rare earth arrangements or a framework for future negotiations.

“Such an agreement would manage the rivalry temporarily, while leaving untouched the deeper problem: the two economies remain mutually dependent, but their governments increasingly treat that dependency as a strategic danger.”

Russian ⁠President Vladimir ⁠Putin has suggested that former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder could coordinate talks with the European Union to secure a ⁠peace deal in Ukraine – a proposal met with scepticism by EU officials.

European Council President Antonio Costa said recently he believed there was “potential” for ⁠the EU to negotiate with Russia and to discuss the future of Europe’s security architecture.

Asked on Saturday whom he would like to see restarting talks with Europe, Putin said he would “personally” prefer Schroeder, who led Germany from 1998 to 2005 and has remained close to the Kremlin leader since leaving office.

A day later, the Russian leader said the ⁠four-year-old war may be “coming to an end”, adding that he was ready to hold direct talks with his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in Moscow or a neutral country.

Speaking after Saturday’s celebrations for Victory Day, which marks Russia’s victory over Nazi Germany in 1945 at the end of World War II, Putin added he would be willing to meet Zelenskyy only once the terms of a peace agreement had already been settled.

Russia had announced a unilateral two-day ceasefire on May 8-9 to mark Victory Day, while Zelenskyy countered it with his own proposed pause in fighting starting earlier, on the night of May 5-6.

As part of a broader Washington-led push for ⁠peace, United States President Donald Trump on Friday announced a three-day pause in the conflict, but both sides have since accused the other of breaking it.

As US-backed peace talks between Kyiv and Moscow stall, here is a look at who Schroeder is and whether he could be a trustworthy mediator.

Who is Gerhard Schroeder?

The 82-year-old leader of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) served as Germany’s chancellor from 1998 to 2005, focusing his political goals on European integration, reducing unemployment, liberalising German citizenship laws, curbing nuclear power and rebuilding the economy.

Disagreements over the Iraq war caused a serious rift in German-US relations in 2003, when Germany sided with France and Russia in opposing military intervention in the country over claims that the then-Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein, was producing weapons of mass destruction.

After leaving office in 2005, Schroeder ⁠almost immediately took a job as chairman of a controversial German-Russian ⁠consortium building a gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea. He held key roles in Russian energy projects, including work on the Nord Stream gas pipelines and a seat on the board of Russian oil firm Rosneft, which he gave up in 2022.

While he quit that role, the former chancellor has remained close to Putin, standing apart from most Western leaders since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022 and facing heavy ⁠criticism in Germany.

His failure to publicly condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has cost him several privileges normally granted to former chancellors, including receiving a state-funded office, making him a controversial figure at home.

What is his relationship with Putin?

Schroeder referred to Putin as “a flawless democrat” in 2004, declaring himself “thoroughly convinced that the Russian president wants to transform Russia into a democracy and that he is doing so out of a deeply held conviction”.

The then-German chancellor had little to say about Russian attempts to influence the elections in Ukraine during those years or about the Kremlin’s attacks on press freedom. On the contrary, under his leadership, Germany deepened its economic ties with Russia, grew trade and increased its dependency on Russian oil and natural gas.

In his book Klare Woerter (Straight Talk), Schroeder spoke about his relationship with the Russian leader, who worked as a KGB spy in the then-East Germany in the 1980s and is fluent in German.

“The most important thing for a friendship is a common language,” Schroeder, who has two adopted children from Russia – Viktoria and Gregor – said. “It makes everything easier.”

Their friendship reportedly continued to blossom over the years. Schroeder criticised moves to impose sanctions and eject Russia from the Group of Eight and even backed a Kremlin argument comparing the annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea region with NATO’s intervention in Serbia’s Kosovo province in 1999, which he himself helped lead as the German chancellor.

How are the Russia-Ukraine negotiations going?

The US-backed talks have faltered over the latest Russian offensive to seize the remaining parts of Ukraine’s eastern Donetsk ⁠region, which Moscow has demanded Kyiv cede before it considers ending its war. Meanwhile, the two sides continue to carry out strikes against each other, with Ukraine making significant inroads in destroying Russian energy infrastructure in recent weeks.

On Sunday, Ukrainian officials said Russian attacks had killed at least three people, and that close to 150 combat engagements had occurred on the front lines in the previous 24 hours, despite the three-day pause in fighting.

“In other words, the Russian army is not observing any silence on the front and is not even particularly trying to,” Zelenskyy said in his evening address, adding that Ukrainian troops were responding and defending their positions.

On Sunday, Russia’s Ministry of Defence accused Ukraine of violating the pause, saying it had ‌downed 57 Ukrainian drones over the past day and “responded in kind” on the battlefield.

Control of the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, Europe’s largest, has also been a point of contention.

While Putin suggested the war was “coming to an end” on Saturday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said peace in Ukraine was a “very long way” away.

On Sunday, Russia’s Interfax news agency quoted Kremlin adviser Yury Ushakov saying that US envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner would visit Moscow “soon enough” to continue talks with Russia.

Are Ukraine and the West likely to trust Schroeder?

EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas reacted with scepticism to Putin’s proposal. “If we give the right to Russia to appoint a negotiator on our behalf, you know, that would not be very wise,” she told reporters on Monday in advance of foreign ministers’ talks in Brussels.

“Gerhard Schroeder has been a high-level lobbyist for Russian state-owned companies. So it’s clear why Putin wants him to be the person so that actually, you know, he would be sitting on both sides of the table,” she added.

Germany dismissed Putin’s suggestion on Sunday. The Reuters news agency quoted a German official as saying the offer was not credible because Russia had not changed any of its conditions, stressing that any talks with the EU would need to be closely ‌coordinated ‌with member states and Ukraine.

The official, who ⁠spoke on condition ⁠of anonymity, said Putin had made a series of bogus offers aimed at dividing the Western alliance.

Iran said on Wednesday that it was reviewing a United States peace proposal that sources said would formally end the war, while leaving unresolved the key US demands that Iran suspend its nuclear programme and reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

An Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson quoted by Iran’s ISNA news agency said on Wednesday that Tehran would convey its response. US President Donald Trump said he believed Iran wanted an agreement.

“They want to make a deal. We’ve had very good talks over the last 24 hours, and it’s very possible that we’ll make a deal,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Wednesday.

A day before, Trump paused “Project Freedom” to reopen the blockaded strait, citing progress in peace talks. The de facto blockade of the waterway threatens to cause a global recession. Iran has been pressing to keep Hormuz under its control, through which a fifth of global oil and gas supply passes.

Here is more about the US proposal to end the war, and how experts think Iran would respond.

What is the latest US proposal to end the Iran war?

US media outlet Axios said the two sides were “getting close” to an agreement on a 14-point document. Under the memorandum, Iran would agree not to develop a nuclear weapon and halt enrichment of uranium for at least 12 years, it said.

The US would lift sanctions and release billions of dollars in frozen Iranian assets, and both sides, which have imposed competing blockades in the Strait of Hormuz, would reopen the critical waterway within 30 days of signing.

Iran has been under US sanctions for decades, and the lifting of some sanctions under the 2015 nuclear agreement was reversed after Trump walked out of the landmark deal signed under his predecessor, President Barack Obama. Billions of dollars of Iranian assets remain frozen in foreign banks due to the sanctions.

It is unclear how this memorandum differs from a 14-point plan proposed by Iran last week.

The Reuters news agency reported on Thursday, citing a source briefed on the mediation, that the US negotiations were being led by Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner. If both sides agreed on the preliminary deal, that would start the clock on 30 days of detailed negotiations to reach a full agreement.

The full agreement would end the competing US and Iranian blockades on the strait, lift US sanctions and release frozen Iranian funds. It would also include certain curbs on Iran’s nuclear programme, which was allowed by the United Nations nuclear watchdog.

While the sources said the memorandum would not initially require concessions from either side, they did not mention several key demands Washington has made in the past, which Iran has rejected, such as curbs on Iran’s missile programme and an end to its support for armed proxy groups in the Middle East.

The sources also made no mention of Iran’s existing stockpile of more than 400kg (900lb) of near-weapons-grade uranium.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump’s ally, said on Wednesday the two leaders agreed that all enriched uranium must be removed from Iran to prevent it from developing a nuclear bomb.

The US and Israel bombed Iranian nuclear sites last June during the 12-day war, after which Trump claimed that Tehran’s nuclear programme was obliterated. A significant portion of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile remains buried inside the bombed nuclear sites.

Tehran denies wanting to acquire a nuclear weapon. It insists its programme is for civilian purposes as allowed within its position as a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty.

Could Iran agree to this proposal?

Iran has yet to formally respond to the latest US proposal. However, Iranian leaders have pushed back against it.

Iranian lawmaker Ebrahim Rezaee, a spokesperson for the parliament’s powerful foreign policy and national security committee, described the text as “more of an American wish-list than a reality”.

Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf appeared to mock reports that the two sides were close, writing on social media in English that “Operation Trust Me Bro failed.”

Al Jazeera’s Resul Serdar Atas, reporting from Tehran, said on Thursday that Iran is still reviewing the US proposal, after which a response is expected to be given to the Pakistani mediators later today.

The Pakistani Ministry of Foreign Affairs said on Thursday that it welcomes the news of a potential agreement between Iran and the US, adding that it will not disclose additional information at this stage.

“As mediators, we will not lose the trust of both parties by revealing details,” it said in a statement quoted by Al Jazeera Arabic.

Atas said, “Iranians are saying that, at this stage, they’re not negotiating their nuclear programme; it’s only about ending the war on all fronts.”

He added that Tehran wants direct guarantees from the UN Security Council, a lifting of sanctions and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

“If that is achieved, in a second phase, they’re ready to discuss their nuclear programme.”

Al Jazeera’s Almigdad Alruhaid reported from Tehran on Tuesday that Iran has set “a very firm red line” on the nuclear file. “The nuclear enrichment programme is non-negotiable,” he said.

According to former US Assistant Secretary of State Mark Kimmitt, Trump’s reported demand that Iran halt all uranium enrichment is unrealistic and unlikely to be accepted by Tehran.

“If there is anything the Iranians are going to insist upon in these negotiations, it is their right to enrich uranium to the 3.67 percent level, which is allowed under nuclear non-proliferation treaties,” he told Al Jazeera.

Kimmitt added that even the 2015 nuclear deal permitted Iran to continue enrichment. Iran boosted its enrichment up to 60 percent after Trump withdrew from the deal in 2018, during his first term.

However, Kimmitt postulated that Trump might want Iran’s existing stockpile of enriched uranium outside of Iran. He added that Iran might either agree to move the enriched uranium outside the country or dilute it down to a non-enriched state.

Alruhaid, the Al Jazeera correspondent, however, said Iran is resisting handing over its existing stockpile of enriched uranium.

Iran is believed to have about 440kg (970lb) of uranium enriched to 60 percent. A 90 percent threshold of enriched uranium is needed to produce a nuclear weapon.

Al Jazeera’s Alruhaid said “the sovereignty on the Strait of Hormuz is becoming one of the main issues on the negotiating table.

“We are seeing the Iranians are tightening their control. They are setting new protocol, new mechanism for controlling that strategic chokepoint for each vessel that is to pass through.”

The US allies in the Gulf, who faced the brunt of Iranian retaliatory strikes, have been pushing for the restoration of navigation in the strait without any conditions. Iran carried out attacks on the Gulf nations, mainly targeting US military assets, after the US and Israel launched attacks on it on February 28.

Trump has repeatedly played up the prospect of an agreement that would end the war, so far without success. The two sides remain at odds over a variety of difficult issues, such as Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its control of the Strait of Hormuz.

A Pakistani source and another source briefed on the mediation told Reuters that an agreement was close on a one-page memorandum that would formally end the conflict, the agency reported on Thursday.

This agreement would kick off discussions to unblock shipping through the strait, lift US sanctions on Iran and set curbs on Iran’s nuclear programme, the sources said.

Al Jazeera, however, could not confirm the veracity of the reports.

Spirit Airlines, a budget carrier in the United States, has begun winding down operations, cancelling all flights, after talks with the Trump administration to secure a $500m bailout failed. Experts say a spike in aviation fuel prices from the US-Israel war on Iran dealt the final blow to the struggling airline that pioneered the ultralow-cost carrier model.

The airline’s shutdown after 34 years has left some 17,000 staff members unemployed, many passengers stranded, and raised doubts about the future of budget air travel.

How did Spirit Airlines reach this point? Did the US-Israel war on Iran deliver the final blow?

Here’s what we know:

What has Spirit Airlines said?

On Saturday, Spirit Aviation Holdings, the airline’s parent company, said the company had started to wind down operations.

“Spirit Aviation Holdings, Inc … today regretfully announced that the Company has started an orderly wind-down of operations, effective immediately. All Spirit flights have been cancelled, and Spirit Guests should not go to the airport,” the company said in a statement on Saturday.

The statement added that, despite its efforts, “the recent material increase in oil prices and other pressures on the business have significantly impacted Spirit’s financial outlook”.

Spirit Airlines, whose airfares were lower compared with other US airlines, had 4,119 domestic flights scheduled between May 1 and May 15, offering 809,638 seats, according to the latest data from Cirium, an aviation analytics firm.

The carrier’s parent firm started as a long-haul trucking company in 1964. It shifted to aviation around 1983. The carrier rebranded from Charter One Airlines to Spirit in 1992.

How did Spirit Airlines reach this point?

The airline had been struggling financially for years and had filed for bankruptcy twice – in November 2024 and then in August 2025 – due to continued losses, high debt, and intense competition from other airlines.

According to a May 2 report by the Reuters news agency, Spirit had recently reached a deal with its lenders that would have helped it emerge from its second bankruptcy by late spring or early summer.

But the war on Iran, which led to a significant increase in aviation turbine fuel (ATF) prices, added to Spirit’s financial struggles and complicated its bankruptcy exit.

Spirit’s restructuring plan assumed ATF costs of about $2.24 a gallon in 2026 and $2.14 in 2027, but prices had climbed to about $4.51 a gallon by the end of April, leaving the carrier unable to survive without new financing.

A Spirit board meeting ended without an agreement to rescue the company, a person close to the discussions told Reuters late on Friday.

US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy told Reuters he tried to get many airlines to buy Spirit but found no takers. “What would someone buy?” Duffy asked. “If no one else wants to buy them, why would we buy them?”

US President Donald Trump also said he had tried to bail out the airline with a $500m financing package.

“If we can help them, we will, but we have to come first,” Trump told reporters. “If we could do it, we’d do it, but only if it’s a good deal.”

However, a creditor close to the deal told Reuters, “The Trump administration made an extraordinary effort to try and save Spirit, but you can’t breathe life into a corpse. Given that, the company should make its intentions clear for the sake of its customers and employees.”

Anita Mendiratta, special adviser to the UN Tourism secretary-general, noted that while war and geopolitical instability may not have caused Spirit’s collapse, they likely delivered the final blow.

“Surging fuel costs exposed the vulnerability of airlines operating on thin margins with little room for shock absorption,” she told Al Jazeera.

“Spirit’s weaknesses were already there – it had already gone through two bankruptcy filings in the two years prior; global instability simply accelerated the inevitable. In today’s aviation market, volatility is no longer an exception; it is the operating environment,” Mendiratta said.

Are other airlines also under pressure due to the Iran war?

The war on Iran has disrupted global oil and gas prices, with Brent crude rising above $111 a barrel on Friday. The high crude oil prices have also caused ATF prices to rise, affecting budget airlines badly.

Across the globe, airlines have been increasing prices to reflect the high ATF prices, and some have also reduced their flight operations.

German airline Lufthansa said last month it cancelled 20,000 flights in a bid to protect itself from the soaring ATF costs.

On Friday, leading Indian carrier Air India said it has increased fuel surcharges on all flights, adding that it will reduce 100 flights a day across its domestic and international routes.

Mendiratta noted that the aviation industry is on alert as airlines carrying high debt, facing fuel cost volatility, labour cost pressures, fleet constraints, and sustained pricing pressure remain exposed [to the war], especially those operating through a low-cost carrier model.

“What happens next is a defining test of aviation leadership. The rapid response from rival airlines to protect stranded passengers reflects an industry that understands its most valuable asset is not aircraft or market share, it is customer trust [both traveller and cargo],” she said.

“Just as importantly, how airlines support displaced employees, reassure markets, and reinforce operational stability will shape confidence in the sector’s long-term recovery,” she added.

Iran has offered a new 14-point proposal to the United States in the latest diplomatic step to reach a permanent end to the war, which has exposed the limits of US military dominance and shaken the global economy.

Responding to the new proposal on Saturday, US President Donald Trump said he is studying it but is not sure he can make a deal with Iran, a day after he voiced frustration with a previous offer from Tehran through the mediator Pakistan.

Late on Thursday, Tehran sent the proposal to Pakistan, which got the two sides to agree on the ceasefire. According to the Iranian Tasnim news agency, the 14-point plan was formulated in response to a nine-point US plan.

But weeks since the ceasefire began on April 8, Washington and Tehran have been unable to negotiate a peace deal. Tehran wants a permanent end to the war, while Trump has insisted that Iran first end the effective blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of global oil and gas exports pass. The US president has also made the issue of Iran’s nuclear capability a “red line”.

Iran’s de facto blockade of the strait came in response to the US and Israel launching attacks on the country on February 28. A naval blockade of Iranian ports by the Trump administration, despite the ceasefire deal, has heightened tensions.

The US and Iran have also been continuing to attack, capture, and intercept each other’s ships, pointing to an ongoing naval war still playing out in the Strait of Hormuz.

So what’s the new proposal, and will President Trump accept it?

Here’s what we know:

What is Iran’s 14-point proposal to end the war?

According to Iranian media reports, Tehran’s new proposal came in response to a Washington-backed nine-point peace proposal, which primarily sought a two-month ceasefire.

However, in its latest peace proposal, Iran said it wants to focus on ending the war instead of extending the truce and wants all issues resolved within 30 days.

The new proposal calls for guarantees against future attacks, a withdrawal of US forces from around Iran, the release of frozen Iranian assets worth billions of dollars and the lifting of sanctions, war reparations, ending all hostilities, including in Lebanon, and “a new mechanism for the Strait of Hormuz”.

Iran, which was also attacked by the US and Israel last June, wants a guarantee against future aggression. Israel has previously targeted Iranian nuclear scientists and run campaigns to sabotage its nuclear sites.

Tehran also wants its right to uranium enrichment guaranteed as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), but Trump has made the nuclear issue a “red line”. Iran wants decades of sanctions, which have devastated its economy, to be lifted as part of any deal. The navigation through the strait and demands for war reparations are other sticking points in the talks.

According to a report by Iranian state broadcaster IRIB, after delivering the proposal, Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said, “Now the ball is in the United States’ court to choose the path of diplomacy or the continuation of a confrontational approach.”

Paul Musgrave, an associate professor of government at Georgetown University in Qatar, said Iran has “slightly softened” its proposal.

“The news reports on it indicate that there is a slight softening in the proposal, or rather a run-up to discussing the proposal, namely that the Iranian side may have given up its precondition that the US cease its distant blockade of Iranian traffic [in the Strait of Hormuz],” he told Al Jazeera.

“Beyond that, though, a lot of the things that are reportedly in the proposal include maintaining Iran’s sovereign ability to enrich uranium, its nuclear programme and, of course, what it delicately refers to as a ‘control mechanism’ over shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.”

Musgrave said on the two biggest issues – enrichment of uranium and transferring its highly enriched uranium – the US and Iran remain “far apart”.

“President Trump has been unyielding that Iran must surrender its nuclear capability,” he said.

Kenneth Katzman, a senior fellow at New York-based nonprofit Soufan Center, said Iran’s mistrust of Trump remains a bigger obstacle.

“The differences on the nuclear issues are actually … not that great a difference any more. It’s still substantial, but can be narrowed. The issue is that Iran really mistrusts Trump and the United States and does not want to move, really, into full discussion until this blockade is lifted,” he said.

“That’s a problem that could lead to US escalation. As Trump knows, he must break this Iranian control of the strait, so that’s where the issue is.”

Katzman said while both sides are “frustrated”, neither is likely to give up on the negotiations in the immediate future.

How did the US respond?

Trump has said he is reviewing Iran’s proposal, but warned that Washington could resume attacks if Tehran “misbehaves”.

Speaking to reporters in Florida before boarding Air Force One on Saturday, Trump confirmed that he had been briefed on the “concept of the deal”.

Despite the diplomatic opening, the president struck a characteristically blunt tone regarding the possibility of renewed hostilities, which have been paused since the ceasefire.

“If they do something bad, there is a possibility it could happen,” Trump said when asked if strikes would resume.

Trump added that the US was “doing very well” and claimed that Iran was desperate for a settlement because the country had been “decimated” by months of conflict and a naval blockade.

Trita Parsi from the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft told Al Jazeera the economic cost of the blockade on Iranian ports has exceeded what the White House anticipated and argued that the broader strategic damage to the US was probably more significant.

“Iran has been under all kinds of economic pressure and sanctions for 47 years,” Parsi told Al Jazeera. “None of them has managed to break the Iranians or force them to capitulate,” he said.

In a post on Truth Social later on Saturday, Trump said it was difficult to imagine that the Iranian proposal would be acceptable as Tehran had “not yet paid a big enough price for what they have done to Humanity, and the World, over the last 47 years”.

Trump seems to have rejected the new Iranian proposal “without reading it or being briefed on it”, according to Musgrave from Georgetown University.

What are the previous peace proposals to end the conflict?

Iran’s latest proposal comes amid a fragile three-week truce that came into effect on April 8 and has put a pause on the US-Israel war on Iran.

A day before the ceasefire, Iran had proposed a 10-point peace plan, which included an end to conflicts in the region, a protocol for safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz, the lifting of sanctions and reconstruction, state-run news agency IRNA reported.

Trump had said Iran’s 10-point plan was a “significant proposal” but “not good enough”.

The April 7 proposal from Iran came in response to a 15-point plan drafted by the US on March 25.

Washington’s plan included a one-month ceasefire while the two sides negotiated terms to end the war, via Pakistan.

According to Israel’s Channel 12, it also included the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear facilities in Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow, a permanent commitment from Iran to never develop nuclear weapons, the handover of Iran’s stockpile of already enriched uranium to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a commitment from Iran to allow the United Nations watchdog to monitor all elements of the country’s remaining nuclear infrastructure, reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and end of all sanctions on Iran, alongside the ending of the UN mechanism that allows sanctions to be reimposed.

Iran, however, rejected this plan and said a temporary ceasefire would give the US and Israel time to regroup and launch further attacks and in turn proposed its 10-point plan.

What is the situation on the ground now?

Despite a ceasefire, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said on Saturday that it remains on “full standby” for a return to hostilities, citing the US’s lack of commitment to previous treaties.

In a post on X on Sunday, the IRGC’s intelligence unit said, “There is only one way to read this: Trump must choose between an impossible military operation or a bad deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran. The room for US decision-making has narrowed.”

The impasse is further complicated by technical obstacles to reopening the Strait of Hormuz, including the presence of Iranian sea mines. Tehran has closed the strait since the war began on February 28, upending global oil and gas prices.

To pressure Iran to open the strait, the US imposed a blockade of all Iranian ports on April 13, stoking the oil and gas crisis. On Friday, Brent crude, the international benchmark, was at $111.29 per barrel at 08:08 GMT, compared with about $65 before the war.

Tensions have been further stoked by Trump’s recent characterisation of the US naval blockade as a “very profitable business”.

“We took over the cargo. Took over the oil, a very profitable business. Who would have thought, we’re sort of like pirates, but we’re not playing games,” Trump said at an event in the US state of Florida on Saturday.

Tehran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs seized on the remarks, labelling them a “damning admission of piracy”.

Parsi from the Quincy Institute told Al Jazeera the US naval blockade of Iran has backfired on Trump and is making the situation worse.

“The negotiations were taking place and could have continued regardless of the blockade,” he said.

“The blockade has nothing to do with the Iranians being at the table. If anything, it is blocking diplomatic progress more than anything else,” Parsi noted.

He argued that Trump had actually secured his greatest advantage through diplomacy before the blockade was imposed.

“Once he managed to get the ceasefire, the primary pressure on him, the war itself and the way it was pushing up gas prices, was lifted. Had he stayed in that scenario and used time to his advantage, he would have been in a much stronger position vis-a-vis the Iranians, because the Iranians had not managed to get the key thing they wanted: sanctions relief.”

Instead, by imposing the blockade, Trump took more oil off the market.

“Oil prices are now higher during the ceasefire than they were during the war itself. All of these economic indicators show that the blockade is making the situation worse for Trump,” Parsi said.

However, Trump has been looking at options to resolve the oil crisis, including setting up a naval coalition called the Maritime Freedom Construct (MFC) to restore freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.

According to US media reports, core functions of the naval coalition would be to share intelligence among member nations, coordinate diplomatic efforts, and enforce sanctions to manage shipping traffic through the strait.

The Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway once carrying roughly a fifth of the world’s oil and gas, remains effectively closed after the United States and Iran imposed competing blockades.

Naval blockades are one of the oldest weapons in warfare, requiring no ground troops or invasion, just the ability to cut off what an enemy needs to survive. These blockades have reshaped economies, societies and alliances across generations, sometimes with instant shockwaves, sometimes with effects only seen later.

From Israel’s ongoing siege of the Gaza Strip to blockades during World War I, here are some notable naval blockades in modern history:

Israel’s siege of Gaza (2007-present)

Israel’s complete land, sea and air blockade of the Gaza Strip is one of the longest sieges in modern history.

Launched in 2007, Israel has limited the entry of goods and essential supplies, causing a prolonged humanitarian and economic crisis for the Strip’s 2.3 million people, who cannot travel freely.

Before Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza began in October 2023, fishermen were restricted to 6-15 nautical miles (11-28km) from shore, well below the 20-nautical-mile (37km) zone guaranteed by the Oslo Accords.

After 2023, with Israel’s policy of starving the population, fishermen have taken extreme measures to feed their families, leading to many being killed by Israeli fire.

Since 2008, several Freedom Flotilla vessels have attempted to break the Israeli blockade. Since 2010, all flotillas attempting to break the Gaza blockade have been intercepted or attacked by Israel in international waters.

On April 30, Israel raided 22 out of the 58 vessels in the most recent Global Sumud Flotilla campaign in international waters more than 1,000km (620 miles) from Gaza.

Blockade of Biafra (1967-70)

During the Nigerian Civil War, which began in July 1967, the Nigerian federal government imposed a land, sea and air blockade on the secessionist Republic of Biafra shortly after it declared independence.

The blockade led to widespread starvation, widely seen as a deliberate wartime strategy, transforming a territorial conflict into a global humanitarian crisis. Death tolls vary, but it is estimated that one to two million people died, the vast majority from hunger and disease rather than direct conflict.

The nearly three-year-long blockade ended with the Biafran surrender in January 1970.

Beira Patrol blockade (1966-75):

The Beira Patrol was a nine-year-long blockade by the British navy to prevent oil from reaching Rhodesia, present-day Zimbabwe, through the Mozambican port of Beira, enforced under United Nations sanctions following Rhodesia’s unilateral declaration of independence.

The blockade largely failed its strategic goal. Rhodesia continued receiving oil via South Africa and other Mozambican ports, which the UN resolution did not authorise the British navy to intercept.

Additionally, the cost to the United Kingdom was substantial. The operation tied up 76 naval ships over nine years, with two frigates required on station at all times.

The blockade ended in July 1975, when Mozambique’s newly gained independence from Portugal allowed it to credibly commit to blocking oil transit to Rhodesia, rendering the naval patrol redundant.

Cuban Missile Crisis ‘quarantine’ (1962)

In October 1962, the US ordered a naval “quarantine” of Cuba after US U-2 spy planes discovered Soviet nuclear missile sites under construction on the island.

The US deliberately called it a “quarantine” rather than a blockade, which would have been legally an act of war, aiming to prevent the Soviets from bringing in more military supplies and to pressure them to remove the missiles already there.

The quarantine drew a line 500 nautical miles (920km) from Cuba’s coast, with US warships authorised to stop, search, and turn back any vessel carrying offensive weapons if necessary.

The crisis brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. The then-Soviet First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev called the blockade “outright piracy” and an act of aggression, and initially ordered ships to proceed. For several days, Soviet vessels steamed towards the quarantine line as the world watched.

The most dangerous phase of the standoff lasted 13 days. An agreement was reached in which the Soviets would dismantle their offensive weapons in Cuba in exchange for a US public declaration not to invade Cuba, and a secret agreement to remove US Jupiter missiles from Turkiye.

The naval quarantine was formally ended on November 20, 1962, after all offensive missiles and bombers had been withdrawn.

Blockade of Wonsan (1951-53)

During the Korean War, UN naval forces led by the US imposed a blockade of the North Korean port of Wonsan in February 1951, lasting nearly two and a half years.

It aimed to deny the North Korean navy access to the city, which was strategically significant for its large harbour, airfield and petroleum refinery.

The blockade was preceded by a dangerous mine-clearance operation in October 1950. North Korean forces had been well supplied by the Soviet Union and China with sea mines, and during the clearance, the sweepers USS Pledge and USS Pirate were sunk, killing 12 men and wounding dozens.

The operation successfully constrained North Korean and Chinese forces on the east coast, forcing them to divert thousands of troops and artillery pieces away from the front line. UN forces also captured several harbour islands, which strengthened the blockade’s grip on the port.

The blockade ended after 861 days with the signing of the Korean Armistice Agreement in July 1953. By that point, allied naval fire had almost levelled Wonsan.

US submarine blockade of Japan (1942-45)

The US imposed a submarine blockade against Japan during the Pacific War.

The blockade began taking shape in 1942, combining US naval submarine attacks on merchant shipping with minelaying operations to cripple Japan’s war capabilities, disrupt shipping and cut off vital supplies such as food and fuel.

As an island nation, Japan was especially vulnerable, almost entirely dependent on imports of oil, rubber and raw materials. Its economy and military could not function without open sea lanes.

Over the course of the war, US submarines sank some 1,300 Japanese merchant ships and roughly 200 warships. By 1945, oil imports had effectively ceased.

Food imports collapsed, causing significant shortages and malnutrition across Japan by 1945, though the extent of civilian starvation is disputed.

After the US dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima on August 6 and Nagasaki on August 9, 1945, Japan announced its surrender on August 15, bringing the blockade and the Pacific War to an end.

Blockade of eastern Mediterranean (1915-18)

In August 1915, during World War I, the Allied forces imposed a blockade of the eastern coast of the Mediterranean to cut off military supplies and weaken the Ottoman Empire’s war effort.

The declared area ran from the intersection of the Aegean Sea and the Mediterranean Sea in the north to the Egyptian frontier in the south. The blockade was initiated by Britain and France, later assisted by Italy and other Allied powers.

The consequences were devastating. Military supplies, munitions, oil, food and medicine were all targeted. The food crisis was compounded by a locust plague in 1915 and a severe drought, contributing to severe famine across Lebanon and Greater Syria.

Reports suggest the famine led to 500,000 deaths by 1918, mostly civilians, with Mount Lebanon losing an estimated one-third of its population. Mass migration followed.

The blockade remained in place throughout the war and lifted only when Allied forces occupied Beirut and Mount Lebanon in October 1918.

Allied blockade of Germany (1914-19)

The British navy began blockading Germany almost immediately after the outbreak of the war in August 1914.

The naval blockade extended from the English Channel to Norway, cutting off Germany from the oceans.

Britain mined international waters to prevent ships from entering the ocean, creating danger even for neutral vessels.

Germany responded by declaring the seas around the British Isles a “military area”, prompting Britain and France to ban all goods to and from Germany.

The blockade’s most devastating consequence was famine. The winter of 1916-17, known as the Turnip Winter, marked one of the harshest years in wartime Germany.

The blockade had cut off food and fertiliser imports, a failed potato harvest left little to fall back on, and a breakdown in food distribution compounded the crisis. It is estimated that between 424,000 and 763,000 civilians died from diseases related to hunger and malnutrition.

The blockade was not yet fully lifted until July 1919, after the Treaty of Versailles had been signed.

EXPLAINER

Iran has sent the US a new 14-point proposal to end the war.

United States President Donald Trump says he will review the latest Iranian proposal to end the war but has expressed doubt that the new plan will lead to a deal as the two sides have escalated their rhetoric.

Tehran has sent a 14-point plan to Washington, calling for guarantees of nonaggression, sanctions relief, the lifting of a naval blockade and an end to the war “on all fronts”, including in Lebanon. This proposal seeks to postpone nuclear talks to a later stage, an issue Trump has considered a “red line”.

Despite the diplomatic opening, the US president did not rule out the possibility of renewed hostilities. “If they do something bad, there is a possibility it could happen,” Trump said.

The Iranians have also fired back with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) saying it is on standby for a return to war.

Here is what we know as the conflict enters day 65:

In Iran

• While Washington requested a two-month ceasefire, Tehran wants to focus on ending the war instead of extending the truce and wants all issues to be resolved within 30 days, according to Iran’s Tasnim News Agency.
• The 14-point Iranian plan includes guarantees of nonaggression, the withdrawal of US forces from the vicinity of Iran, the lifting of the US naval blockade, the release of Iran’s frozen assets, the lifting of sanctions and an end to the war “on all fronts“, including in Lebanon, according to Tasnim.
• The IRGC said it is on standby for a return to war with the US, saying a resumption of hostilities is “likely” as “evidence shows that [the US] is not committed to any agreements or treaties”.
• Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said Trump’s description of the US capture of Iranian vessels as “piracy” is a “direct and damning admission of the criminal nature of their actions” against Tehran.
• TankerTrackers.com said an Iranian supertanker has evaded the US blockade and reached the Asia Pacific while carrying more than 1.9 million barrels of crude oil valued at nearly $220m.

Diplomacy

• The US has approved $8.6bn in major arms deals and military support for Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Israel.
• A convoy of 70 tanker trucks carrying Iraqi crude oil has crossed into Syria via the al-Yarubiyah border crossing as Baghdad seeks alternative export routes after the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

In the US

• Trump said he is studying Iran’s latest 14-point peace proposal but warned that attacks could resume if the Iranian government “misbehaves” or does “something bad”.
• The US is seeking to form an international naval coalition called the Maritime Freedom Construct (MFC) to restore freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, which in effect has been blocked by Iran since the US-Israel war on the country began on February 28. According to US media, its core functions would be to share intelligence among member nations, coordinate diplomatic efforts and enforce sanctions to manage shipping through the strait.
• Trump said a US troop withdrawal from Germany could far exceed 5,000 soldiers as tensions between the two allies rise over the war on Iran.

In Lebanon

• At least 41 people have been killed as Israel launched 50 air strikes on southern Lebanon in 24 hours despite a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon being in place since April 16. The death toll since the latest escalation in the war between Israel and Hezbollah began on March 2 has risen to 2,659 people.
• The Israeli military issued a new warning, threatening attacks on 12 towns and villages in southern Lebanon and ordering residents to flee their homes.The towns and villages include al-Duwayr, Arab Salim, al-Sharqiya (Nabatieh), Jibshit, Braashit, Sarafand, Dounin, Briqa, Qaaqaiya al-Jisr, al-Qasiba (Nabatieh) and Kfar Sir.
• Israel’s military has admitted to striking and damaging a Catholic “religious building” in southern Lebanon on Saturday as criticism grows over Israeli attacks on Christian sites.

EXPLAINER

Iran’s president calls the US siege ‘intolerable’ as Donald Trump says war may resume.

Tensions remain high across the region, with Iran, the United States and Israel trading warnings as violence continues.

Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian has described the US naval siege of Iranian ports as an “extension of military operations” that is “intolerable”, while US President Donald Trump said Washington “might need” to restart the war, adding that only a handful of people know the details of ongoing talks.

Here is what we know:

In Iran

• Air defences activated in Iran: Air defences were heard in the Iranian capital, Tehran, on Thursday night after being activated to counter small aircraft and drones, Iran’s Tasnim and Fars news agencies reported.
• Iran accustomed to harsher sanctions: Analysts say Tehran entered the blockade prepared, with oil stockpiled at sea, high prices cushioning the impact, and a large domestic market, noting the country is used to “much harsher” conditions after years of pressure.

War diplomacy

• Impasse likely despite pressure tactics: Retired US General Mark Kimmitt said Iran’s strategy of military pressure and economic pain is unlikely to force Washington into talks, warning “the compass needle doesn’t change” and a deadlock could persist, though mounting international pressure would likely push for negotiations and prevent Tehran from asserting control over the Strait of Hormuz.
• US urges meeting of Israel, Lebanon: The US embassy in Lebanon called for a meeting between Lebanese and Israeli leaders as the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health said Israeli strikes on the country’s south killed at least 15 people despite an ongoing ceasefire.
• Trump mulls US troop cuts in Italy, Spain: The US president said he may pull US troops from Italy and Spain due to their opposition to the Iran war, a day after proposing a similar reduction in Germany.

In the Gulf

• UAE urges citizens to leave Iran, Lebanon and Iraq: The United Arab Emirates has banned its citizens from travelling to the three countries and called on those already there to leave immediately and return home, citing regional developments.

In the US

• Trump signals Iran war still possible: The US president said he has not ruled out restarting the war, claiming Iranian leaders “want to make a deal badly”, while touting damage to Iran’s drone and missile capabilities and predicting falling petrol prices once the conflict ends.
• Hegseth on civilian deaths: US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told senators the Pentagon has “every resource necessary” to limit harm to civilians, after lawmakers pressed him over a strike early in the war that killed about 170 people at a primary school in Iran.
• He said human oversight remains in place when AI is used in military decisions. The US-based Human Rights Activists in Iran news agency says at least 1,701 civilians have been killed in the war, including 254 children.
• Hostilities ‘terminated’: For War Powers Resolution purposes, US hostilities with Iran that began in February have now “terminated”, a senior official in the US administration said. “Both parties agreed to a two-week ceasefire on Tuesday, April 7, that has since been extended,” the official said. “There has been no exchange of fire between US Armed Forces and Iran since Tuesday, April 7.”

In Israel

• Israel warns Iran: Israel’s defence minister Israel Katz said his country may soon have to “act again” against Iran, to ensure the Islamic republic “does not once again become a threat to Israel”.

In Lebanon

• Deadly Lebanon strike: Israeli strikes on three south Lebanon villages killed nine people, among them two children and five women, according to Lebanon’s Health Ministry, nearly two weeks into a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah.
• Two Israeli soldiers wounded in Lebanon: Two Israeli military personnel were injured after an explosive drone detonated in southern Lebanon, according to the army. An officer and a non-commissioned officer sustained moderate wounds and were taken to hospital for treatment, Israeli media reported.

Global economy

• Oil at four-year high: Oil prices soared to four-year highs, with the US crude benchmark Brent for June delivery spiking more than 7 percent to $126.41, while West Texas Intermediate was up 3.4 percent to $110.31, before later paring gains.

European leaders are seeking to clarify a little-used mutual defence clause in the European Union treaty as questions grow over Washington’s long-term commitment to NATO during a deepening rift with the United States.

NATO, founded in 1949, is a military alliance of North American and European countries built on the principle that an attack on one member is an attack on all. But years of tension between Washington under President Donald Trump and its European allies have pushed European governments to place greater emphasis on their own defence capabilities.

The shift has come as Trump has repeatedly criticised NATO members over their defence spending. He has also questioned the value of the alliance and clashed with European leaders over Ukraine and Iran while threatening to seize Greenland from NATO ally Denmark. The latest tensions escalated after the US and Israel began their war on Iran when Trump accused allies of failing to support Washington and dismissed NATO as a “paper tiger”.

Media reports have said that the Pentagon has also prepared a memo examining options to punish allies viewed as insufficiently supportive during the Iran war. Those options reportedly include exploring the suspension of Spain, which has been particularly critical of the war, from NATO and reviewing the US position on Britain’s claim to the Falkland Islands. NATO has no formal mechanism to expel a member, but the episode has cast doubt over the alliance’s unity and revived questions about Europe defending itself without Washington.

At the heart of Europe’s bid to look for alternative security arrangements beyond NATO is Article 42.7 of the European Union’s founding treaty.

What is Article 42.7?

Article 42.7 of the Treaty on European Union is the bloc’s mutual defence clause. It says that if an EU member state is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other member states are obliged to provide aid and assistance by all means in their power in line with the United Nations Charter.

By comparison, Article 5 in NATO’s North Atlantic Treaty states that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all. It is supported by common planning and joint exercises and is underpinned by the military weight of the US.

Unlike NATO’s Article 5, however, the EU clause is not backed by an integrated military command structure, standing defence plans or a permanent force able to respond automatically and the US has no obligation to intervene.

That means it is often seen as less credible as a military guarantee in practice although it remains an important political commitment.

Who is calling for Europe to turn to Article 42.7?

Cyprus, which is an EU member but not a NATO member, has been especially eager to strengthen the clause after a drone struck a British airbase on the island during the Iran war last month. While such an incident may not have been enough to invoke NATO’s Article 5, it could raise questions about Article 42.7, particularly at a time of growing strain between the US and Europe.

Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides said leaders had agreed it was time to define how the provision would work in practice if it were triggered.

“We agreed last night that the [European] Commission will prepare a blueprint on how we respond in case a member state triggers Article 42.7,” he said on Friday at an EU summit.

French President Emmanuel Macron has also stressed that the clause should be treated as a binding commitment rather than a symbolic gesture. “On Article 42, paragraph 7, it’s not just words,” he said during a weekend visit to Greece. “For us, it is clear, and there is no room for interpretation or ambiguity.”

Antonio Costa, president of the European Council, said the bloc was drawing up a “handbook” for the use of the clause.

And EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said Europe must step up its defence efforts after Trump has “shaken the transatlantic relationship to its foundation”.

“Let me be clear: We want strong transatlantic ties. The US will remain Europe’s partner and ally. But Europe needs to adapt to the new realities. Europe is no longer Washington’s primary centre of gravity,” she said at a defence conference in Brussels.

“This shift has been ongoing for a while. It is structural, not temporary. It means that Europe must step up. No great power in history has outsourced its survival and survived.”

Has the article ever been invoked?

The clause has been used only once before when France invoked it after the 2015 Paris attacks claimed by ISIL (ISIS), in which 130 people were killed and hundreds wounded.

The attacks were the deadliest in France since World War II. After Article 47.2 was invoked, other EU states shared intelligence aimed at helping French authorities unravel the conspiracy that led to the attacks.

NATO’s Article 5 has also been invoked just once – after the September 11, 2001, attacks in the US.

But NATO’s help to the US wasn’t limited to intelligence sharing. Allies contributed tens of thousands of soldiers to the US-led war in Afghanistan. The operations lasted two decades, and more than 46,000 Afghan civilians were killed alongside 2,461 US personnel and about 1,160 non-US coalition soldiers, according to Brown University’s Cost of War project.

Can countries be kicked out or leave NATO?

Europe’s debate over its defence comes amid a string of disputes inside NATO. The reports that US officials have considered punitive measures against allies have revived questions over the alliance’s future cohesion.

Pablo Calderon Martinez, head of politics and international relations at Northeastern University London and a specialist in European affairs, told Al Jazeera that Spain cannot legally be removed from NATO.

“There is no legal mechanism to remove a member. There is, however, a mechanism through which a member can withdraw itself from the organisation,” he said.

He added that some countries have long fallen short of NATO commitments but that does not provide grounds for expulsion. A more likely scenario, he said, would be the US choosing to leave.

Carne Ross, a former British diplomat and founder of Independent Diplomat, a nonprofit diplomatic advisory group, said the deeper issue is whether Europe and Washington still share common values.

“It is abundantly clear that we do not. Trump is anti-democratic. He tried to subvert democracy, challenged the 2020 election result and whipped up a violent crowd to storm the Capitol,” Ross said.

“What more evidence do we need that the values of Europe are not shared in Washington?”

Is Europe preparing for a future without the US?

European countries have pledged to sharply increase their defence budgets with many aiming to spend 5 percent of their gross domestic products each year on their militaries.

Trump cannot withdraw the US from NATO without congressional approval, but doubts over Washington’s commitment have already unsettled many European capitals.

That has created new urgency around strengthening Europe’s own defence capabilities and building a more credible European pillar inside, or alongside, NATO.

Ross said Europe’s major powers should begin planning seriously for greater self-reliance.

“The Europeans themselves, particularly the most powerful countries – Britain, France, Germany and Italy – need to be talking about how to defend themselves without the US,” he said.

The US naval blockade of Iranian ports and the Strait of Hormuz, in place since April 13, has raised concerns that Iran could run out of crude oil storage capacity and be forced to curb production.

Bloomberg reported analysis on Tuesday from the data and analytics company Kpler suggesting Iran could run out of crude storage in 12 to 22 days if the blockade persists.

Last week, United States Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent claimed that storage capacity at Kharg Island, where most of Iran’s oil is exported, would be full “in a matter of days”.

So how quickly could Iran run out of oil storage, and why does it matter?

What is happening in the Strait of Hormuz?

The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow channel that connects the Gulf to the open ocean. It spans the territorial waters of Iran on its northern side and Oman on its southern side. It is not in international waters.

During peacetime, 20 percent of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies are shipped through the corridor.

Two days after the US and Israel launched their first air strikes in their war on Iran on February 28, Ebrahim Jabari, a senior adviser to the commander in chief of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), announced that the strait was “closed”. If any vessels tried to pass through, he said, the IRGC and the navy would “set those ships ablaze”.

As the war has dragged on and negotiations have failed to achieve a settlement, Iran has at times in the past two months allowed some “friendly” ships and those that pay tolls to pass. It is currently refusing to allow any foreign-flagged ships, including those previously deemed friendly, to pass until the US lifts its own naval blockade.

Iranian First Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref said on April 19 that the “security of the Strait of Hormuz is not free”.

“One cannot restrict Iran’s oil exports while expecting free security for others,” he wrote in a post on X.

“The choice is clear: either a free oil market for all, or the risk of significant costs for everyone,” he added. “Stability in global fuel prices depends on a guaranteed and lasting end to the economic and military pressure against Iran and its allies.”

Since the US naval blockade on the strait began, the US has opened fire on and taken control of an Iranian-flagged tanker near the Strait of Hormuz while also redirecting vessels on the high seas transporting cargo to or from Iran. Iran’s armed forces have denounced these actions as “an illegal act” that “amounts to piracy”.

The US naval blockade of the strait means that Iran might have to store the oil it produces.

Iran is the third largest oil producer in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) after Saudi Arabia and Iraq and exports 90 percent of its crude oil via Kharg Island in the Gulf for shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

What has the US claimed?

The US is eager to curb Iran’s oil revenues, which have risen since Tehran closed the Strait of Hormuz to other shipping. This is the primary motive behind Washington’s naval blockade of Iranian ports.

Iran exported 1.84 million barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil in March and shipped 1.71 million bpd in April, compared with an average of 1.68 million bpd in 2025, according to Kpler.

However, the US naval blockade since mid-April now means that most of its exports are having to be stored instead.

Bessent wrote in an X post on April 22: “In a matter of days, Kharg Island storage will be full and the fragile Iranian oil wells will be shut in.”

“Constraining Iran’s maritime trade directly targets the regime’s primary revenue lifelines.”

How much oil can Iran store?

Iran’s domestic refineries have a production capacity of 2.6 million bpd, according to the energy consultancy Facts Global Energy.

Satellite data show the amount of oil Iran has in storage has risen sharply since the US blockade began, and in the days after the US tightened it, stocks were rising so fast that it appeared Iran had been barely able to export any oil at all.

From April 13 to April 21, data showed that stocks rose by more than 6 million barrels, according to the Columbia Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP). From April 17 to April 21, the stock increased very rapidly, growing by 1.7 bpd.

As of April 20, the storage tanks at Kharg were about 74 percent full after the island alone had taken on about 3 million extra barrels of oil, the CGEP reported.

Generally, oil companies avoid filling their storage beyond 80 percent capacity to balance safety, emissions control and flexibility.

However, Iran and other oil producing countries have exceeded this limit before, for instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic. In April 2020, Kharg island’s stocks reached close to 90 percent capacity, an all-time high.

Iran also has some crude oil storage capacity in the form of “floating tanks”, or parked ships. About 127 million barrels can be stored in this way, Frederic Schneider, a nonresident senior fellow at the Middle East Council on Global Affairs, told Al Jazeera in an interview on April 14.

Will Iran need to cut oil production?

Muyu Xu, a senior crude oil analyst at Kpler, told Al Jazeera that the blockade could eventually force Iran to cut production.

“However, given there is still available storage capacity onshore (roughly covering 20 days of Iran’s current production), we expect any production reduction to be gradual over the coming week with a higher likelihood of acceleration into May,” she said.

Analysis by CGEP nonresident fellow Antoine Halff echoed this. Halff wrote in an article published by CGEP on Tuesday that it may be some time before the US blockade causes Iran to shut off its production “in a big way”.

However, Halff added, Iran may still choose to halt production “fairly aggressively” but this “would be more by choice than by necessity”.

He explained: “Doing so would have the advantage of providing Iran with relatively ample spare storage capacity after the shutdown and would allow for a smoother restart of operations once conditions permit, and the constraint is relaxed, thus minimising adverse impacts from the blockade on longer-term supply.”

Why does this matter?

Halting oil production risks damaging underground reservoirs by reducing reservoir pressure, allowing water or gas to encroach into producing layers and changing patterns of oil flow. This can make some oil harder or more expensive to recover later, experts said.

Restarting the process of oil production can also be slow and costly, involving repairs of corroded equipment or unclogging pipelines.

Halting production would also cause Iran’s export revenues to drop. However, analysts said that for a few months, Iran can continue to earn revenue from oil that is already in transit at sea.

Kenneth Katzman, former Iran analyst at the Congressional Research Service in Washington, DC, said Iran is not exporting new oil during the US blockade of Iranian ports but Tehran has 160 million to 170 million barrels of oil on ships around the world currently.

The United States is considering a new proposal from Iran to end the ongoing war amid a fragile ceasefire between the longtime adversaries.

The offer focuses on reopening the strategic Strait of Hormuz while postponing a deal on Iran’s nuclear programme, arguably the most contentious issue between Tehran and Washington.

According to US media outlets, the proposal has drawn scrutiny in Washington, and officials there have expressed scepticism.

Early indications from the Trump administration suggest the plan is unlikely to be accepted in its current form, potentially further delaying any prospect of permanently ending the currently paused US-Israel war on Iran, which has killed thousands and sent global energy prices soaring.

Here is what we know so far:

What’s in Iran’s latest proposal?

Iran’s latest proposal aims for de-escalation in the Gulf without immediately placing restraints on its nuclear programme, as the US has demanded. Tehran has offered to reopen the Strait of Hormuz on the condition that the US lifts its naval blockade on Iranian ports and agrees to end the war.

Iran has effectively closed the strait to shipping, creating global economic pressure by driving up energy prices and disrupting supply chains. In peacetime, one-fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies are shipped through the narrow passage, which links Gulf oil producers to the open ocean.

Days after the ceasefire began on April 8, Trump announced a blockade on Iranian ports and ships, restricting Tehran’s ability to export oil and cutting off a crucial source of its revenue.

However, a central feature of Iran’s offer to reopen the Strait to all traffic is that discussions over Iran’s nuclear activities would be postponed until after the war ends.

The proposal was conveyed to Washington through Pakistan, which has been acting as a mediator.

“These messages concern some of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s red lines, including nuclear issues and the Strait of Hormuz,” Iranian state media Fars News Agency reported.

“Informed sources emphasise Mr Araghchi is acting entirely within the framework of the specified red lines and the diplomatic duties of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.”

The news agency said the messages relayed were “unrelated to negotiations” and are “considered an initiative by Iran to clarify the regional situation”.

Iranian analyst Abas Aslani said Iran’s latest proposal is based on an “altered” approach.

Aslani, a senior research fellow at the Centre for Middle East Strategic Studies, told Al Jazeera that Tehran believes its previous model – which was based on making compromises on its nuclear programme in exchange for economic sanctions relief – is no longer a “viable path towards a potential accord”.

“Iran believes this can also function as a trust-building measure to compensate for the trust-deficit issue,” he added.

On Monday, Tehran’s envoy to the United Nations, Amir Saeid Iravani, said “lasting stability and security” in the Gulf and the wider region can only be achieved through a durable and permanent cessation of aggression against Iran.

How has the US responded so far?

US President Donald Trump met with top security advisers on Monday to discuss the Iranian proposal, the White House confirmed.

However, according to media reports, the US response has been largely dismissive. According to Reuters, an unnamed US official said President Trump was unhappy with the proposal because it did not include provisions for Iran’s nuclear programme. The official noted that “he doesn’t love the proposal”.

Citing two people familiar with the matter, US media outlet CNN reported that Trump was unlikely to accept the proposal. It said Washington lifting its blockade of Iranian ports without resolving questions over Tehran’s nuclear programme “could remove a key piece of American leverage in the talks”.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Fox News on Monday that the proposal was “better than what we thought they were going to submit”, but questioned Tehran’s intentions.

“They’re very good negotiators,” he said. “We have to ensure that any deal that is made, any agreement that is made, is one that definitively prevents them from sprinting towards a nuclear weapon at any point.”

Al Jazeera’s Mike Hanna, reporting from Washington, said, “There’s been a complete lid over what was discussed” during the meeting between Trump and his national security team.

“It was so tight that we do not know exactly who in his national security team was present at that meeting,” Hanna added.

“Normally, there is some form of readout or some form of more information giving, fleshing out the details of a meeting like this.”

What has been the response from other countries?

While the “US and Iran feel that time is on their side, the longer this goes on, the more difficult it’s going to be,” Mohamed Elmasry, an analyst for the Doha Institute of Graduate Studies, said.

“I really don’t think time is on anyone’s side. I really do think the Europeans are losing patience,” he told Al Jazeera.

On Monday, German Chancellor Merz stated that the “Iranians are negotiating very skilfully”, Elmasry noted. He said this shows that Trump is coming under increasing pressure from his allies, “who believe he [Trump] got them into this big mess and isn’t able to clean it up”.

“Trump isn’t going to be happy hearing that and the chancellor is hitting Trump where it hurts.”

United States President Donald Trump has cancelled a planned visit to Pakistan by his envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, who had been expected to explore indirect talks, which remain deadlocked over issues that include the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.

“If they want to talk, all they have to do is call!!!” Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social on Saturday, signalling that Washington for now would not send negotiators to Pakistan, the country that is mediating between the longtime adversaries.

With neither Washington nor Tehran showing much willingness to soften their positions, prospects for a diplomatic breakthrough in the US-Israeli war on Iran and securing a lasting ceasefire remain stalled.

The conflict spilled into the larger Middle East region, including Lebanon, causing the worst global energy crisis since the 1970s and risking a global recession.

So what do we know about the talks and where they stand as of now?

What has the US said?

The US president on Saturday told reporters in Florida that he scrapped his envoys’ visit because the talks involved too much travel and expense to consider an inadequate offer from the Iranians.

After the diplomatic trip was called off, Iran “offered a lot, but not enough”, Trump said.

On Truth Social, he wrote that there was “tremendous infighting and confusion” within Iran’s leadership.

“Nobody knows who is in charge, including them,” he posted. “Also, we have all the cards, they have none! If they want to talk, all they have to do is call!”

What has Iran said?

In Tehran, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian reiterated that his government will not enter negotiations while the US maintains a blockade on Iranian ports.

In a phone call with Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif on Saturday night, Pezeshkian said Washington “should first remove operational obstacles, including the blockade,” before any new talks can begin, according to the ISNA and Tasnim news agencies.

Meanwhile, during his visit to Islamabad on Friday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi held separate meetings with Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, and Sharif.

In a post on Telegram, Araghchi said their discussions covered regional dynamics and Iran’s non-negotiable positions without disclosing specifics. He added that Tehran intends to engage with Pakistan’s mediation efforts “until a result is achieved”.

After departing Islamabad on Saturday, Araghchi travelled to Oman, where he discussed ways to end the conflict with Sultan Haitham bin Tariq al-Said, according to state media.

He was then scheduled to continue on to Russia. Iran’s IRNA news agency said Araghchi is expected to return to Islamabad on Sunday for additional talks.

What has Pakistan said?

Despite hardening public positions from Washington and Tehran, Pakistan’s political and military leadership is continuing to mediate, two Pakistani officials said on Sunday, according to The Associated Press news agency. They were quoted as describing the indirect ceasefire contacts as still alive but fragile.

There were no immediate plans for US envoys to return for talks, according to the Pakistani officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorised to speak to the media, AP added.

Al Jazeera’s Kimberly Halkett, reporting from Islamabad, said Pakistani officials are underscoring that the expected return of Araghchi to Islamabad is seen as a “hopeful sign”.

“What they hope is that this will in fact be something that can be incremental in the process and will advance forward,” she reported.

What is happening with the ceasefire?

The US-Iran ceasefire began on April 8 after nearly six weeks of US and Israeli strikes on Iran and retaliatory Iranian attacks against Israel and across the Gulf region.

The two sides held talks in Islamabad on April 11 aimed at securing a permanent deal, but they ended after 21 hours with no breakthrough.

After repeated threats of restarting the war if Iran did not heed Washington’s demands, Trump extended the ceasefire on Tuesday without a set deadline, saying he was in no rush to conclude a peace deal with Iran.

While the truce has held for the most part, the two sides continue to accuse each other of violations.

Iranian forces, which have essentially blocked the Strait of Hormuz, have captured commercial vessels, and the US has intercepted or detained ships suspected of violating its naval blockade of Iranian ports just one week after the ceasefire went into effect.

The naval blockade is seen by Iran as a breach of the ceasefire. Tehran has warned that reopening the Strait of Hormuz is impossible as long as the blockade remains in place.

The critical waterway has become a central dispute in the conflict. One-fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas supplies were shipped through the strait, which links the Gulf to the Arabian Sea, before the war began.

Iran insists on sovereignty over the waterway, which lies within the territorial waters of Iran and Oman. It has also floated the idea of levying tolls while Washington demands full freedom of navigation. The Gulf nations, which export most of their petroleum through the strait, have opposed the Iranian plan to impose tolls.

Another key issue is the debate over Iran’s stock of enriched uranium.

The US and Israel are pushing for zero uranium enrichment and have accused Iran of working towards building a nuclear weapon while providing no evidence for their claims.

Iran has insisted its enrichment effort is for civilian purposes only. It is a signatory to the 1970 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and Tehran says it has the right to pursue a civilian nuclear programme. But according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the global nuclear watchdog, Iran has enriched uranium to 60 percent, a level that is far higher than what is needed for civilian use.

On April 20, the United States fired at and then seized an Iranian-flagged container ship close to the Strait of Hormuz in the northern Arabian Sea, amid its blockade of Iranian ports.

It was similar to a scene which played out in the 1980s during the so-called Tanker War between Iran and Iraq, during which both countries fired on each other’s tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, seeking to cripple each other’s economies.

As naval tensions rise again in the Strait of Hormuz – this time between Iran and the US – we break down what happened in the 1980s and examine the parallels and differences between the situations then and now:

How the 1980s Tanker War played out – a timeline

The war between Iran and Iraq began in 1980 when then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein launched a full-scale invasion of Iran following Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution.

In 1984, this war reached the Gulf when Iraq attacked Iranian oil tankers, seeking to cripple its oil-revenue-dependent economy. Iran retaliated by firing at oil tankers belonging to Iraq and its allies in the Gulf.

According to a report by the University of Texas’s Robert Strauss Center for International Security and Law, Iran also threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz then, but did not do so since its own economy, already crippled by the war, was dependent on exporting oil to the rest of the world through it.

In November 1986, when Iran struck Kuwait’s ships, Kuwait asked for foreign help. The former Soviet Union was the first to respond and helped escort the nation’s ships in the Gulf.

The US, led by then-president Ronald Reagan, launched Operation Earnest Will in July 1987, also seeking to protect tankers in the Gulf and render more assistance than Moscow. The operation involved reflagging Kuwaiti tankers with the US flag so they could legally sail under US protection.

According to an article by the Veterans Breakfast Club, a US-based website which shares experiences of former US military veterans, during Washington’s very first escort mission in July 1987, a reflagged tanker hit an Iranian mine in the Gulf.

“The convoy continued, but the incident made clear that the United States had entered a shadow war with Iran at sea,” the article said.

“Over the next fourteen months, dozens of US warships rotated through the region escorting tankers and protecting shipping lanes. US forces also conducted special operations to hunt Iranian mine-layers at night and conducted strikes against Iranian military positions and ships. The mission wasn’t a small one, consuming 30 US Navy ships at one time,” the article added.

Then in April 1988, the US frigate USS Samuel B Roberts was damaged by an Iranian mine in the Strait of Hormuz. Historian Samuel Cox, writing for the US Naval History and Heritage Command (NHHC), noted in 2018 that by the end of 1987 that vessel was so badly damaged, that “the only thing actually holding the ship together was the main deck”.

So, the US launched Operation Praying Mantis, seeking to destroy Iranian vessels.

The tanker war eventually ended in August 1988, following a United Nations-brokered ceasefire agreement between Iran and Iraq.

Cox noted that by the end of 1987, “Iraq had conducted 283 attacks on shipping, while Iran attacked 168 times. Combined, the attacks had killed 116 merchant sailors, with 37 missing and 167 wounded, from a wide variety of nationalities.”

“Initially, there was great concern that the attacks would cut off the vital flow of oil from the Arabian Gulf, but all they really did was drive up insurance rates. The world’s need for oil was so great, that over 100 dead merchant seamen was apparently an acceptable price,” he wrote.

What is happening in the Strait of Hormuz now?

The current hostilities between the US and Iran in the Strait of Hormuz began when Tehran, whose territorial waters extend into the strait, closed passage to all vessels after the US and Israel began bombing the country. On March 4, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) declared that it was in full control of the strait, and ships would need to get clearance from them to pass through it.

Shipping through the strait collapsed by 95 percent, sending the price of oil – 20 percent of global supplies of which are shipped this way – soaring above $100 a barrel.

Iran, through its imposition of control over who passes through Hormuz, has for almost eight weeks now, determined which vessels can exit the strait from the Gulf into the Gulf of Oman.

At first, Iran indicated that it would allow “friendly” ships to pass if they paid a toll. On March 26, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told Iran’s state TV: “The Strait of Hormuz, from our perspective, is not completely closed. It is closed only to enemies. There is no reason to allow the ships of our enemies and their allies to pass.”

Vessels from Malaysia, China, Egypt, South Korea, India and Pakistan passed through the strait through most of March and early April.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) provided these vessels with an alternative route through the Strait of Hormuz to avoid potential sea mines. US officials, including Donald Trump, have said mines have been placed there by Iran, although it has not officially confirmed or denied this.

But on April 13, alarmed that Iran was continuing to ship its own oil out of the strait, the US imposed a naval blockade of all Iranian ports. Since then, US Central Command has said US forces have directed 33 Iran-linked vessels to turn around or return to an Iranian port.

On Monday, the US military fired on and then captured the Iranian-flagged container ship Touska close to the Strait of Hormuz in the northern Arabian Sea, and, a day later, detained another oil tanker sanctioned for transporting Iranian crude oil as it sailed in the Bay of Bengal, which links India and Southeast Asia.

In a post on social media after detaining the Touska, the Pentagon wrote: “As we have made clear, we will pursue global maritime enforcement efforts to disrupt illicit networks and interdict sanctioned vessels providing material support to Iran – anywhere they operate.
International waters are not a refuge for sanctioned vessels.”

Since the US naval blockade of Iranian ports began, Tehran, which was earlier allowing vessels from “friendly” nations to pass through the Strait of Hormuz, has further tightened its grip on the strait.

Justifying the decision not to allow any foreign ships to pass until the US ends its naval blockade on April 19, Iran’s First Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref said the “security of the Strait of Hormuz is not free”.

“One cannot restrict Iran’s oil exports while expecting free security for others,” he wrote in a post on X.

Last Saturday, Iran reportedly fired at two Indian-flagged merchant vessels in the strait. The IRGC said the two ships were attacked because they were “operating without authorisation”, according to state media reports.

Then, on April 22, Iran captured two container ships seeking to exit the Gulf via the Strait of Hormuz after firing on them and another vessel.

What are the parallels between the two wars?

Just like during the Tanker War of the 1980s, shipping has been severely disrupted by the US-Israel war on Iran, upending global oil and gas prices.

According to an April 17 article by the World Economic Forum, from the mid-1980s when the Tanker War took place, to the start of the new millennium, a barrel of crude oil averaged $20.

On Friday, while a ceasefire between the US and Iran was in effect, a naval battle was still playing out in the Strait of Hormuz, and Brent crude, the international benchmark, topped $106 per barrel. During open warfare between the US, Israel and Iran in March and early April, oil rose as high as $119 per barrel.

Mines in the sea are another problem common to both time periods.

While vessels were damaged by mines during the 1980s Tanker War, there has so far been no report of vessels being damaged by mines in the current war. However, the risk is the same.

US President Donald Trump has said the US will ramp up efforts to remove mines from the Strait of Hormuz. This has not begun yet, however.

According to CNN, there are only a few US minesweeping ships in the Gulf. The US Navy also told the broadcaster that four dedicated minesweepers stationed in the Gulf region were decommissioned last year.

John Phillips, a British safety, security and risk adviser and former military instructor, told Al Jazeera: “There are some clear parallels between the current situation in Hormuz and the Tanker War of the 1980s. In both cases, the basic idea is the same: pressure at sea can have effects far beyond the water itself.

“A relatively small amount of naval disruption, whether that means mining, harassment of shipping, missile threats, or attacks on tankers, can create real strategic and economic consequences, especially in a chokepoint like the Strait of Hormuz. So in that sense, the original Tanker War is a useful reminder of how vulnerable global trade can be when the maritime domain becomes part of a wider political or military confrontation.”

What are the differences between the two wars?

During the Tanker War, the US escorted ships to protect them from Iranian attacks and also deployed vessels to remove mines. NATO countries like the United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands, France and Italy also joined.

But in the current standoff in the Strait of Hormuz, US allies like the UK and other NATO nations have refused to join Washington in reopening the Strait of Hormuz, or begin minesweeping operations, fearing they will be dragged into the war.

In a post on Truth Social in early April, the US president took aim at allies, “like the United Kingdom”, which, he said, have “refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran”, telling them to either buy US fuel or get involved in the rapidly escalating war.

“You’ll have to start learning how to fight for yourself, the U.S.A. won’t be there to help you anymore, just like you weren’t there for us. Iran has been, essentially, decimated. The hard part is done. Go get your own oil!” Trump wrote.

The framework of the US-Israel war on Iran is different from that of the war between Iraq and Iran in the 1980s, experts say.

“In the 1980s, the Tanker War was part of the broader Iran-Iraq War, so the shipping attacks were tied to a much larger land conflict between two regional armies. Today, the situation is more about Iran’s standoff with the United States and its allies, and the maritime activity is less about asymmetrical war at sea and more about deterrence, signalling and the threat of escalation,” said Phillips.

“The military lesson, really, is that Hormuz is still one of those places where limited actions can have outsized effects, but the modern setting is more fast-moving, more technologically advanced and potentially more volatile than the original Tanker War,” he added.

Analysts have also pointed out that, unlike in the 1980s, Iran is currently stronger when it comes to withstanding attacks and naval blockades by the US.

In the Tanker War, Iraq was militarily supported by Western allies, while Iran was under a US arms embargo imposed in 1979 after the Iranian revolution. While this gave Iraq a military advantage, Iran’s IRGC used asymmetric warfare tactics by striking Iraq’s allies’ ships and oil tankers.

Experts also say that since the 12-day war between Iran and Israel last year, Tehran has shifted its military doctrine from one that is primarily about defensive containment to an explicitly offensive asymmetric posture.

“Iran today appears more structurally aggressive in doctrine where it is formally embracing earlier and more extensive use of regional missiles, drones, cyberattacks and energy coercion [when energy resources and infrastructure are targeted or cut off], but is operationally constrained by battle damage, sanctions and internal instability,” Phillips, the risk adviser and a former military chief instructor, told Al Jazeera in an interview on March 2.

A former US ambassador to Bahrain, Adam Ereli, also told Al Jazeera that Iran and the IRGC have “revolutionary fervour”, which means they can “survive”.

“They can tolerate pain for a lot longer than I think most American decision-makers and planners calculate,” he said.

United States President Donald Trump has claimed Iran is “collapsing financially” and said the country is losing millions of dollars a day due to Washington’s naval blockade of Iranian ports.

In a post on his Truth Social platform on Tuesday night, Trump wrote: “Iran is collapsing financially! They want the Strait of Hormuz opened immediately – Starving for cash! Losing 500 Million Dollars a day. Military and Police complaining that they are not getting paid. SOS!!!”

The US blockade of Iranian ports began at 14:00 GMT on April 13. Since then, the US has fired on and seized an Iranian-flagged tanker near the Strait of Hormuz, and redirected ships in the open seas carrying cargo to or from Iran. Iran’s armed forces have called this “an illegal act” that “amounts to piracy”.

In response to the US naval blockade, Iran has closed the Strait of Hormuz to all foreign shipping and has captured several foreign-flagged ships. Previously, it had allowed some ships deemed “friendly” to Iran to pass.

On April 19, Iran’s First Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref said the “security of the Strait of Hormuz is not free”.

“One cannot restrict Iran’s oil exports while expecting free security for others,” he wrote in a post on X.

“The choice is clear: either a free oil market for all, or the risk of significant costs for everyone,” he added. “Stability in global fuel prices depends on a guaranteed and lasting end to the economic and military pressure against Iran and its allies.”

In a statement on social media on Thursday, Iran’s parliamentary speaker and lead negotiator in the ceasefire talks, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, said a full ceasefire could only work if the US naval blockade is lifted.

Analysts say the blockade is hurting Iran but believe the country has the economic and political will to sustain it.

How long can Iran survive the naval blockade?

Here’s what we know:

How is the naval blockade hurting Iran?

Iran exports oil, gas and other goods including petrochemicals, plastics and agricultural products by sea. Analysts say the US naval blockade of its ports, including in the Strait of Hormuz, could therefore affect this trade.

Soon after the start of the US-Israel war on Iran on February 28, authorities in Tehran implemented the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the only waterway out of the Gulf, through which 20 percent of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies were shipped from Gulf producers in peacetime.

The near-shutdown of the vital chokepoint sent global oil and gas prices soaring, and since then, Iran has controlled the strait. However, it has continued to export its own energy products through the waterway.

Iran’s oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz account for about 80 percent of its total oil exports. According to Kpler, a trade intelligence firm, Iran exported 1.84 million barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil in March and has shipped 1.71 million bpd so far in April, compared with an average of 1.68 million bpd in 2025.

From March 15 to April 14, it exported 55.22 million barrels of oil. The price per barrel of Iranian oil – across its three major variants, known as Iranian light, Iranian heavy and Forozan blend – has not fallen below $90 per barrel over the past month. On many days, the price has surpassed $100 a barrel.

Even at the conservative estimate of $90 a barrel, Iran has earned at least $4.97bn over the past month from its ongoing oil exports.

By contrast, in early February before the war started, Iran was earning about $115m a day from its crude oil exports, or $3.45bn in a month.

Simply put, Iran has earned 40 percent more from oil exports in the past month than it did before the war.

Stopping this is a key motivation behind the US naval blockade of Iranian ports.

In an interview with Al Jazeera on April 14, Frederic Schneider, a nonresident senior fellow at the Middle East Council on Global Affairs, told Al Jazeera that the previous six weeks had been a boon for Iran in terms of oil revenues, but with the US blockade, that will change.

“Iran has some buffer in the form of crude oil reserves in floating tanks – basically parked tankers – which was estimated at about 127 million barrels in February. But that doesn’t mean that the blockade wouldn’t hurt Iran,” he said.

On Friday, Schneider told Al Jazeera that Iran, however, seems to be “playing the longer game” and has anticipated and prepared for this sort of conflict to some degree.

“The naval blockade has added economic strain, as several civilian ships have been captured in international waters. But it remains unclear how tight the blockade is, how many ships manage to pass given the considerable amount of floating Iranian oil, and how long Trump can maintain the blockade,” he said.

Can the US keep the blockade going for long?

Schneider noted that Trump will face a legislative challenge by May 1, when the 60 days he can maintain a foreign offensive without congressional approval come to an end.

Dire conditions have been reported on the ships that are upholding the blockade, he said, and it remains to be seen how China will react to the continuing seizure of ships that carry any of its cargo.

“China has already said it sees the blockade of Chinese trade with Iran as unacceptable. Further, the closure of Hormuz by Iran in retaliation is hurting, if not the US itself that much, American allies in the region and globally, raising the pressure on Trump,” he said.

“If we can glean anything from the behaviour of the two sides, it is Iran that is signalling patience and Trump showing impatience,” he added.

Adam Ereli, a former US ambassador to Bahrain, told Al Jazeera’s This is America programme that while the US blockade of Iranian ports and seizure of vessels transporting Iranian oil “makes sense” as a policy, it may not work as intended due to domestic political considerations in the US.

“The Iranians have prepared for this, for this eventuality. They have their own plans. They’ve got alternative means of storing their oil or selling their oil,” Ereli told Al Jazeera.

“Even if they ran out of oil, they have ways to survive a very tough blockade and sanctions regime that, frankly, I think will outlast Trump’s patience and the patience of the American people,” he said.

“Remember, this isn’t just about moving soldiers and ships and planes around on a map. There’s politics involved here in the United States,” he added.

“Trump is nothing if not attuned to the political winds. And for that reason, I think that you’ve got this Iran strategy on the one hand that runs up against an electoral strategy on another hand, and therefore, the question is, which one is going to give?”

Can Iran store the oil the US is blockading in the meantime?

Iran’s domestic refineries have a capacity of 2.6 million bpd, according to consultancy FGE Energy. Its oil and gas production facilities are concentrated in southwestern provinces: Khuzestan for oil and Bushehr for gas and condensate from the South Pars gasfield.

Iran is also the third-largest oil producer in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and exports 90 percent of its crude oil via Kharg Island for shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

The US naval blockade has begun affecting the country’s storage capacity, according to TankerTrackers, the maritime intelligence agency. The blockade means Iran has to store more oil, and space could become tight.

TankerTrackers said that on Kharg Island, to prepare for the possibility of running out of oil storage space, Iran has brought an old tanker named NASHA (9079107) out of retirement.

“She’s a 30yo [year old] VLCC [Very Large Crude Carrier] that’s been anchored empty for the past few years; currently spending 4 days on a trip that should take 1.5-2 days,” TankerTrackers said in a post on X, suggesting that the tanker is being used to store oil. It is unclear if the ship has a heading or course.

Can Iran continue to earn revenues from oil?

Yes, analysts say that for a few months, Iran can continue to earn revenue from oil which is already in transit at sea.

Kenneth Katzman, former Iran analyst at the Congressional Research Service in Washington, DC, said Iran is not exporting new oil amid the US blockade of Iranian ports, but Tehran has between 160 million and 170 million barrels of oil “afloat” on ships around the world currently.

Those supplies, which transited the Strait of Hormuz before the US blockade was imposed, are on board hundreds of tankers and “waiting to be delivered”, Katzman told Al Jazeera.

Katzman said he had been informed by an Iranian professor that, based on those supplies, Tehran could have revenue flows that can last until August despite the US naval blockade.

“Which is a long time. Does President Trump have until August? Probably not,” he said.

“He’s probably going to have to look at kinetic escalation if he wants to bring this to the conclusion that he wants, or he’s going to have to accept less than the deal he ideally wants,” he said.

Iranian ships will still have to avoid US naval ships on the open ocean, as the US Navy has also recently intercepted ships carrying Iranian cargoes.

On Wednesday this week, for example, the US military intercepted at least three Iranian-flagged tankers in ‌Asian waters, Reuters reported, and was said to be redirecting them away from their positions near India, Malaysia and Sri Lanka.

How else can Iran earn revenue?

Besides oil revenue, Iran is also currently receiving revenue from a “toll booth” system that the country imposed on the Strait of Hormuz in March.

On Thursday, Iran’s deputy parliament speaker Hamidreza Haji-Babaei said Tehran’s central bank had received the first revenues from tolls imposed since the start of the war, according to the semiofficial Tasnim news agency. It is unclear how much that toll revenue is.

Iranian politician Alaeddin Boroujerdi told the United Kingdom-based, Farsi-language satellite TV channel Iran International in March that the country has been charging some vessels as much as $2m each to pass through the strait.

According to Lloyd’s List, the shipping news outlet, at least two vessels that have transited the strait so far have paid fees in yuan, China’s currency. Lloyd’s List reported that one “transit was brokered by a Chinese maritime services company acting as an intermediary, which also handled the payment to Iranian authorities”. It is, however, not clear how much the vessels paid.

How resilient is Iran’s leadership?

In recent days, while pressuring Iran to negotiate a ceasefire deal, US President Donald Trump has claimed that Iranians are “having a very hard time figuring out who their leader is”, alleging that there is “crazy” infighting between “moderates” and “hardliners” in Tehran.

But the country’s officials have insisted that Iran’s government is united.

Mohammad Reza Aref, Iran’s first vice president, said on Thursday: “Our political diversity is our democracy, yet in times of peril, we are a ‘Single Hand’ under one flag. To protect our soil and dignity, we transcend all labels. We are one soul, one nation.”

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi also dismissed allegations that the Iranian military may be at odds with the political leadership.

“The failure of Israel’s terrorist killings is reflected in how Iran’s state institutions continue to act with unity, purpose, and discipline,” he wrote on X, referring to the assassinations of Iranian political and military figures Israel has carried out in recent weeks.

“The battlefield and diplomacy are fully coordinated fronts in the same war. Iranians are all united, more than ever before.”

One of the strongest messages of unity came from Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian.

“In Iran, there are no radicals or moderates,” he said on X.

“We are all Iranians and revolutionaries. With ironclad unity of nation and state and obedience to the Supreme Leader, we will make the aggressor regret.”

How strong is Iran militarily?

Iran has demonstrated considerable military resilience in the face of weeks of US-Israeli strikes through its use of asymmetric warfare.

This includes the use of guerrilla tactics, cyberattacks, arming and supporting proxy armed groups and other indirect tools.

During its war with the US and Israel, Iran has targeted energy infrastructure in Israel and across the Gulf, threatened to target banking institutions and targeted US data centres of technology companies such as Amazon in the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain.

Iran has also blocked the Strait of Hormuz and reportedly placed mines in the strait to disrupt shipping, sending global oil prices soaring.

Since the US began its naval blockade of Iranian ports in mid-April, Iranian officials have repeatedly promised that their country will defend itself and respond to any US attack.

Earlier this week, after the US military said it had seized an Iranian vessel and ordered dozens of others to turn around, Iran also retaliated by capturing foreign commercial vessels around the Hormuz Strait, which it said violated naval regulations.

Ereli, the former US ambassador, told Al Jazeera that Iran and the IRGC have “revolutionary fervour”, which means they can “survive”. “They can tolerate pain for a lot longer than I think most American decision makers and planners calculate,” Ereli said.

Ereli said it was unknown how long Tehran could last under “siege conditions” imposed by the US, but probably a lot longer than the US anticipates.

“I think they can go a lot longer, especially than most people imagine, and especially when it comes to kneeling to the Americans,” Ereli said.

“There’s a level of pride and survival. They’re at war with us, and for them it’s a war of necessity. They’ve got to survive,” he added.

Waving a big Catla fish in his hands, Sharadwat Mukherjee went door to door canvassing for votes before Thursday’s election to the state legislature in the eastern Indian state of West Bengal.

Mukherjee is a candidate from Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which rules nationally but has never come to power in the state, which has a greater population than Germany: more than 90 million people.

When he folds his hands to greet voters, the Catla just swings with a hook in its mouth. The big question: Can the fish also swing the election’s outcome?

Bengalis’ love for fish is legendary — on both sides of the border, in India and in Bangladesh. So much so that when a student-led uprising led to the ouster of then-Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, some of the protesters who broke into her residence after she fled were seen raiding her refrigerator and walking away with fish.

But as West Bengal votes for its next government, fish has now leapt from kitchen slabs to the campaign trail, as leaders cosy up to voters in a variety of ways — and in some cases try to distance themselves from suspicions that their wins could hit the Bengali diet adversely.

What’s happening in the West Bengal election?

Nearly 68 million people in West Bengal are expected to vote for their candidate of choice on April 23 and 29, to elect 294 lawmakers to the state assembly.

The results will be declared on May 4 in the crucial state vote, which the Hindu majoritarian BJP has never governed.

A revision of the electoral list, which controversially swept away a total of 9.1 million names from the register before polling, and has been criticised for disenfranchising minorities, was among the major polling issues. Some 2.7 million people have challenged their expulsions.

Another is identity politics.

On the campaign trail, in rallies, and in interviews, the chief minister of Bengal, Mamata Banerjee, a firebrand, centrist regional leader — who has been sometimes touted as a contender for Modi’s job in New Delhi, if the opposition were to win — has doubled down on identity politics to corner the BJP, analysts say.

BJP-led governments in several states have imposed bans or restrictions on the sale of meat. Far-right mobs have carried out lynchings of Muslims in BJP-ruled states over accusations that they were transporting beef.

Banerjee, who is seeking a fourth consecutive term, has time and again warned that if the BJP were to come to power, they would “ban fish, meat, and even eggs” — effectively labelling them as outsiders, unaware of Bengali culture. The BJP has rejected these allegations.

Biswanath Chakraborty, a psephologist and political analyst in West Bengal who has authored several books on voting behaviour, told Al Jazeera that the whole issue surrounding fish had been “constructed by Mamata Banerjee.”

“For long, she has peddled that fish is parallel to Bengali politics,” he said. “In election campaigning, every issue is constructed, and Mamata is the champion of that.”

Chakraborty argued that by fiercely pushing back against these allegations, the BJP had ended up helping the governing party in Bengal make sure the debate over fish remained a campaign highlight with voters.

“They [the BJP] are entering, or rather trapped, into the discourse set by Mamata,” the analyst said.

Why fish, though?

“Fish is very crucial in Bengal, very crucial,” said Utsa Ray, an assistant professor at Jadavpur University, in West Bengal’s capital Kolkata. She also authored a 2015 book on Bengal’s culinary evolution in colonial India, titled Culinary Culture in Colonial India: A Cosmopolitan Platter and the Middle-Class.

“First of all, due to Bengal’s geographical location itself – along the Bay of Bengal – [and as] a place situated near rivers and streams, fish have been the most available item,” she told Al Jazeera.

Fish has also been an integral part of many rituals in Bengal on auspicious days for both Hindus and Muslims, Ray said, adding, however, that there were sects of people in Bengal who refrain from eating fish.

A 2024 study found that nearly 65 percent of people in West Bengal consume fish weekly.

Against that backdrop, Ray told Al Jazeera that Banerjee’s party was looking to leverage “regional identity or the Bengali identity”.

Banojyotsna Lahiri, a social activist and voter in West Bengal, described the BJP’s response, with candidates like Mukherjee campaigning with fish, as a “gimmick”.

“In Bengal, [the BJP] have suddenly realised that they appear as aliens with their vegetarian posturing because both fish and meat are integral to the Bengal culinary choices, caste or religion notwithstanding,” she told Al Jazeera. ”

What’s up with the BJP and food choices?

In the run-up to the voting on Thursday, the BJP rushed to find a senior leader who could eat a fish in front of the cameras. They finally managed to get Anurag Thakur, a member of parliament from Himachal Pradesh, to do that on Tuesday.

“Questions of what food people will eat, especially non-vegetarian [food], have been associated with the BJP’s politics to impose restrictions and dictate food options,” said Neelanjan Sircar, a senior visiting fellow at the think tank Centre for Policy Research, in Delhi.

The BJP has been dictating food choices in northern India’s Hindi-speaking belt, with its “hyper masculine, Hindutva, and vegetarianism,” said Ray. “There have been cases of lynching for eating non-vegetarian food.”

However, that falls flat in Benga.

Still, both Sircar and Ray agreed that the display of fish on the campaign trail was a novelty — even in the often-bizarre world of Indian politics.

“Creating these new images for the BJP is important,” said Sircar. “So, to create another image in voters’ minds leads to these outlandish displays.”

United States President Donald Trump has described the Iranian leadership as “seriously fractured” as he announced an extension to a ceasefire.

Trump said on Tuesday that the ceasefire would be extended to allow more time for negotiations and appeared to be suggesting that Iran’s leadership is in disarray.

He added that the US naval blockade on the Strait of Hormuz and Iranian ports would remain in place.

Three weeks ago, Trump claimed the US military campaign had succeeded in its goal of forcing a change in Iran’s government and the US was now dealing with “a whole new set of people” in charge of the country.

On April 11, Iran sent a delegation led by parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf to Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad, to begin talks with the US.

So is Iran’s government “fractured”? We take a look at the key Iranian stakeholders and power centres in Iran and how their approach to US negotiations may differ.

Who are the key figures in Iran, and are they ‘fractured’ over talks with the US?

Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei

Khamenei is the second son of former Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who was killed in US-Israeli air strikes on Tehran on the first day of the war on February 28. Mojtaba Khamenei was selected as Iran’s new supreme leader on March 8, according to state media reports.

The 56-year old has never run for office or been elected but has for decades been a highly influential figure in the inner circle of his father, cultivating deep ties with the the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

Observers said the younger Khamenei’s ascension is a clear sign that more hardline factions in Iran’s establishment have retained power and could indicate that the government has little desire to agree to a deal or negotiations with the US in the short term.

Since his ascension, however, Mojtaba Khamenei has not been seen in public. On March 13, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth claimed Iran’s new supreme leader had been wounded in US-Israeli strikes.

An April 11, a Reuters news agency report that quoted three people close to the supreme leader’s inner circle said Khamenei was still recovering from severe facial and leg injuries suffered in the air strike that killed his father. The sources were quoted as saying he was taking part in meetings with senior officials through audioconferencing.

Al Jazeera could not independently verify these claims.

According to state media reports, Khamenei has been active in making decisions on the war.

In a message read on Iranian state TV on April 18, Khamenei warned that the Iranian navy was ready to inflict “new bitter defeats” on the US and Israel as tensions escalated in the Strait of Hormuz.

Parliamentary Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf

Ghalibaf, 64, has served as Iran’s parliamentary speaker since 2020.

He was commander of the IRGC air force from 1997 to 2000. After that, he served as the country’s police chief. From 2005 to 2017, he was the mayor of Tehran.

Ghalibaf stood in elections for president in 2005, 2013, 2017 and 2024. He withdrew his bid for president before the election in 2017 when Hassan Rouhani won a second term.

Last month in the early days of the US-Israel war on Iran, it was suggested that Ghalibaf was the Trump administration’s “pick” to lead the country after the war ended. He has also been the main Iranian official leading negotiations with Washington since they began on April 11 in Pakistan.

In an overnight post on X on Tuesday, Ghalibaf wrote that Iran is “prepared to reveal new cards on the battlefield” after Trump threatened Tehran with “problems like they’ve never seen before” if the two-week ceasefire ended this week without a deal.

Ghalibaf expressed anger at Trump for “imposing a siege and violating the ceasefire”.

“We do not accept negotiations under the shadow of threats, and in the past two weeks, we have prepared to reveal new cards on the battlefield,” he said.

The ceasefire was supposed to have ended on Wednesday, but shortly before its expiration, Trump extended it until Iran “can come up with a unified proposal”.

Within Iran, however, Ghalibaf’s willingness to engage in negotiations with the US has been criticised by some people who have accused him of “betrayal”.

According to a report on Monday by the Iran International TV channel, some critics of Ghalibaf have said on social media platforms in Iran that the parliamentary speaker’s suggestion that peace talks with the US were progressing was “worrying”.

“There is no good in negotiation except harm,” one critic said.

But Ghalibaf has defended undertaking negotiations with the US. In a televised interview on Saturday, he said diplomacy does not mean “a withdrawal from Iran’s demands” but is a way to “consolidate military gains and translate them into political outcomes and lasting peace”.

Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps

Iran’s military power structure is often described as opaque and complex.

The nation operates parallel armies, multiple intelligence services and layered command structures, all of which answer directly to the supreme leader, who serves as the commander in chief of all the armed forces.

The parallel armies comprise the Artesh, Iran’s regular army, which is responsible for territorial defence, defence of Iran’s airspace and conventional warfare, and the IRGC, whose role goes beyond defence and includes protecting Iran’s political structure.

The IRGC also controls Iran’s airspace and drone arsenal, which has become the backbone of Iran’s deterrence strategy against attacks by Israel and the US.

After the US and Israel struck Iran and killed Ali Khamenei, the IRGC promised revenge and launched what it called “the heaviest offensive operations in the history of the armed forces of the Islamic Republic against occupied lands [a reference to Israel] and the bases of American terrorists”. Since then, it has struck US military assets and infrastructure across the Gulf region.

Some experts said Iranian officials negotiating with the US are more closely aligned with the IRGC than other leaders and groups.

In an interview with Al Jazeera on March 25, Babak Vahdad, a political analyst specialising in Iran, noted that Iran’s appointment of Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr as secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council suggested Iranian negotiations would become more tightly aligned with the IRGC’s priorities. Zolghadr is a former IRGC commander and has been secretary of the advisory Expediency Council since 2023.

But Javad Heiran-Nia, who directs the Persian Gulf Studies Group at the Center for Scientific Research and Middle East Strategic Studies in Iran, said a divide between the IRGC and Iran’s negotiating team was plain to see.

Iran has attacked three cargo ships in the Strait of Hormuz since Trump announced the ceasefire on April 6 and said the US naval blockade will remain.

“The attack on tankers during the ceasefire demonstrates the IRGC’s dominance over the diplomatic team and its disregard for their positions,” he told Al Jazeera.

Paydari Front

Heiran-Nia pointed to the role of the Paydari Front (Steadfastness Front), whose members are hardliners within Iran’s political structure who are deeply committed to preserving the original principles of the 1979 Islamic revolution and the absolute power of the supreme leader. This group, he said, has been using the negotiations to cement its position within the power structure and among its support base.

He added that the Paydari Front has also been questioning the negotiations.

“In Iran’s current political climate, various groups are trying to raise their weight, both within the power structure and in public opinion. Of course, the Paydari Front’s efforts are more meaningful in relation to their own support base rather than trying to influence other segments of society because their hardline approach holds no appeal for other social classes,” he said.

The influence this group could have over the progress of talks is debatable, however, he added.

“If a deal is reached, it will likely have a sovereign character. The establishment will impose its own narrative, and the IRGC will accept it. In the meantime, the hardliners will attack the administration of [President] Masoud Pezeshkian and Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf over the deal. However, it is unlikely that this will spread to the decision-making body of the establishment,” he added.

United States President Donald Trump has claimed that a new nuclear deal being negotiated with Iran will be “far better” than the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which the US withdrew from in 2018 during his first term.

On Tuesday, Trump extended the two-week ceasefire with Iran a day before it was set to expire, with hopes for a second round of talks in Islamabad, Pakistan.

Key among the US demands is that Iran stop all enrichment of uranium.

Iran has always insisted its nuclear programme is for civilian use only, such as for power generation, which requires uranium enrichment of between 3 percent and 5 percent. To build nuclear weapons, uranium needs to be enriched to 90 percent.

In this explainer, we visualise what uranium is, how it is enriched and how long it could take Iran to make a nuclear weapon.

What is uranium, and which countries have it?

Uranium is a dense metal used as a fuel in nuclear reactors and weapons. It is naturally radioactive and usually found in low concentrations in rocks, soil and even seawater. About 90 percent of the world’s uranium is produced in just five countries: Kazakhstan, Canada, Namibia, Australia and Uzbekistan. Reserves of uranium have also been found in other countries.

Uranium is extracted either by digging it out of the ground or, more commonly, through a chemical process that dissolves uranium from within the rock.

Before it can be used as nuclear fuel, uranium is processed through several different forms, including:

• Yellowcake: Mined ore is crushed and treated with chemicals to form a coarse powder known as yellowcake, which, irrespective of its name, is usually dark green or charcoal in colour, depending on how hot it has been treated.
• Uranium tetrafluoride: Yellowcake is then treated with hydrogen fluoride gas, which turns it into emerald-green crystals known as uranium tetrafluoride or green salt.
• Uranium hexafluoride: Green salt is further fluorinated to create a solid white crystal known as uranium hexafluoride. When heated slightly, this crystal turns into a gas, making it ready for enrichment.
• Uranium dioxide: The gas is spun in a centrifuge machine, which chemically converts it into a fine, black powder.
• Fuel pellets: The black powder is pressed to form black ceramic pellets, which can then be used in a nuclear reactor.

How is uranium enriched?

Natural uranium exists in three forms, called isotopes. They are the same element, with the same number of protons but different numbers of neutrons.

Most naturally occurring uranium (99.3 percent) is U-238 – the heaviest and least radioactive – while about 0.7 percent is U-235 and trace amounts (0.005 percent) are U-234.

To generate energy, scientists separate the lighter, more radioactive U-235 from the slightly heavier U-238 in a process called uranium enrichment. U-235 can sustain a nuclear chain reaction while U-238 cannot.

To enrich uranium, it must first be converted into a gas, known as uranium hexafluoride (UF₆). This gas is fed into a series of fast-spinning cylinders called centrifuges. These cylinders spin at extremely high speeds (often more than 1,000 revolutions per second). The spinning force pushes the heavier U-238 to the outer walls, while the lighter U-235 stays in the centre and is collected.

A single centrifuge provides only a tiny amount of separation. To reach higher concentrations – or “enrichment” – the process is repeated through a series of centrifuges, called a cascade, until the desired concentration of U-235 is achieved.

What are the different levels of uranium enrichment?

The higher the U‑235 percentage, the more highly enriched the uranium is.

Small amounts (3-5 percent) are enough to fuel nuclear power reactors, while weapons require much higher enrichment levels (about 90 percent).

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) considers anything below 20 percent to be low-enriched uranium (LEU), while anything above 20 percent is considered highly-enriched uranium (HEU).

Low enriched – less than 20 percent

• Commercial grade – 3-5 percent: This is the standard fuel for the vast majority of the world’s nuclear power plants
• Small modular reactors – 5-19.9 percent: Used in more modern reactors and advanced research reactors

Highly enriched – More than 20 percent

• Research grade – 20-85 percent: Used in specialised research reactors to produce medical isotopes or to test materials
• Weapons grade – above 90 percent: This is the level required for most nuclear weapons
• Naval grade – 93-97 percent: Used in the nuclear reactors that power submarines and aircraft carriers

Depleted uranium, which contains less than 0.3 percent U‑235, is the leftover product after enrichment. It can be used for radiation shielding or as projectiles in armour‑piercing weapons.

How long does it take to enrich uranium?

The effort it takes to enrich uranium is not linear, meaning it is much more difficult to go from 0.7 percent natural uranium to 20 percent LEU than it is to go from 20 percent to 90 percent HEU. Once uranium reaches 60 percent enrichment, it becomes much quicker to reach 90 percent weapons grade.

The effort it takes to enrich uranium is measured in separative work units (SWU).

According to the IAEA, Iran is believed to have about 440kg (970lbs) of uranium enriched to 60 percent – enough to theoretically build 10 or 11 low-technology atomic bombs if refined to 90 percent.

Ted Postol, professor emeritus of science, technology and international security at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), told Al Jazeera that before the US attack on Iran’s nuclear facility at Fordow, the country had at least 10 cascades of 174 IR-6 centrifuges in operation – meaning 1,740 IR-6 centrifuges.

The IR-6 is one of Iran’s most advanced centrifuge models. The country also has tens of thousands of older centrifuges.

Little is known about the conditions of these centrifuges or the stocks of uranium hexafluoride, which are still believed to be buried underground.

Postol has calculated that Iran’s cascade of centrifuges could produce 900 to 1,000 SWUs annually.

“Getting from natural uranium to 60 percent enrichment, which Iran has already achieved, takes roughly five years, and about 5,000 SWUs using Iran’s cascades.”

“If I want to go from 60 to 90 percent, I only need 500 SWUs. So, instead of five years, [by] starting with the 60 percent here, this might take me four or five weeks. Because I am already very enriched,” Postol said.

Using an analogy of a clock, Postol explained: “Let’s say it takes seven minutes to get 33 percent enrichment, and then eight minutes to get to 50 percent enrichment. It only takes me one minute to get to total [90 percent] enrichment.”

How easy would it be for Iran to build a nuclear weapon?

Postol said Iran’s stockpile is held underground, meaning a military strike would not necessarily eliminate the nuclear threat.

A single centrifuge cascade capable of enriching weapons-grade uranium could take up “no more floor space than a studio apartment, making it easily hidden in a small laboratory”, he said, estimating the area at 60sq metres (600sq feet).

“A single Prius Compact Hybrid car can produce enough electric power to run four or more of these cascades at a time,” Postol added, meaning “Iran can covertly convert its 60 percent uranium into weapons-grade uranium metal”.

“What they have done is put themselves in a position where anybody who thinks about attacking them with nuclear weapons has to know that they could be sitting in those tunnels after such an attack, refining [and] enriching the final step they need to build atomic weapons and converting it to metal, and building a nuclear weapon, and that they have the means to deliver it,” Postol said.

“They would have all of the technical equipment they need to build the atomic weapons. And they have the missiles, which are also in the tunnels and can be manufactured in addition to what they already have. And the atomic weapon would not need to be tested, because uranium weapons do not need to be tested before they’re used.”

What does the NPT say about enrichment?

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), established in 1968, is a landmark international agreement aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and promoting peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Iran is a signatory to this pact.

The treaty supports the right of all signatories to access nuclear technology and enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, including energy, medical or industrial purposes, with precise safeguards to ensure it is not diverted to make weapons.

Under the NPT, nuclear-weapon states agree not to transfer nuclear weapons or assist non-nuclear-weapon states in developing them. Non-nuclear-weapon states also agree not to seek or acquire nuclear weapons.

Despite this, most nuclear powers are currently modernising their arsenals rather than dismantling them.

Most of the countries are signatories, except five: India, Pakistan, Israel, South Sudan and North Korea.

What agreements has Iran made about its nuclear programme in the past?

In 2015, under the Obama administration, Iran struck a deal with six world powers — China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom and the US — plus the European Union, known as the JCPOA.

Under the pact, Tehran agreed to scale down its nuclear programme, capping enrichment to 3.67 percent, in exchange for relief from sanctions.

“The Iranians agreed to it, and they were following the treaty. There was no problem with the treaty at all, absolutely no problem,” Postol said.

“They were allowed to have 6,000 centrifuges, which, if they had natural uranium, they could probably build a bomb within a year if they were secretly using these centrifuges, but that was all under inspection. They were just simply going to enrich to 3.67 percent, which is for a power reactor. They’re allowed to do that by the Non-Proliferation Treaty.”

But in 2018, Trump pulled out of the deal, calling it “one-sided” and reimposing sanctions on Iran. Iran responded by eventually resuming enrichment at Fordow.

After the US killed Iran’s General Qassem Soleimani in January 2020, Tehran stated it would no longer follow the set uranium enrichment limits.

Former President Joe Biden made attempts to revive the deal, but it never came to fruition due to disagreements over whether sanctions should be lifted first or Iran should rejoin the JCPOA first.

Trump has repeatedly said Iran should not have the ability to produce nuclear weapons. It has been one of Washington’s red lines during talks with Iranian officials over the past year, and was also the central justification that Washington used when it bombed Iranian nuclear facilities during the 12-day US-Israel war on Iran last year.

In the current negotiations, Iran has said it is willing to “downblend” its 60 percent enriched uranium to about 20 percent – the threshold for low-enriched uranium. The process of downblending involves mixing stocks with depleted uranium to achieve a lower percentage of enriched U-235 overall.

“From the point of view of showing goodwill, I think it’s good, it shows that the Iranians are thinking of ways to address what the Americans claim are their concerns,” Postol said.

Which countries have nuclear weapons?

Nine countries possessed roughly 12,187 nuclear warheads as of early 2026, according to the Federation of American Scientists. Approximately two-thirds are owned by two nations – Russia (4,400) and the US (3,700), excluding their retired nuclear arsenals.

Some 9,745 of the total existing nuclear weapons are military stockpiles for missiles, submarines and aircraft. The rest have been retired. Of the military stockpile, 3,912 are currently deployed on missiles or at bomber bases, according to the Federation of American Scientists. Of these, some 2,100 are on US, Russian, British and French warheads, ready for use at short notice.

While Russia and the US have dismantled thousands of warheads, several countries are thought to be increasing their stockpiles, notably China.

The only country to have voluntarily relinquished nuclear weapons is South Africa. In 1989, the government halted its nuclear weapons programme and began dismantling its six nuclear weapons the following year.

Israel is believed to possess nuclear weapons, with a stockpile of at least 90. It has consistently neither confirmed nor denied this, and despite numerous treaties, it faces little international pressure for transparency.

Virginia voters have narrowly approved a referendum to redraw the state’s congressional map, with about 51.5 percent voting yes and 48.6 percent voting no, and 97 percent of ballots counted, according to The Associated Press news agency.

The map redraws the boundaries of Virginia’s congressional districts, changes that can directly shape which party wins seats in the United States House of Representatives.

With most votes counted, the result remained close, but Democratic-leaning areas helped push it through.

The vote is part of a broader national fight over district lines – a battle that could decide who controls Congress.

Republicans in Florida, for instance, are planning a special session of the state legislature next Tuesday where they are expected to seek to redraw their state’s political map – a move that could help them gain as many as five seats, potentially wiping out any Democratic gain in Virginia.

Here are five key takeaways:

Democrats gain a major advantage in the House race

Currently, Virginia sends 11 members to the US House. At the moment, they comprise six Democrats and five Republicans.

The new map changes how those seats are drawn. By reshaping district boundaries, it makes most areas more favourable to Democrats by clumping together voters who lean towards the party strategically, while splintering communities that typically vote Republican.

• Eight districts would be safely Democratic
• Two would be competitive but lean Democratic
• Only one would be safely Republican.

Because of this, Democrats could realistically win at least eight and possibly up to 10 of the 11 seats in the US house, instead of just six.

This shift follows a high-stakes political battle, with total spending estimated at $100m.

Democratic leaders, including Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger, framed the new map as a direct response to efforts by US President Donald Trump and Republicans to redraw districts in their favour in other states.

However, even with this win, “there’s no guarantee they’ll send a delegation dominated by Democrats to Washington,” Al Jazeera’s Rosiland Jordan said, reporting from Virginia.

There are still six months until the midterm elections, and voter behaviour can shift. Even favourable maps can produce unexpected outcomes.

Virginia is one part of a bigger battle

Virginia is just one part of a bigger fight over who controls the US House.

After the 2024 election, Trump pushed Republican-led states to redraw congressional maps before the usual timeline to improve their chances in the 2026 midterms.

Republicans moved first in states like Texas, where new maps could give them up to five more seats.

Democrats responded with their own moves. In California, voters approved a plan backed by Governor Gavin Newsom that allowed lawmakers to draw a new, more partisan map. This is expected to give Democrats up to five extra seats.

The Virginia result fits into this bigger picture. If Democrats gain up to four seats there, it could help cancel out Republican gains in other states.

But the fight is not over. More changes could still happen, including in Florida, where Governor Ron DeSantis is looking at redrawing the map.

“Virginia just changed the trajectory of the 2026 midterms,” Democratic state House Speaker Don Scott said in a celebratory statement.

“At a moment when Trump and his allies are trying to lock in power before voters have a say, Virginians stepped up and levelled the playing field for the entire country.”

Legal challenges could still overturn the result

The measure has been approved by voters, but its future is still uncertain.

The Supreme Court of Virginia is expected to review ongoing legal challenges that could affect whether the new map takes effect. While the court allowed the vote to go ahead, it said it would examine the case in full if the measure passed.

The challenges focus on two key issues: Whether Democratic lawmakers followed the correct legal process when putting the proposal forward, and whether the wording on the ballot may have been misleading to voters.

A narrow win

Both parties were watching the vote closely.

Democrats were happy to win, even if it was close. Republicans, meanwhile, were relieved it wasn’t a big loss.

“Virginia Democrats can’t redraw reality,” said Republican Congressman Richard Hudson. “This close margin reinforces that Virginia is a purple state that shouldn’t be represented by a severe partisan gerrymander.”

Gerrymandering is the process of redrawing electoral maps in ways that can benefit one party over another.

Democrats said the tight result was partly down to voter confusion, which they blamed on Republican messaging. Democrats framed the effort as a response to Trump, promoting the plan with advertisements featuring former US President Barack Obama.

Opponents pushed back by pointing to past comments from Obama and Spanberger, both of whom have previously criticised gerrymandering, using that to question the Democrats’ position.

Gerrymandering is at the centre of the fight

The vote highlights the growing importance of partisan map-drawing in US politics.

Democrats say this balances Republican advantages elsewhere. Republicans call it a power grab in a competitive state.

Either way, redistricting is now a key tool shaping election outcomes, not just reflecting them.

EXPLAINER

President Trump said the US would extend the ceasefire until Iran presents a proposal and talks are concluded, but a naval blockade of its ports continues.

President Donald Trump said the United States is extending the ceasefire until Tehran submits its latest proposal with conditions for ending the war, and until negotiations conclude, keeping diplomacy open while maintaining pressure on Iran.

However, Trump said the US naval blockade on Iran would remain. Iran has insisted that the blockade represents a violation of the ceasefire, and has said it will not negotiate under the “shadow of threats” or while the blockade remains in place, underscoring the fragile and uncertain path to talks.

Meanwhile, violence continues across the region, with Israeli settlers killing two people, including a child, in the occupied West Bank, and Israeli strikes in southern Lebanon wounding civilians and damaging homes despite a 10-day ceasefire.

In Iran

• The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said oil production across the Middle East could be targeted if attacks were launched from Gulf neighbours’ territory.
• The US is continuing its naval blockade of Iranian ports despite the truce, a move Iran says undermines the ceasefire.
• An adviser to Iran’s parliamentary speaker said the ceasefire extension could be a “ploy to buy time” for potential military escalation.
• Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi described the US naval blockade as an “act of war” and a violation of the truce.

War diplomacy

• Tehran open to diplomacy: Reporting from Tehran, Al Jazeera’s Almigdad Alruhaid said there was no official response to Trump’s ceasefire extension, but officials signalled openness to talks. The US blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is seen as a violation of the truce, with commanders saying forces are fully prepared to respond to any escalation.
• US sanctions widened: The US imposed new sanctions linked to Iran’s weapons programmes, while the European Union is moving to expand its own measures.
• Talks planned in Washington, DC: The US is set to host ambassador-level negotiations between Israel and Lebanon, as Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam pushes for a full Israeli withdrawal from the country’s territory as Beirut’s main objective.

In the Gulf

• Trump said a potential currency swap with the United Arab Emirates is “under consideration”, adding Washington would support the Gulf ally if needed, after reports the idea was raised with US officials amid concerns the war could strain the UAE’s economy.

In the US

• The US president said he was extending a ceasefire with Iran to give more time for negotiations, but would maintain the naval blockade of Iranian ports.
• Reporting from the White House, Al Jazeera’s Alan Fisher said Trump has shifted between conciliatory and hardline rhetoric, linking the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz to forcing Iran to negotiate, while warning of military action if negotiations fail.
• The mixed messaging has unsettled markets, but some analysts argue the strategy shows calculated pressure and a willingness to wait for Iran’s response.

In Israel

• Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the country has been strengthened by its campaigns against Iran and its allies, claiming joint efforts with the US weakened Tehran’s capabilities and boosted Israel’s regional position, opening the door to new alliances.

In Lebanon

• Prime Minister Salam said on Tuesday that Lebanon needed $587m to address the conflict’s ongoing humanitarian fallout amid a fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah.
• Tensions remain high as Israel and Hezbollah accuse each other of breaching the truce. Israel said rockets were fired at its troops in southern Lebanon and that it responded with strikes, while Hezbollah said its attacks were retaliation for Israeli shelling and ongoing strikes on Lebanese areas.

Oil and global economy

• Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz remains severely limited, raising concerns over global oil flows.