Explainer

Attacks on Palestinian communities by Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank, which are often supported by Israeli forces, have gathered pace over the past month since settlers from the Havat Gilad settlement attacked Palestinian homes on the eastern edge of Tal, southwest of Nablus.

On Sunday and Monday, the Israeli military raided multiple towns, villages and refugee camps across the occupied territory, and reports of arrests, home searches and settler attacks have continued to mount.

A 15-day siege on three families comprising 15 people, including two children, in the village of Qusra, which is ongoing, drew a rare public condemnation this month from the United States ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, a staunch supporter of Israel and its West Bank settlements.

Israel is also pushing ahead with plans for the so-called E1 settlement expansion close to Jerusalem, which human rights organisations warn would essentially sever the West Bank in two, further hampering the freedom of movement of Palestinians on either side of it and endangering the possibility of a Palestinian state.

The West Bank attacks increasingly fit the definition of a pogrom, experts said. United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories Francesca Albanese described these Israeli attacks against Palestinians as “pogroms against defenceless civilians”.

So why are experts calling settler attacks pogroms, and do they fit the formal definition of one?

What’s happening in the West Bank?

Settlers, frequently supported by the Israeli military, have been attacking Palestinian homes, businesses, and agricultural fields across the occupied West Bank. Such attacks have been commonplace for decades as settlements have expanded across the territory, but they gathered pace after October 7, 2023 when Israel launched it genocidal war on Gaza, and have become particularly violent and frequent over the past month.

Israeli settlements across the West Bank are illegal under international law.

According to the Palestinian Colonization and Wall Resistance Commission, however, Israeli settlers now number roughly 780,000 across the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, living among 192 settlements and 400 outposts, rising to 71 percent of Area C, which is under full Israeli civil and military control, and 91 percent of the Jordan Valley.

Settlers often set up outposts without formal approval around Palestinian villages from which they launch a campaign of harassment, including killing livestock, cutting supply lines and damaging property, in order to drive local residents out. Once they establish a more formal settlement, they often receive retrospective approval from the Israeli government for the settlement.

In some places more recently, illegal settlers have laid siege to individual family homes – such as in the Ras al-Ein area of Qusra – cutting off water and other supplies and damaging orchards or harming livestock.

This has set a new pattern: settlers establish a tent adjacent to individual homes; Palestinians’ homes are besieged, with essentials cut off; and Israeli soldiers arrive not to remove the settlers, but rather to remove the family – through arrest or ostensibly for their “protection”.

In Qusra, the three besieged families were forced together into one of the family houses. Meanwhile, Israeli forces have occupied one of the other homes for use as a military post and thrown furniture and belongings from its windows, according to the Palestinian news agency Wafa.

The UN humanitarian affairs office recorded more than 1,330 settler-related attacks on Palestinians in the occupied West Bank between January and late July this year, averaging six a day and marking the fastest pace since the agency began systematic tracking two decades ago.

Separately, a UN-appointed commission of inquiry has found that the Israeli authorities have repeatedly failed to prevent foreseeable settler attacks and, in some cases, have directly enabled them through army protection and the provision of weapons and funding.

The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) has found that settler attacks, demolitions and evictions forcibly displaced more Palestinians in the first four months of this year than in the whole of 2025.

OCHA reported that 107 communities, comprising 5,900 Palestinians, had been completely or partially displaced as a result of settler violence since January 2023. It also found that the Israeli military have expelled another 32,000 Palestinians from their homes in the occupied West Bank since January 2025, essentially emptying the Jenin, Tulkarem and Nur Shams camps.

What is the definition of a pogrom?

Major US and UK dictionaries vary to some degree on the definition of a “pogrom”.

The British Collins Dictionary identifies a pogrom as “organised, official violence against a group of people for racial or religious reasons”, with a notable inclusion of official, or state-backed violence.

Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary calls it “the organised killing of large numbers of people, because of their race or religion”, without mention of state-sanctioned violence.

Merriam-Webster says it is “an organised massacre of helpless people” – “specifically: such as a massacre of Jews”.

Cambridge Dictionary says it is “an act of organised cruel behaviour or killing that is done to a large group of people because of their race or religion”.

The word is understood to have been introduced via Yiddish and was at first used to describe the wave of violent, organised mob attacks on Jewish communities in the Russian Empire following the assassination of Tsar Alexander II in 1881.

It is important to note that unlike legal terms including “crimes against humanity” or “genocide,” “pogrom” has no established legal definition under international law.

Can attacks in the West Bank be referred to as pogroms?

Besides Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, who has described Israeli attacks against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank as “pogroms against defenceless civilians”, Israeli officials themselves have described such attacks as “pogroms”.

On February 26, 2023, hundreds of Israeli settlers attacked Huwara and surrounding Palestinian communities after two Israeli settlers were killed. A Palestinian was killed, hundreds were injured, and homes, businesses and cars were burned.

The Israeli military’s then-commander in the occupied West Bank, Yehuda Fuchs, called the settlers’ attack a “pogrom”, and it was also recorded as such by the US State Department.

Israeli-Palestinian human rights group B’Tselem has also previously described Israeli actions in the occupied West Bank as “pogroms”, especially after the February 2023 attacks. Later, it followed up with a report titled, “The pogroms are working – the transfer is already happening”, which argued that settler attacks were contributing to the displacement of Palestinian communities.

“Settler violence is not a new phenomenon. But over the past three years, it has become more violent, more systematic and, most importantly, part of a state mechanism intended to ethnically cleanse large parts of the West Bank,” said Yair Dvir, the spokesperson for B’Tselem.

“The government funds and arms the settlers, while the Israeli military stands by and, in many cases, actively participates in the attacks,” he told Al Jazeera. “So far, these militias have expelled 64 Palestinian communities and taken control of around one million dunams of land.”

Dvir also told Al Jazeera that the Israeli settlers are “now carrying out organised attacks on established Palestinian villages and towns in order to drive out their residents”.

“These are armed militias operating as an unofficial arm of the state, with a shared goal: to ethnically cleanse as much of the West Bank as possible,” he added.

The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention, which is named after Polish-Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin, who is credited with coining the term genocide after the Holocaust, referred to settler attacks on Al-Mughayyir, a Palestinian village in Ramallah, as “pogroms”, reporting that hundreds of armed settlers attacked residents and burned buildings and cars while soldiers stood by earlier this year. In 2025, the Israeli military uprooted thousands of Palestinian olive trees at Al-Mughayyir.

Raheel Dhattiwala, an Indian scholar who focuses on collective violence, told Al Jazeera: “West Bank attacks fit the characteristics of a pogrom – systematic targeting of one civilian group by another with state approval. A few senior Israeli army officers have called it ‘pogroms’ in the past too, for example after attacks in Huwara.

“One might want to debate the use of the term, ‘pogrom’, but it is accurate to call settler violence systematic attacks of occupiers, with government approval, on groups of occupied people.”

Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman, (MBS), is on the second day of his two-day state visit to France, where he’s meeting President Emmanuel Macron.

In this explainer, we outline what they are expected to discuss and examine how their latest meetings build on an already evolving relationship.

What is on the agenda?

MBS’s visit to Paris began on Sunday evening alongside President Macron at the closing ceremony of the Esports World Cup. It was the first time the Esports tournament, which includes competitions ranging from video games to chess, had been held outside Saudi Arabia.

On Monday, Macron and Bin Salman are expected to sign several agreements on health, transport and energy.

French media reported that a deal to build a Dragon Ball-themed amusement park, backed by a Saudi investment fund and inspired by the iconic Japanese manga series, could be signed.

Valerie Pecresse, President of the Regional Council of Île-de-France in Greater Paris, told French broadcaster TF1 that the regional government had been working on the project for 18 months.

“There is a very important meeting at the Elysee today that may result in the signing of this agreement. We are waiting for the signature,” she said, describing the project as “on the scale of Disneyland”.

Bin Salman and Macron are also holding bilateral discussions on regional security and their economic ties.

That is expected to include discussions about energy routes that bypass the Strait of Hormuz, such as new pipelines, capacity upgrades and alternative port networks.

France is a major buyer of Saudi oil and mineral products.

Since the start of the US-Israeli war on Iran on February 28, shipping has been severely disrupted in the Strait of Hormuz – the vital waterway on which oil exporters in the Gulf are heavily reliant and where 20 percent of the world’s oil and natural gas supplies are shipped from during peacetime. The disruption sent oil prices soaring.

Before the war, a barrel of Brent crude – the global benchmark – cost about $66. Over the course of the conflict, prices have climbed above $100 – hitting a high of $119 early on in the war.

On Monday, Brent was trading around $93 a barrel.

Bin Salman and Macron are also expected to discuss the war in Iran, the bloodshed in Palestine, as well as developments in Syria and Lebanon, where Israel occupies around one-fifth of its territory.

Other expected topics on Monday’s agenda include global events that Saudi Arabia is set to host in the coming years, including Expo 2030, focusing on sustainability and urban innovation, and the 2034 football World Cup.

How much trade does Saudi Arabia do with France?

The two countries have a fairly equal trading balance.

In 2024, France exported $4.5bn worth of goods to Saudi Arabia and imported $4.6bn worth, according to data from the Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC), an online platform that compiles and visualises international trade statistics.

Refined petroleum accounted for 72 percent of Saudi Arabia’s exports to France in 2024. Besides refined petroleum, Saudi Arabia exported crude petroleum and other mineral products to France. It also exported small amounts of machinery, chemicals and cars.

France’s exports to Saudi Arabia in 2024 were more diverse, including airliners, helicopters, gas turbines, pharmaceutical products and perfume, among other products.

What have relations between Saudi Arabia and France been like?

Sunday’s visit marked the third time MBS has visited France after trips in 2022 and 2023.

In December 2024, Macron visited Riyadh, where the two countries founded the Saudi-French Strategic Partnership Council, which formalised and upgraded political and economic ties between Saudi Arabia and France.

The current visit is also MBS’s first international trip since the August 7 signing of the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement, known as the Mecca pact – the mutual defence agreement between Saudi Arabia, Turkiye and Pakistan.

Signed by the prince, Turkiye’s President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Shehbaz Sharif, the agreement commits all three states to treat an armed attack on any one of them as an attack on all three.

Analysts say the pact shows that Saudi Arabia is taking steps to diversify its security partnerships beyond Washington.

New Delhi, India – An investigation by human rights group Amnesty International has confirmed that Indian government forces used lethal weapons, including pellet-firing shotguns, grenades, batons and electric shock devices against demonstrators in Gen Z protests that rocked the national capital last month.

On July 20, thousands of protesters had all but shut down New Delhi, blocking off Parliament Street, demanding the resignation of then-Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan following a string of examination scandals involving the leaking of national exam papers and other irregularities.

More than 100 students were injured in the crackdown by police and paramilitary forces that day. Indian newspapers obtained hospital records that showed that doctors had treated pellet wounds in several cases.

India’s opposition, led by Congress party leader Rahul Gandhi, has since called on Home Minister Amit Shah, seen as Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s confidant, to answer questions about the alleged police brutality and has joined protesters in calling for his resignation.

But despite mounting evidence and growing political criticism, the Modi government repeatedly insisted that security forces had been measured in their response to the protests and denied using excessive force.

Now, an Amnesty investigation has found the use of tactics that Indian law enforcement rulebooks themselves warn against using in all but exceptional circumstances.

What happened on July 20 in New Delhi?

In July, the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), a satirical, youth-led movement which gathered momentum in response to the national examinations scandal, called on its supporters to march on the Indian Parliament after a monthlong sit-in failed to oust the education minister.

Two days before the march, the police forcibly removed renowned activist Sonam Wangchuk, who had been taking part in a hunger strike. That move galvanised public anger, bringing out more protesters in New Delhi.

On the morning of the march day, the police used tear gas as protesters swelled, then attacked them with electric shock batons, as well as shooting at them with pellet guns, Amnesty International’s Evidence Lab has verified from video and photographic evidence alongside witness testimony.

Amnesty also found that government forces had put up barricades and enforced a communications blackout.

“The weapons were deployed in a manner that breached international law and standards and domestic policing guidelines,” Amnesty said in a statement on Monday.

The rights group’s report also noted that the Delhi Police had publicly denied any disproportionate use of force, specifically pellet guns. The police also repeated this before India’s top court during a hearing about the alleged use of excessive force.

Amnesty says the evidence it has gathered “directly contradicts [the police’s] account”.

Four days after the July 20 march, as protests spread across the country, police in Bihar state’s Siwan town opened fire on protesters, injuring at least three youths.

Did government forces fire pellets at protesters?

Following the July 20 protest, several videos and photos emerged of protesters with injuries consistent with pellet wounds, which were reflected in their medical records as well.

The Evidence Lab verified two videos showing a paramilitary Rapid Action Force officer firing a shotgun into the crowd at the intersection of Connaught Place and Parliament Street in New Delhi, where protesters had gathered.

At least two protesters had wounds consistent with those caused by birdshot, a hunting round that fires a large number of small metal pellets, the group noted.

“The doctors confirmed that they were pellet injuries. Thankfully, my bones have been saved, but my body has been scarred badly,” one protester told Amnesty.

Amnesty said birdshot ammunition has not been developed for law enforcement purposes due to the widespread dispersion of the metal pellets, which “is inherently inaccurate and presents a high risk of serious injuries to the targeted person and even bystanders”.

Amnesty also said the police did not issue a public warning before firing pellet guns, as recommended by the Indian government’s Bureau for Police Research and Development.

Police and security forces have used metal pellets for more than a decade in Indian-administered Kashmir, leading to the first mass blinding during a 2016 civilian uprising.

Posting on X, Delhi Police called the reports of pellet injuries during the latest protests “fake news”, “completely false and misleading” and warned that “appropriate legal action” would be taken against anyone “spreading rumours”.

A subsequent internal inquiry by India’s paramilitary forces, however, reportedly found that personnel had fired at least seven rounds of ammunition containing metal pellets.

“Instead of facilitating the right to protest, Indian authorities suppressed it first with a communication blackout, barricades and transport disruption. They then attempted to crush it with unnecessary or excessive use of force against peaceful protesters, including children,” said Aakar Patel, chair of the board, Amnesty International India.

“This heavy-handed response was state-sanctioned violence masked as crowd control. The continued impunity after a month is a testament to that,” Patel said.

Did police use tear gas grenades and batons?

Government forces did use tear gas grenades to disperse the crowd at several places in New Delhi, as seen by Al Jazeera and verified by Amnesty, not just on July 20 to prevent CHP supporters’ march to Parliament.

“Tear gas grenades releasing an excessive amount of explosive energy are extremely dangerous and should be prohibited for use in public assemblies,” Amnesty said, referring to videos of tear gas shells exploding near students.

The group also noted that witnesses observed that “tear gas grenades were launched directly at protesters instead of at an angled trajectory above the head of protesters, at odds with UN Guidance on the use of Less-Lethal Weapons in Law Enforcement”.

Amnesty has also verified claims that the police used lathis, the Indian version of batons, to beat protesters.

The UN special rapporteur on torture considers lathis to be inherently cruel, inhuman or degrading as “they deliver a greater level [of] kinetic force than conventional batons, causing excessive pain and increasing the risk of serious injury” and has called for them to be prohibited, a position that Amnesty supports.

The group also found men in civilian clothing beating protesters “while uniformed officers, who escorted them toward the crowd, stand beside them and make no attempt to intervene”, as visible in videos seen by Al Jazeera. Several officials were not wearing their name tags or badge numbers, as required.

What has been the reaction to the use of excessive force?

A day after the crackdown in New Delhi, CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke told the crowd, “Every police person who attacked you would be identified and dragged to the courts”.

The group also launched a platform for protesters to upload videos and photos from the crackdown.

The opposition, led by the Congress’s Gandhi, pushed the home minister for a discussion on the issue in Parliament, an issue that plagued the monsoon session with Shah missing.

Gandhi argued that either Shah ordered the usage of lethal weapons, in which case “he is guilty”, or he was unaware of the situation, which makes him “incompetent” for the job.

Sahil Lochab, a 19-year-old who lost vision in one eye due to pellet injuries, said the police had been refusing to register his complaint. In response, Gandhi staged a seven-hour sit-in outside the office of the Delhi Police chief, insisting that a case be registered over the use of pellet guns on protesters, alongside Lochab.

After Gandhi’s pressure, the police relented. A student at the University of Delhi, Lochab received multiple pellet injuries on his chest, back, arms and face. Several pellets could not be taken out, he said in his complaint.

“My medical documents show that there are over 200 pellets in my body. Doctors have told me that the possibility of my eyesight coming back is less than 1 percent,” Lochab wrote in his complaint.

EXPLAINER

At least 145 countries have reported increases in petrol prices since the attacks on Iran by the US and Israel began on February 28.

Since the United States and Israel launched their war on Iran six months ago, petrol prices have risen in at least 145 countries, adding to the burden on consumers worldwide.

The figures are based on data from GlobalPetrolPrices, which tracks fuel prices in 170 countries and territories. Petrol prices in Myanmar rose the most, increasing by 56 percent from $0.77 per litre of 95-octane fuel on February 23 to $1.20 on August 17. Bhutan recorded the next-largest increase at 55 percent, followed by Cuba at 51 percent, the UAE at 50 percent and 48 percent in Nigeria.

In 25 other countries, most of them oil producers with heavily subsidised fuel, prices have either remained unchanged or fallen by single digits.

The table below lists the 145 countries where petrol prices at the pump increased over the past six months.

How higher fuel costs shrink your driving range

Before the war, the US national average for a gallon [3.78 litres] of regular petrol was $2.94. It now costs $4.09, an increase of 39 percent, according to AAA Fuel Prices, which tracks retail fuel prices for the American Automobile Association (AAA).

The extra cost directly affects how far people can travel. Before the war, $50 worth of fuel in the US could take a family sedan roughly 718 km (446 miles). Today, the same amount takes you about 536 km (333 miles) – 183 km less, a 25 percent reduction in driving distance.

That gap varies depending on where you live.

Set your country, car and budget below to see how far your money takes you. If you’re filling up in the US, you can also select a state and fuel grade.

How high oil costs drive up the price of food

Oil prices and food prices move in lockstep, with energy prices affecting every stage of the food supply chain, from the fertilisers used in the fields to the trucks that carry food from field to supermarket shelf.

Rising oil prices also directly impact shipping and the cost of transport.

“The lifeblood of the global economy is transport,” economist David McWilliams told Al Jazeera. “It’s getting stuff from A to B – it’s a logistics problem, a supply chain problem and ultimately transportation is the energy of the global economy.”

In lower-income countries, where populations spend a far greater share of their earnings on food and import large quantities of grain and fertiliser, rising oil prices could rapidly translate into food shortages.

What products are made from oil and gas?

Oil and gas are used for far more than just fuel. They are raw materials for thousands of everyday products.

Plastics, including water bottles, food packaging, phone casings and medical syringes, are all derived from crude oil.

Crude oil is also the hidden ingredient in synthetic fabrics, such as polyester, nylon and acrylic, which are used to make everything from sportswear to carpets. It also underpins the cosmetics industry, as it is used to make products such as petroleum jelly (Vaseline), lipsticks and concealers.

Household items also rely on oil-based ingredients, with laundry detergents, dishwashing liquids and paints all derived from petroleum products.

The global food supply is essentially built on natural gas in the form of fertilisers, used to enhance crop yields and ensure that food production can meet demand.

China is set to launch its Chang’e-7 unmanned, robotic space mission, possibly as early as Monday morning, to look for ice water in the permanently shadowed craters of the moon’s south pole.

This marks China’s seventh and most ambitious moon mission so far. Here is what we know about it.

What do we know about Chang’e-7?

The Chang’e‑7 launch window runs from Monday, August 24 to Monday, August 31, according to launch observers. That means the mission could lift off on any day in that period.

The Chang’e-7 comprises an orbiter, a lander, a rover and a hopper.

• The orbiter is the main spacecraft which will remain in the moon’s orbit, mapping the surface and taking images while the mission is under way. It will also relay data and communications between the other Chang’e‑7 components and Earth.
• The lander is the vessel that will touch down on the lunar surface, loaded with the necessary scientific instruments for lunar exploration, near the edge of the Shackleton Crater, a 21km-wide (13-mile-wide) pit close to the moon’s south pole. Lunar missions before this have never come this close to the pole.
• The rover is a small robotic vehicle which can drive around the landing site and which carries equipment to analyse the local environment, including rocks and soil.
• The hopper is a small robotic craft powered by solar energy, designed to “hop” – or fly – short distances from the surface of the moon and land again. It will be used to explore the Shackleton Crater.

How do we know there is water on the moon?

Over the past two decades, several space missions have established that there is water on the moon.

Since the 1960s, even before the first Apollo landing in 1969, scientists speculated that water could exist on the moon. However, when Apollo crews returned samples for testing in the late 1960s and early 1970s, they appeared to be dry.

Finally, in 2009, NASA deliberately crashed a rocket segment and its probe into a shadowed lunar crater to analyse the dust plume it kicked up. This provided one of the clearest direct confirmations that significant ice water does exist on the moon, building on earlier detections of water and hydrogen by probes.

In October 2020, NASA scientists announced that water on the moon is more widespread than previously known. They said water molecules had been found to be encapsulated within mineral grains on the lunar surface and speculated that more water is hidden in ice patches which are in permanent shadows.

NASA describes these permanent shadows as dark areas inside deep craters near the north and south poles of the moon where sunlight has not reached for millions or even billions of years. In 2018, prior to confirming it in 2020, NASA had detected water ice in shadowed parts of the moon through mapping.

Why is it important to find out more about the water on the moon?

Expanding knowledge about water on the moon is vital because ancient polar ice may have preserved a record of lunar volcanic activity and of water delivered by comets and asteroids to the Earth-moon system, offering clues to how our own oceans originally formed.

Additionally, if there is enough water on the moon that is realistically accessible, it could serve as a source of drinking water for crewed lunar missions, and could also help to keep equipment cool.

Hydrogen could also be extracted from moon water to provide fuel, while oxygen could be extracted to breathe, supporting onward missions to Mars or lunar mining.

Could anyone ‘own’ the water on the moon?

The 1967 United Nations Outer Space Treaty bans any nation from claiming sovereignty over the moon or owning it as territory. It does not explicitly prohibit commercial operations, but it requires private activities in space to be authorised and supervised by states and leaves key questions about resource ownership unresolved.

Which recent space missions have searched for frozen water on the moon?

In 2023, Russia’s lunar spacecraft, Luna-25, was launched to look for frozen water in the moon’s south pole. However, the Luna-25 spun out of control and crashed. The crash prevented any scientific data collection or water discovery.

Racing against the Luna-25 mission was India’s Chandrayaan-3, which also aimed to expand knowledge of lunar water ice. Chandrayaan-3 successfully landed in August 2023 and found critical new evidence of water on the surface of the moon’s south pole through soil temperature readings.

Why is exploring the moon’s south pole a challenge?

Attempted landings at the moon’s south pole have failed before because of its challenging terrain, which is full of craters and deep trenches.

The south pole is far from the equatorial region targeted by previous missions, including the crewed Apollo landings.

What is different about the Chang’e-7 mission?

The upcoming Chang’e-7 is aiming to expand knowledge about where, exactly, water is located in the craters of the moon, how deep it is, what form it is in and whether it is indeed possible to access it.

The Chang’e-7’s six-legged hopper has been designed to jump into and out of the deep, shadowed craters near the south pole that are hard for traditional rovers to reach, to look for water ice and other resources.

No previous space mission has used a dedicated hopper to jump in and out of lunar craters in this way.

Islamabad, Pakistan – Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned the top United States diplomat in Islamabad on Wednesday, hours after US Ambassador to India Sergio Gor described Indian-administered Kashmir as “an important part of India” during his first visit to the territory.

Islamabad rejected the remark and reasserted Kashmir’s status as disputed territory.

The visit by Gor, who also serves as President Donald Trump’s special envoy for South and Central Asia, was the first standalone trip by a serving US ambassador to Indian-administered Kashmir since 2019, and the first since India stripped the territory of its autonomy that year.

His remarks were made publicly, alongside Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, adding to Islamabad’s irritation.

The episode also comes at a delicate moment for Washington’s ties with both South Asian rivals, as Pakistan courts Trump’s administration more closely than it has in years, and as the US tries to balance that relationship against its strategic partnership with India.

So, what exactly did the US ambassador say, why has it caused such offence, and does it change anything? Al Jazeera explains.

What did the US ambassador say?

Sergio Gor, a 38-year-old former Trump aide who was confirmed as US ambassador to India in January, spent two days in Srinagar and Ladakh this week.

After meeting Abdullah in Srinagar, he told reporters he was thrilled to be visiting “an important part of India” for the first time.

He also said Washington was reconsidering its “do not travel” advisory, citing improved security under Abdullah’s administration.

The advisory at the moment places Jammu and Kashmir at a “Do Not Travel” level, citing terrorism and civil unrest, though it exempts the eastern territories of Ladakh and Leh.

Islamabad’s response came the same Wednesday evening. The Foreign Ministry summoned Charge d’Affaires Natalie Baker, who currently heads the US mission in the country.

The ministry lodged what it called a “strong demarche”, rejecting the “characterisation of Indian-administered Kashmir as a ‘part of India’” and reasserting it as an internationally recognised disputed territory awaiting final disposition under United Nations Security Council resolutions.

The statement called Gor’s remarks factually incorrect and said they negated Washington’s longstanding position on the dispute.

It also thanked Trump for his offer – made after India and Pakistan agreed to a ceasefire ending their four-day war last year – to help resolve the Kashmir question, urging Washington to keep its public language consistent with that position.

Why does Kashmir trigger such a reaction?

Kashmir is a Himalayan region claimed by both India and Pakistan since British colonial rule ended in August 1947.

India and Pakistan each administer part of the territory but claim it in full and have fought several wars over it.

A UN Security Council resolution passed in 1949 called for the territory’s final status to be decided by a plebiscite, which has never been held.

In June, European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas signed a joint statement with Pakistan’s foreign minister in Islamabad that bracketed Kashmir alongside the war in Ukraine and called for its resolution “through dialogue and diplomacy”.

India’s Ministry of External Affairs rejected the reference, saying those with no standing in the matter should refrain from commenting on it.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has drawn similar protests from Delhi at least twice after voicing support for Pakistan’s position on Kashmir.

Trump himself triggered a dispute in 2019 when, during a meeting with then-Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan, he claimed Prime Minister Narendra Modi had personally asked him to mediate on Kashmir. Modi’s government swiftly denied the account in parliament.

For Pakistan, US language on Kashmir’s disputed status is an important external validation of its effort to internationalise the issue.

For India, meanwhile, any suggestion that Kashmir remains open to outside mediation cuts against the foundation of its position.

What has the US position been, historically?

The US has officially maintained that Kashmir is disputed and its status should be settled between India and Pakistan, taking into consideration the wishes of the Kashmiri people.

American officials have repeated some version of “our policy has not changed” across successive administrations, including in 2019, when a senior US diplomat told Congress that India’s move had not altered Washington’s view of the Line of Control as a “de facto” boundary.

Formally, Washington has avoided recognising sovereignty over the territory for either country.

A major turning point came in 1999, when President Bill Clinton told Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif that Pakistani forces would have to withdraw from Kargil in Indian-administered Kashmir, following the fighting there between the two countries in the region.

Analysts widely saw the episode as the beginning of Washington’s tilt towards Delhi.

But after the two countries’ most intense clash in decades last year, Trump claimed credit for the ceasefire and offered to “work with you both” on a Kashmir “solution”.

Pakistan welcomed the offer and nominated Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize. India rejected suggestions of US mediation, saying the ceasefire had been reached through direct military talks.

Jauhar Saleem, Pakistan’s former foreign secretary and president of the Islamabad-based Institute of Regional Studies, told Al Jazeera that Gor’s remark should not be mistaken for a change in US policy.

“US policy on a question as consequential as Jammu and Kashmir cannot be read from an off-the-cuff formulation during a visit by a US ambassador posted in India,” Saleem said. “Any change in policy would be reflected in Washington’s formal statements, State Department language and, in fact, should be at the level of the White House.”

He said such lapses were not new.

“Sometimes ambassadors fall prey to what we call ‘localitis’, and in an attempt to please their hosts can make comments entirely out of line with their country’s stated policy, creating unpleasant situations,” he said. “This is a classic example and has therefore evoked an expected strong demarche from Pakistan’s Foreign Office.”

Saleem said Trump’s repeated offers to mediate between Pakistan and India, “which was not appreciated in New Delhi”, showed that Washington’s position remained unsettled at the top rather than shifting towards India. “I would actually expect a clarification from Washington soon,” he added.

Will it affect Pakistan-US ties?

Saleem, who summoned a US ambassador in Islamabad during his tenure as foreign secretary in late 2022 over what he called “a very objectionable remark” by then-President Joe Biden, said a demarche was not primarily a tool to punish Washington. Biden had described Pakistan as “one of the most dangerous nations in the world”.

“A demarche is not just made to increase the cost of a policy; rather it is made to press a point and ask for an explanation,” the former ambassador told Al Jazeera. “The US response was constructive [then], and will be in this case as well, I believe.”

He said the Pakistan-US relationship was too broad-based for one ambassador’s remark to unsettle it, pointing to Pakistan’s role as a peacemaker between the US and Iran, economic cooperation, counterterrorism, regional security, Afghanistan, defence cooperation, “and of course Pakistan’s relationship with the Trump administration itself”.

Tariq Rashid Khan, a Pakistani former military general and diplomat, described the episode as “issue-specific boundary-setting”.

Islamabad’s protest, he told Al Jazeera, signals that a close strategic partnership with Washington “does not mean acceptance of any position on Kashmir contrary to Pakistan’s stated position”.

“Kashmir remains an unfinished agenda of the 1947 partition, which is why even one sentence can become strategically significant,” he said.

For Saleem, the significance lies less in Gor’s specific words than in what any drift in language could set in motion.

“Jammu and Kashmir is not just a territorial dispute; it is an issue of national identity, legitimacy and security for Pakistan,” he told Al Jazeera. “Neither Pakistan nor India can afford to let the international community’s vocabulary on Kashmir drift even slightly, because both sides believe that language today can become precedent tomorrow.”

Aizaz Chaudhry, a former Pakistani ambassador to the US, told Al Jazeera he believed Gor’s remarks “might be his personal comments”, adding that the US position on the disputed territory is well known.

“Our demarche is only a reminder that the US envoy in Delhi must comply with the US position on the subject. The Kashmir dispute is a longstanding issue that must be resolved for the larger peace and stability of South Asia,” Chaudhry said.

Crude oil and natural gas supplies have been disrupted worldwide by the United States-Israel war on Iran, but one energy sector appears to be cashing in – coal.

This week, South Africa’s thermal coal producer Thungela Resources said it had doubled its half-year profits as the war has forced more countries to buy the fuel.

Although abundant and relatively cheap to produce, coal is considered one of the dirtiest fossil fuels.

Mining it causes water pollution, and burning it releases enormous amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, which contributes to global warming.

In recent months, several countries, especially in Asia, have reversed or delayed promises to scale back on coal production.

Global coal consumption was already rising in 2025 with the Eurasia region and the US using the fuel to power artificial intelligence data centres, according to the World Bank.

Here’s what we know:

Why is more coal being used?

The US-Israel war on Iran has triggered a global energy crisis. Soon after strikes on Tehran began on February 28, Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, through which about one-fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies were shipped during peacetime.

Negotiations to reopen the strait are ongoing.

Its closure has reduced oil and gas supplies and caused oil prices to soar, prompting many countries to fall back on the most readily available alternative to keep the power on – coal.

While coal prices have also risen, the fuel is still much cheaper than oil – and is more readily available.

No region has been more impacted than Asia, which largely depends on the Gulf for its energy needs. About 82 percent of oil and gas shipments through the Strait of Hormuz went to Asia in 2022, according to the US Energy Information Administration. China, India, Japan and South Korea were the top destinations.

Besides being unable to ship exports through the strait, Gulf countries caught up in the conflict have also been badly impacted by Iranian strikes. Qatar, for example, was forced to declare force majeure on its delivery contracts in March when Iranian drones hit its Ras Laffan oil facility – the world’s largest LNG complex – forcing it offline. Iran’s attacks had knocked out 17 percent of Qatar’s LNG exports by March, state officials said.

Similarly, the United Arab Emirates’s Das Island LNG terminal, Fujairah oil terminal, Ruwais Refinery Complex and other energy sites have been attacked during the conflict. Facilities in Saudi Arabia and Oman have also been hit.

Where has coal use increased?

According to an analysis by the energy data company Ember, coal output will rise globally by 1.8 percent by the end of 2026 compared with 2025 in a “worst-case” scenario.

This represents a notable uptick considering that countries are meant to be transitioning away from coal, experts said.

Since the war began, several Asian countries have announced plans to increase coal-fired electricity generation.

Japan has lifted restrictions on older, high-emission coal plants to cope with the energy shocks while South Korea has delayed the shutdown of coal-powered plants it promised to wind down by 2040.

In Bangladesh, the government at first imposed power cuts, closed universities and rationed fuel sales for vehicles before announcing it had ramped up coal-powered electricity generation.

Thailand, the Philippines and Vietnam have also increased coal-powered electricity generation to preserve dwindling gas reserves.

In Pakistan, data from the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority showed that by July, electricity generated from imported coal had risen by 90 percent compared with the same period the previous year.

China and India already consume 70 percent of the world’s coal and are also major producers. In India, where electricity demand is increasing partly due to more intense heatwaves, the government plans to launch several new coal-mining projects that will see global supplies increase by 2.5 billion tonnes a year, according to the Global Energy Monitor.

Germany also said it won’t jeopardise electricity generation because of earlier climate promises it made while Italy has pushed back its coal phase-out plans from late 2025 to 2038.

Who is making a profit from coal?

Indonesia is the top coal exporter by a wide margin, followed by Australia and Russia.

In March, Jakarta reversed previous plans to curb coal production and reduce oversupply in a bid to benefit from the rising prices. Prices were set at $131.85 per tonne in July, compared with $102.20 in the previous year.

South Africa’s Thungela, meanwhile, reported doubled profits from January to June, compared with the same period of 2025, driven largely by higher production from its Ensham mines in Queensland as well as higher demand and higher prices at both Ensham and its South Africa operations.

Production at Ensham rose by 38 percent in the first half of the year – during the peak of the conflict – to 2.2 tonnes, compared with 1.6 tonnes in the previous period.

The company reported 4.80 South African rand ($0.30) in headline earnings per share – or HEPS, a primary metric of profitability used in South Africa. That’s up from 1.92 rand ($0.12) in June last year.

In a statement, Thungela said prices will likely remain high as European and Asian markets prepare for winter.

What does this mean for the drive for clean energy?

In 2021, more than 40 countries, including Indonesia and Vietnam, promised to scale back coal use at the COP26 global climate summit. India and China did not sign up, however. Last year, South Korea joined the Powering Past Coal Alliance, which helps coal-dependent economies transition away from the fuel.

However, the Middle East crisis has upset those plans largely because many countries do not have sufficient renewable energy-generating capacity to fall back on, said Nick Hedley, an energy transition analyst at South Africa-based Zero Carbon Analytics.

“For the likes of Bangladesh, it’s easy to lift coal use when global gas supplies are disrupted because the country invested heavily in coal infrastructure in recent decades, and much of that capacity has been sitting idle,” he said.

“Coal becomes cheaper than imported gas when gas prices surge. Importantly, coal still cannot compete with renewables on cost,” Hedley added.

It’s not all doom, however. Analysts noted that upticks in some places are being offset by long-term declines in coal use in places like Europe.

China’s domestic coal production also fell this year as the government tightened oversight following a deadly explosion in May at the Liushenyu coal mine, where 82 people died. Beijing has also made large investments in renewables.

In addition, the breakdown of global fossil energy supply chains could make clean alternatives more competitive and force more countries to invest in them, Hedley pointed out.

“The lesson here is that Asian countries need to speed up their shift to clean energy and electrification to safeguard themselves against future global crises,” he concluded.

Primary races across the country have offered an early read on where voters want their parties to head before November’s consequential midterms in the United States.

With only a handful of US states remaining in the congressional primary calendar, voters in Alaska and Wyoming — two reliably Republican strongholds — head to the polls on Tuesday, with races that could send ripples well beyond their small electorates.

Although the state has long been safe Republican territory in federal elections, this year marks the third consecutive election cycle in which Alaska finds itself among a handful of states at the centre of the fight for control of Congress.

Wyoming offers a different kind of race: a rare wholesale turnover of Republican leadership. Wyomingites have a glut of new leaders to choose from at the statehouse, in the governor’s mansion and in the US Capitol. Contests that could further consolidate the state’s ultraconservative politics or begin to push them to the centre.

Here’s what’s on our radar.

Alaska

When do polls open and close?

Polls open at 7am (15:00 GMT) and close at 8pm local time (04:00 on Wednesday GMT), although Alaska’s two time zones stagger poll closings across the state.

What makes Alaska’s primary different?

Unlike most states, Alaska uses a single primary rather than separate Republican and Democratic contests. This comes after Alaska voters approved Ballot Measure 2 back in 2020, which effectively eliminated the state’s traditional party-primary system for most offices. Instead, all candidates appear on a single, nonpartisan primary ballot. The top four vote-getters advance.

What are the key races to watch in Alaska?

The US Senate race carries the clearest national stakes because it could tip control of the chamber. The governor’s race is worth watching because of its exceptionally crowded and competitive field.

Seventeen candidates are running to replace Alaska’s staunchly pro-Trump Republican Governor Mike Dunleavy, who is barred by term limits from seeking a third term. Among them is former Governor Bill Walker, who is running as an independent. Republican candidates include former state Senators Click Bishop, Shelley Hughes and Lesil McGuire, former Anchorage Mayor Dave Bronson, former state revenue Commissioner Adam Crum, Matanuska-Susitna Borough Mayor Edna DeVries, former state Attorney General Treg Taylor and business owner and conservative activist Bernadette Wilson.

Former state Senator Tom Begich and former state Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins are the two Democrats in the race.

Meanwhile, sixteen candidates are running for Alaska’s US Senate seat, but the race has two chief frontrunners: incumbent Republican Senator Dan Sullivan and former Democratic Representative Mary Peltola. The Cook Political Report ranks the race among the country’s most competitive Senate contests.

Why the Senate race matters nationally

Though Alaska has not sent a Democrat to the Senate since 2008, former Representative Peltola, who represented Alaska in the US House from 2022 to 2025, demonstrated that a Democrat can win statewide there.

The race has drawn millions in campaign spending, including money being spent to elevate political unknowns who are unlikely to win the seat, but could materially alter the November field.

Super PACs have spent more than $2m trying to boost candidates who are not considered serious contenders for the seat, according to Alaska Public Media.

An Alaska Survey Research poll conducted in March found Peltola ahead of Sullivan among primary voters, 46.4 percent to 40.9 percent. In a simulated general-election matchup using Alaska’s ranked-choice system, Peltola also polled ahead of Sullivan.

A tale of two Dan Sullivans

There is an unusual Senate subplot: two Republicans named Dan Sullivan are on the ballot. One is the incumbent senator; the other, Dan J Sullivan Jr is a retired teacher from Petersburg. The state’s Division of Elections initially removed him from the ballot after determining that his candidacy appeared intended to confuse voters, but the Alaska Supreme Court later ordered officials to restore him to the primary ballot.

That creates a problem that is particularly acute in Alaska’s primary. Unlike the November election, the primary is not ranked-choice: voters select a single candidate, and the four highest vote-getters prevail in the general election. With two Dan Sullivans vying for the same electoral spot, even a relatively small number of mistaken votes could influence which candidate clears the hurdle.

Senator Sullivan will appear on the ballot as “Dan S. Sullivan” alongside the labels of “Registered Republican” and “Incumbent”. Challenger Sullivan will be listed as “Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.” without any party affiliation listed, although he filed for office as a Republican.

On Israel, Sullivan and Peltola find common ground

Much of the attention around incumbent Dan Sullivan’s fundraising reflects the issues that have defined his Senate career, including his strong support for Israel and his hawkish approach to Iran.

The 61-year-old has repeatedly backed military aid and closer US-Israel defence ties while vehemently opposing efforts by the International Criminal Court (ICC) to prosecute Israeli officials. His congressional record includes repeated efforts to maintain or strengthen sanctions on Iran.

Sullivan’s reelection run has attracted substantial backing from high-profile political organisations, including the Republican Senate Leadership Fund, which has committed at least $15m towards his campaign. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC ) has also helped funnel about $250,000 in individual contributions to Sullivan during the first quarter of 2026.

Peltola has also championed Israel-related legislation during her time in the House, and sometimes even broke with fellow Democrats on Israel-related votes. The Jewish Democratic Council of America, which describes itself as advocating for a strong US-Israel relationship, endorsed her Senate campaign back in March.

Wyoming

When do polls in Wyoming open and close?

Voting begins at 7am local time (13:00 GMT) and ends at 7pm local time (01:00 GMT the following day).

What’s one big race to watch?

The Senate Republican primary.

In deep-red Wyoming, the Senate primary is less a contest about whether the GOP will hold the seat than about which Republican candidate will win it.

The Cowboy State has voted Republican in every presidential election since 1964, with the exception of 1976, when Jimmy Carter carried Wyoming. The Senate race is also interesting because it is an open-seat succession fight.

What are the important races in the Wyoming primary election?

The US’s least populated state is in for a political makeover, with a shake-up at nearly every level. With incumbent Senator Cynthia Lummis declining to seek re-election and Representative Harriet Hageman relinquishing her House post to try to succeed her in the Senate, Wyoming is poised for an unusually broad reshuffling in elected officeholders.

Wyoming’s Republican Party is divided between a hard-right bloc that already controls the state House and more traditional conservatives who retain greater influence in the Senate.

Hageman, the Trump-backed hard-lined congresswoman who rose to national prominence after unseating Liz Cheney in the 2022 Republican primary, is the clear favourite to succeed retiring Senator Cynthia Lummis. Among the other Republicans running to replace Lummis in the US Senate are former Kirby Mayor Sam Mead and former environmental services business owner Jimmy Skovgard.

In an April interview with Jackson Hole Community Radio (KHOL), Mead said that the endorsements Hageman received from Trump, Lummis and Barrasso come with an expectation that she will support the administration “no matter what.” While Mead has promised that he would push back against Trump on public lands, tariffs and foreign wars when he believes the administration’s policies run counter to Wyoming’s interests.

Nine active candidates are competing for the Republican nomination to replace Hageman in the US House in what’s shaping up to be the most expensive contest on Tuesday’s ballot. The field includes former state Superintendent of Public Instruction Jillian Balow, state Senate President Bo Biteman, businessmen Steve Friess and Reid Rasner, and Wyoming Secretary of State Chuck Gray.

United States President Donald Trump has threatened to bomb Oman if it “gets in the way” of a peace deal between the US and Iran.

Oman is currently negotiating with Iran over the reopening of the critical Strait of Hormuz, while Iran has repeatedly stated that it will not speak directly to the US.

On Monday, as Iranian officials said they were close to announcing an agreement with Oman, a 60-day Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Washington and Tehran – which had provided for a period of peace talks but largely fell apart early on – expired with little hope for renewal.

This is not the first time Trump has threatened Oman, a US ally which has never entered into any direct conflict with the US. Oman, through whose territorial waters the contested Strait of Hormuz also flows, has positioned itself as a neutral party in the US-Iran war. Despite that, it has suffered a number of strikes by Iran, which has targeted US military assets and infrastructure around the region in retaliation for US-Israeli attacks.

Now, Trump is threatening to strike it as well.

Here is more about what Trump has threatened, and why.

What did Trump threaten Oman with?

Trump told US broadcaster Fox News on Monday that Iran should surrender, and claimed that his administration had opened a direct backchannel for talks with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

During the interview, he threatened to bomb US ally Oman if it “gets in the way” of US talks with Iran.

“If Oman gets in the way, we’ll bomb the s*** out of them,” he said.

An IRGC spokesman denied Trump’s claim of direct talks, telling Iran’s semi-official Tasnim News: “There are no talks taking place between IRGC officials and the Americans, and this lie by Trump is merely fantasies caused by the delusions and nightmares he has suffered as a result of defeat and desperation in the war.”

Has he threatened Oman before?

Monday was not the first time Trump threatened Oman over the course of the five-month war between the US and Iran. In May, he made a similar threat.

At a cabinet meeting on May 27, a reporter asked Trump what he thought about the idea of Oman and Iran jointly overseeing shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

“ Would you accept a short-term deal that allows Iran and Oman to control the strait?” the reporter asked.

Trump replied with a seemingly offhand threat. “Nobody is going to control it. It’s international waters, and Oman will behave just like everybody else, or we will have to blow them up.”

While there was initial speculation that Trump might have misspoken and said “Oman” instead of “Iran”, the US State Department later shared the comment on social media, with a transcript of the quote that referred to the Arab country.

What is the context for all this?

For the past few weeks, Iran and Oman have been engaged in direct talks, facilitated by mediators in Qatar, to reach an agreement over how to manage maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz in the future.

While Iran had agreed to keep the strait open to shipping without charge for 60 days following the signing of the MoU with the US on June 17, this quickly fell apart as the two sides disagreed over who had ultimate control over the strait – in particular which routes ships should take. Towards the end of June, Iran launched strikes on a number of ships which had followed an Oman-issued route, approved by the US, rather than its own route, and the US restarted strikes on Iran for nearly two weeks.

Following that, Iran refused to talk directly to the US, saying it had violated the terms of the MoU which included a cessation of hostilities on all fronts, and began talks with Oman over the future of the strait instead. Iran also issued a list of new demands relating to the lifting of sanctions and a permanent end to US strikes before it would resume talks, it said.

On Monday, Tehran said the two countries have reached an agreement on a new shipping route in the strait and are now preparing a joint declaration.

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said the proposed mechanism for control of the strait seeks to protect the interests of both Iran and Oman while allowing commercial shipping to pass through.

“This is the first time that a mechanism is being developed to simultaneously safeguard the sovereign rights of the two littoral states and ensure the safe passage of commercial vessels,” said Baghaei.

The Strait of Hormuz is a critical waterway through which one-fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies were shipped before the US-Israel war on Iran began on February 28. Roughly 130 ships sailed through the strait each day.

Iran closed the strait in early March, allowing only a few ships it deemed “friendly” to pass through the strait until it signed the MoU with the US on June 17. Since then, it has become the key issue holding up talks for a lasting peace plan to end the war on Iran.

The US, meanwhile, has established its own blockade on Iranian ports in and around the strait. Last week, it fired on a Panama-flagged cargo vessel it accused of attempting to reach Iranian ports and which, it said, had failed to follow orders to change course.

The crisis has triggered global energy shortages and the price of oil has soared. The price of Brent crude, the global benchmark, was about $66 a barrel just before the Middle East conflict began. Over the course of the war, the price has surged past $100 on several occasions, most recently on July 23. In March, the price rose as high as $119.

Global benchmark Brent crude futures rose to $91.22 a barrel on Tuesday, inching close to a three-week high.

What is Oman’s position on the Iran war?

Oman, which is known for its neutrality, has not publicly stated that it intends to join Iran in controlling the Strait of Hormuz. The US and Oman are close partners with a relationship stretching back nearly 200 years.

The two countries have multiple cooperation treaties, including security partnerships, a free trade agreement and a science and technology deal.

During the war, Iran launched multiple strikes on US military assets and energy infrastructure in neighbouring countries, including Oman.

Oman previously acted as a key mediator between Washington and Tehran as they sought a resolution to the war that began on February 28, when the US and Israel attacked Iran.

So, why is Trump threatening Oman now?

A potential Iran-Oman understanding covering the Strait of Hormuz could cut against one of Washington’s core demands: that Iran relinquish control of the strait as a condition of ending the war. Rather than curbing that control, such a deal would lend it greater legitimacy by formalising Iran’s position.

But experts say Trump is also likely angry that the US has seemingly been cut out of the deal relating to the strait.

“In part, a solution mediated without US intervention and which in fact allows Oman and Iran to manage passage through Hormuz, which lies entirely within the two countries’ territorial waters, would show how impotent the United States is and has been,” Laleh Khalili, a professor of Gulf studies at the University of Exeter, told Al Jazeera.

The US and Iran have also strongly disagreed about whether Iran should be allowed to charge fees to shipping companies using the strait. Under international law, tolls for passing through natural waterways such as Hormuz are forbidden, even when they are not technically in international waters. However, fees for services such as insurance, environmental protection and docking can be charged. It has yet to be seen whether this issue will be addressed in an Iran-Oman agreement.

In late July, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned that Iran should not be allowed to charge tolls on vessels traversing Hormuz. Days earlier, Trump himself pledged there would be no tolls for passage through the strait, unless they are collected by his own country.

On August 14, Trump went a step further, telling his supporters in New York that he had plans to declare the Strait of Hormuz a “territory” of the US. “After we finish defeating Iran, which is being very badly defeated, pretty soon I’ll be declaring the Hormuz Strait a territory of the United States,” Trump said.

Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister for legal and international affairs, responded to that threat on social media with defiance.

“Trump said that, after Iran’s defeat, he will soon declare the Strait of Hormuz as American territory,” Gharibabadi wrote.

“The Strait of Hormuz cannot be taken over by a tweet, nor by an aircraft carrier, nor by issuing a decree, nor by an election speech. Iran is neither afraid of threats nor intimidated by a show of force.”

The nearly nine-month extended deployment of the USS Abraham Lincoln in the Middle East has triggered a mental health crisis among the crew so intense that some sailors have tried to jump overboard, according to some US media reports.

Family members of the exhausted military crew on board the flagship aircraft carrier, reportedly located in the Gulf region, say there are food shortages, while broken toilets and showers have contributed to unsanitary conditions and poor health.

More than 5,000 staff members have been on board the vessel, which has been conducting maritime security and blockade operations at present around the Strait of Hormuz, for that time. It set sail on November 21, 2025 from its homeport of San Diego for an extended deployment to the Asia Pacific and the Middle East.

Since then, the ship has made just one single-day port stop at Naval Base Guam from December 11-12. The lack of port stops is a major issue for a ship the size and complexity of the USS Abraham Lincoln, experts say.

As US President Donald Trump and his defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, declare the United States is ready to continue an “indefinite” blockade on Iranian ports in the Gulf, we look at how this compares with other lengthy aircraft carrier deployments.

What is happening on board the USS Abraham Lincoln?

Reports by two US publications that cover military affairs, the Navy Times and Stars and Stripes, last week quoted family members of military personnel on board the vessel who said they were suffering from declining mental health and morale, and cases of suicidal ideation.

The Navy Times spoke on record with one sailor’s wife, identified as Annabelle Loma, who said he had attempted to jump overboard amid what she described as “severe burnout”.

The reports prompted urgent questions from US lawmakers. On Sunday, Admiral Brad Cooper, commander of US Central Command (CENTCOM), reportedly visited the USS Lincoln.

He praised the crew and stated on social media that “service at sea for long periods isn’t for everyone, while claiming the ship has the lowest number of mental health-related cases of the navy’s 11 active aircraft carriers. “It is uniquely challenging and tough, and every single one of us, including me, reacts to stressors in different ways,” he said.

But there is growing concern among Republican and Democratic lawmakers over what they see as a lack of accountability after Hegseth dismissed mental health reports last week as “completely misrepresented”.

When Trump was asked last week whether the USS Lincoln had been at sea for too long, he told reporters: “No, not nearly long enough.”

The USS Lincoln mission was supposed to end in May but has been extended repeatedly since then.

Last week, it emerged that another ship, the USS George Washington, has been rerouted from its position in the Pacific and will arrive in the Gulf within a week to take over duties from the Lincoln.

How long can US aircraft carrier deployments be?

The longest aircraft carrier deployment since the Vietnam War was the USS Gerald R Ford’s 326-day mission, which began in June 2025, under Trump’s second term in the White House.

That mission included NATO exercises in the Mediterranean, support for the US military operation that captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, and operations in the Red Sea during the US-Israel war on Iran.

After beginning its mission as a routine deployment to the Asia Pacific region, the Ford then moved into the South China Sea for security operations, before being deployed to the Arabian Sea and the Gulf of Oman to help the US enforce its naval blockade of the Iranian ports.

During this time, the USS Ford met several technical problems, including an onboard fire, which also triggered congressional scrutiny back home.

Lengthy deployments during the Vietnam War

Some of the longest aircraft carrier deployments in US history took place in and around the Gulf of Tonkin during the Vietnam War, with the USS Midway operating for 332 days, the USS Coral Sea operating for 329 days and the USS Saratoga operating for 308 days.

Similar to the USS Lincoln, they faced issues as well. Reports said the intense flight schedule of the active air combat during the Vietnam War pushed crew and operations to their limits.

While there are a number of lengthy aircraft carrier deployments from other countries, they pale in comparison to the US Navy’s record.

Russia’s Admiral Kuznetsov conducted a five-month mission to the Syrian coast which began in October 2016, but suffered several technical breakdowns, including aircraft losses.

The United Kingdom’s HMS Queen Elizabeth completed a seven-month deployment in 2021, which included combat strikes on targets in Iraq and Syria, despite significant breakdowns due to engineering issues.

Why is this issue so critical?

Many lawmakers have raised questions over whether the US can maintain an “indefinite” blockade in the Gulf if conditions on board a flagship aircraft carrier are so dire.

In a letter to Hegseth last week, Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal raised the alarm over reports of deteriorating mental health on board, as well as shortages of basic supplies, water contamination, an increase in safety incidents and even disruptions to mail services, through which those on board receive care packages.

“These reports warrant immediate attention, but they also raise a broader question: whether the Navy can sustain the operational tempo now being demanded of its carrier force, particularly as this administration repeatedly commits US forces to conflicts of its own choosing and increasingly relies on aircraft carriers to sustain those operations,” Blumenthal wrote.

Experts say the lack of port stops is a major issue for the USS Abraham Lincoln.

Harlan Ullman, a retired senior naval officer and chairman of the strategic advisory firm Killowen Group, told Al Jazeera that ships require onshore care to keep advanced technology operational over long periods.

“Ships need maintenance, particularly ships that are extremely complicated with very advanced weapon systems such as nuclear-powered carriers with very advanced systems, and there are things that you cannot do in terms of maintenance under way,” Ullman said.

“There are lots of things that you can do at sea, but there are far more things that can only be done in port,” he pointed out.

Ullman noted that extended deployments “erode the readiness and capability of that ship the longer it’s at sea, and it lacks the ability to repair and extend maintenance”.

He added that the Trump administration must prioritise naval readiness over politics, saying “this is a national issue, not a local one; and the administration should not be so defensive. It should say, ‘OK, we’ll see what’s going on, and then if there are some issues, we’ll take care of them.’”

What are the drawbacks of deploying aircraft carriers?

Aircraft carriers are built to be on deployment for many months at a time. However, that comes with a high cost, as extended cruises increase the risk of technical breakdowns and can also lead to reduced staff morale and mental health concerns.

Large aircraft carriers are expensive. The USS Abraham Lincoln cost $2.2bn to build in 1989, and it costs tens of millions of dollars to operate on a daily basis.

Recent conflicts in the Red Sea have also underscored the vulnerability of large aircraft carriers. Houthi rebels, who do not possess a formal navy, have nevertheless managed to put significant pressure on large US Navy aircraft carriers operating near the limits of their missile range.

At one point during the US-Israel war on Iran, the USS Gerald Ford was forced to sail hundreds of miles away from the Iranian coast to reduce the risk of being hit by missiles, limiting its effectiveness.

Sunday marks one week since Israeli settlers began their siege of Qusra, a Palestinian village south of Nablus in the occupied West Bank.

Since August 9, dozens of Israeli settlers have surrounded three Palestinian homes in the Ras al-Ain area on the edge of the village, cutting off water and electricity as food and other supplies run low. About 15 Palestinians from the Abu Rida and Hassan families live in these homes, among them two children under the age of seven and one belonging to a dual US citizen. Residents said settlers from nearby outposts have been trying to take the properties for months.

On Thursday, the Israeli military ordered the residents of two of the houses to leave and forced them all into the third. That same day, US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, a staunch supporter of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, described the settlers besieging the homes as “Israeli terrorists“. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned the siege, calling it criminal and inhumane.

Over the course of the week, the Israeli army declared the area a closed military zone and blocked Israeli and foreign activists from reaching the besieged families. Reporting from Qusra on Sunday, Al Jazeera’s Nour Odeh said the UN was able to bring in some aid that morning after coordinating with the Israeli military.

Where is Qusra?

Qusra sits in Area B, which makes up about 21 percent of the West Bank. It is where the Palestinian Authority runs civil affairs, such as education, healthcare and the economy, but Israel retains full security control and its forces can enter at will.

Odeh said the sequence in Qusra is following a pattern repeated across the West Bank: The Israeli army deploys to an area, takes over Palestinian homes and dispossesses residents of their properties while settlers face no arrests.

Average of six settler attacks each day

According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, from January 2025 to June 2025, there were at least 3,033 settler attacks in the occupied West Bank – an average of six per day.

Settlements built illegally on Palestinian land

Last month, a similar siege in the neighbouring village of Jalud displaced Palestinian families from their land, which settlers then took over. Qusra itself has faced repeated attacks, including the burning of a newly built mosque last month.

Since October 7, 2023, when Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza began, settler attacks and land grabs have intensified in the West Bank under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing government, which has backed a rapid expansion of settlements.

About 700,000 Israelis live in settlements, which are illegal under international law. About three million Palestinians also live in the West Bank. Israel has occupied the region since 1967.

President Donald Trump on Friday said he would designate the Strait of Hormuz a territory of the United States “pretty soon” as the status of the waterway, a global chokepoint through which a fifth of global oil and gas passes, remains under a military and diplomatic deadlock.

Iran has fired back, dubbing Trump’s threats as “nonsense” as the memorandum of understanding signed between the two in June expires on Sunday.

Tehran has blocked the passage to leverage it as a global economy kill switch, while Washington has maintained a military naval blockade against Iran’s ports, choking its economy further.

In the apparent game of who blinks first – though Trump says negotiation with Iran “is like chess” – the US president’s military rhetoric has also followed a pattern throughout the ongoing war, which began on February 28. On many occasions, he has threatened to attack Iran only to pull back at the eleventh hour.

So, can the US actually make the Strait of Hormuz its territory? And what does that even mean?

What has Trump said?

“After we finish defeating Iran, which is being very badly defeated, pretty soon I’ll be declaring the Hormuz Strait a territory of the United States,” Trump said during a speech at a police academy in New York.

Referring to the naval blockade, Trump went a step further to suggest that the Strait of Hormuz is already a US territory. “Essentially, that’s what it is,” he added.

“We have the blockade. No ships get through unless we want them to,” he said.

Iran maintains that it controls the waterway — and despite the US claims, some vessels have transited the passage despite the blockade, maritime navigation data shows.

“It’s clear the US president, with a chuckle as he said that, even himself, is not taking this particularly seriously,” said Al Jazeera’s Kimberly Halkett, reporting from Washington, DC.

“These are the territorial waters of Iran and Oman. But what the US president likes to do is get under the skin of adversaries, and, in this case, it’s Iran,” she said.

“What we should point out, though, is what the US president is not backing down on is the fact that there is a naval blockade by the United States in effect in the Strait of Hormuz, and that is ongoing.

How has Iran reacted to it?

Several Iranian officials have sharply reacted to Trump’s remarks. The head of the judiciary came out with furious rhetoric, calling the US president criminal and feather-headed, his remarks “nonsense” and saying the Strait of Hormuz belongs to Iran.

Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister, also responded, saying, “The Strait of Hormuz cannot be seized by tweet, nor by aircraft carrier, nor by issuing an order, nor by an election speech.”

“The Strait of Hormuz has been Iranian, is Iranian, and will remain Iranian; this strait will only be closed and opened under Iran’s command, and as long as you do not accept the reality of defeat and cease your fanciful delusions, Iran will continue to enforce the blockade,” he added.

Meanwhile, Iran has been holding talks with Oman, the only other coastal country in the strait, to reach a settlement on the management of maritime traffic in the strait. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, in comments carried by the Iranian Students’ News Agency, said negotiations between Tehran and Muscat “may reach a conclusion soon”.

The reopening of the waterway, however, is a separate issue, Araghchi said, where Washington has to adhere to promises made in the June memorandum of understanding, including removal of the naval blockade and sanctions on Iran.

That is the new Iranian position on the ongoing war, where Tehran is now seeking these US concessions for mere reopening of the waterway, which were originally conditions for ending the war.

Is Trump’s claim even practical?

First, sovereignty does not exchange hands over a mere unilateral presidential proclamation.

For instance, Trump had earlier threatened to send US boots to Iran’s Kharg Island to take over the key Iranian oil export hub in the Gulf. Tehran then responded by saying that its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps would be waiting for them, “with fingers on the trigger”. Trump had previously also threatened to take over Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark.

Bruce Fein, associate deputy attorney general under President Ronald Reagan, says Trump is constitutionally powerless to annex on his own.

“A treaty ratified by the Senate or statute is constitutionally required to annex territory, as with the Louisiana Purchase or annexation of Hawaii or Panama Canal or acquisition of Puerto Rico or the Philippines in ending the Spanish-American War.

If he goes ahead with annexation, Fein says, it would “constitute the crime of aggressive war under international law, including the UN Charter”.

Natalie Klein, a specialist in international law and associate dean at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, said, “Essentially the only way Trump’s claim could have any plausibility under international law would be if the US was asserting control over the Strait as an occupying power perhaps comparable to the authority the US exercised over Japan immediately after World War II.”

“But in that scenario, the US would need to have military control over Iran or at least its coastal areas.”

Trump’s war on Iran is also widely unpopular in the US, where the president and his fellow Republicans are seeking to defend their narrow congressional majorities in November’s midterm elections. Barely 35 percent of Americans approve of the war, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.

Several US media publications have reported that Washington is running short on munitions, including the crucial Patriot antimissile interceptor. Petrol prices have also increased, and are now averaging more than $4 a gallon – a major issue for Americans.

Last week, US Vice President JD Vance said the Trump administration’s top priority in the war was to control increasing petrol prices, while stopping Iran’s supposed race to a nuclear weapon now comes second.

Tehran has also attacked its neighbours in the Gulf, which analysts say are aimed at forcing the regional countries to push Washington into a corner at the negotiating table.

Even Iran does not enjoy unfettered sovereignty over the strait as a whole, under international laws, including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), but only some coastal sites near its own borders.

The UNCLOS recognises coastal-state sovereignty over territorial waters, but limits that territorial sea to 12 nautical miles (22km), and notes that ships enjoy a right of passage that “shall not be impeded”.

The Strait of Hormuz is in international waters, sandwiched between the coasts of Iran and Oman. At its narrowest point, the strait is only about 21 nautical miles (39km) wide — and the two countries’ 12-nautical mile territorial seas overlap across it.

While neither the US nor Iran has ratified UNCLOS, the convention’s rules on international straits are widely regarded as customary law.

Paul Musgrave, an associate professor of government at Georgetown University in Qatar, said Trump usually makes such statements primarily to speak to a US audience, especially his support base.

It is important to remember, he added, that Trump is a product of US reality TV and is, at the end of the day, a “showman”.

“This is a guy who speaks big. You have to take him seriously in some cases but not literally,” Musgrave cautioned.

Trump cannot be taken seriously, especially in this case because making the strait US territory is physically and legally impossible, he said. But the statements do show that Trump is determined not to back down from Iran and accept defeat in the months-long war, he added.

A vast oil spill from a leaking tanker reached Oman’s coastline on Wednesday, its environment agency said.

This oil spill threatens to become one of the world’s worst in years after spreading largely unchecked for several weeks, experts say.

On Monday, Oman said it was working to contain the spill, which had by then affected roughly 390 square kilometres (150sq miles), according to analysis by the country’s environment agency.

The slick now covers an area of more than 2,000sq km (770sq miles), said John Amos, an oil spill specialist who reviewed satellite imagery obtained by Reuters. It could affect about 40km (25 miles) of coast near Ras Madraka, as well as Masirah Island, Oman’s Environment Authority said.

Here’s what we know.

What happened?

Oil has been leaking from the tanker Caroline Bezengi since it ran aground about 22 nautical miles (41km) from the Omani coastal town of Sharbithat some time after the crew reported a suspected explosion on June 8. It had been en route from Russia to India.

Reuters reported that the tanker was carrying an estimated 800,000 barrels of sanctioned oil and that it ran aground on June 30.

An investigation by the news agency AFP found that the ship had been stranded for several weeks near Oman’s al-Qibliyyah Island.

In the meantime, the oil has been spreading towards Oman’s coastline.

The Oman News Agency (ONA) quoted the country’s environment authority saying that “today’s monitoring results showed that some beaches in the Ras Madrakah area were affected by oil pollution”.

The Indian Ocean town sits about 200km (125 miles) from al-Qibliyyah.

The slick is now concentrated around the Hallaniyat Archipelago off the southern coast, where a marine reserve was established last year to protect sensitive ecosystems home to diverse marine life, including rare sea turtles.

On Wednesday, the ONA reported that “a coastal stretch of up to 40 km in the [Ras Madrakah] area is expected to be affected”.

The southern beaches of Masirah Island, which lies 15km (nine miles) off the coast of Oman, could be contaminated “in the coming hours”, affecting a 10-20km (six-to-12-mile) stretch of coastline, it said.

An unnamed spokesperson for the United Nations International Maritime Organization said it was “closely monitoring” the leakage.

How did this happen?

British maritime security company Vanguard told AFP that the tanker had suffered “explosions” in early June as it sailed off the coast of Yemen, causing water to enter several sections of the vessel. It ran aground off the coast of Oman some time after this.

There has been no official explanation for the explosions and no party has claimed an attack. However, the vessel was navigating two separate wars on its journey from Russia to India. Tankers have been frequently targeted in the Gulf region in recent months as the US war on Iran has continued.

In April, the Caroline Bezengi sailed from the Russian port of Novorossiysk on the Black Sea, a flashpoint in the Russia-Ukraine war.

It is believed to be part of Russia’s “shadow fleet” used to circumvent Western sanctions on its oil exports. It last sailed under a Cameroonian flag.

Rentoor Shipmanagement and Villar Shipmanagement, both based in China, are registered as the ship’s owner and operator, respectively, according to the open-source database OpenSanctions.

Russia’s shadow fleet includes ageing vessels that have often been criticised for poor maintenance, lack of insurance and lacklustre safety standards.

Ukraine has previously carried out assaults on shadow fleet vessels believed to be carrying Russian oil.

The Caroline Bezengi then passed through the Suez Canal at the end of May, ship-tracking data shows, before sailing through the Red Sea and past Yemen, where the Iran-aligned Houthi fighters have entered a wider regional war between the United States, Israel and Iran and are targeting Saudi Arabia-flagged ships.

What damage could the oil spill cause?

Last week, advocacy group Greenpeace warned that the spill was on the verge of causing an “environmental disaster”.

Christopher D’Elia, a specialist in oil spills and a professor emeritus at Louisiana State University in the United States, told Al Jazeera the estimated 800,000 barrels of crude on board the Caroline Bezengi would amount to a “fairly large spill”.

“This spill raises a lot of issues,” D’Elia told Al Jazeera.

“These illegal tankers don’t comply with the ‘polluter pays’ principle that is the basis for how the US and other developed nations regulate spills,” D’Elia said.

“The ‘responsible party’ must finance the cleanup in the US. In this case, there is no responsible party.”

Meanwhile, Iranian media reported on Wednesday that a separate oil spill in the Strait of Hormuz had reached the island of Qeshm, affecting beaches and an environmentally sensitive mangrove forest.

State-run news agency IRNA said the slick had affected areas on Qeshm’s southern coast, as well as parts of the smaller neighbouring island of Hengam.

Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said pollution had been observed at three locations and on the sea surface, adding that its source seemed to be a “foreign bulk carrier”, without specifying the name of the ship.

The risk of oil spills in the Gulf has risen sharply because of strikes on tankers during the five-month US-Iran war. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has reported 65 incidents in the Strait of Hormuz and across the Middle East since the beginning of March.

“Any party that benefits from commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz is legally and morally obligated to take action to compensate for and remedy the environmental damage caused to the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman,” he said.

Iran continues to deny claims by the United States that it controls the Strait of Hormuz as talks aimed at negotiating a peace deal between the two sides falter.

US President Donald Trump repeated his claim that the US is in “total control” of the critical waterway on Wednesday, but was met with angry denials from Iran, which has stated that it will not reopen the strait until demands regarding US aggression, reparations and sanctions are met.

“Claims and repeated posts by US officials that the Strait of Hormuz is no longer blocked do not change the reality,” Iran’s Persian Gulf Strait Authority (PGSA) posted on X on Wednesday.

“The Strait of Hormuz remains blocked and will not be reopened until Iran’s conditions are accepted,” it added.

Here’s what we know about the latest developments in the strait, through which one-fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies are shipped during peacetime, and the prospects for ongoing talks.

What’s the latest on the US-Iran standoff?

Iranian forces are currently preventing ships that do not have its express approval from navigating through the narrow strait, which passes through territorial waters of Iran and Oman.

Despite Trump’s claim that the US has control over the strait, shipping traffic through the key waterway has dropped to a one-week low as a result of Iran’s blockade.

Meanwhile, the US is operating a naval blockade on Iranian ports both in and around the strait. On Tuesday, US forces targeted a Panama-flagged vessel they said was headed for an Iranian port, in the Gulf of Oman, and which they alleged had failed to respond to warnings.

On Thursday, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the US “has long miscalculated due to intelligence failures”, including when launching its war on Iran, which it did alongside Israel with strikes on Tehran on February 28.

In a post on X, Araghchi said Washington’s actions in the Strait of Hormuz were “an even bigger miscalculation”.

“Worse than fake news is fake intelligence,” he said.

Hojjatoleslam Hossein Taeb, the commander of the paramilitary Basij Organisation – an affiliate of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) – reiterated that the strait is “under Iran’s control and management”.

“Today you see that the Strait of Hormuz is under the management and control of the Islamic Republic, and our country continues on its path in complete security,” Taeb said on Thursday, according to Iran’s semi-official Fars news agency.

“The Americans saw the power of the Islamic revolution,” he added.

What do we know about Iran-Oman talks?

Iran says it is not talking directly to the US about the strait. Instead, it says it is holding talks with Oman, which it proposes to share in the future management of the strait.

Following the signing of a memorandum of understanding between Iran and the US on June 17, under which Iran undertook to keep the strait open for 60 days, there were soon disagreements about control of the waterway and the routes that ships should take. Iran fired on some ships it said had not followed its permitted route, leading to a renewal of hostilities with the US.

Iran also disagreed with the US over whether it could charge fees to ships passing through the strait. As a result, the strait – which was fully and freely open to all shipping before the US launched its war on Iran – has become the main obstacle to the progression of wider peace talks.

Now, talks between Iran and Oman are aimed at ironing out these issues.

On Tuesday, Qatar said negotiations between Iran and Oman over the strait had reached “an advanced stage”.

“As mediators, we want the Strait of Hormuz reopened as soon as possible,” Qatari Foreign Ministry spokesman Majed al-Ansari said during a news conference.

Negotiators are trying to reach a compromise that would allow commercial shipping to resume while addressing the security concerns of both Iran and Oman.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman has said talks with Oman are focused on “establishing safe inbound and outbound shipping lanes” that “uphold sovereign rights while also addressing the national security considerations of both Iran and Oman”.

Last week, Iran said it had agreed on the coordinates for these shipping lanes with Oman.

What do we know about broader peace talks between Iran and the US?

Iran says it is not speaking directly to the US because it has violated the June 17 MoU by restarting strikes on Iran in July.

Now, Pakistan is making efforts to mediate peace talks. It said on Tuesday it was working to bring the US and Iran “to the negotiating table”, as Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi held talks with senior Iranian officials in Tehran.

In April, the US and Iran held face-to-face negotiations, with US Vice President JD Vance and Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf attending talks in Islamabad. On June 17, the two sides remotely signed the MoU, which was supposed to kick-start a 60-day negotiation process. However, various disagreements prevented that process from getting off the ground, and talks have stalled since then.

Alan Eyre, a distinguished diplomatic fellow with the Middle East Institute in Washington, DC, told Al Jazeera earlier this month that the only important negotiations taking place right now are Iran-Oman talks over the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran says it is not worth talking directly because it “can’t count on anything the US says”, Eyre said.

Commenting on the possibility of future talks between the longtime foes, Negar Mortazavi, senior fellow at the US-based Center for International Policy, said the key question is whether the escalatory rhetoric from both sides is “opening negotiating positions or actual red lines”.

“If both sides are prepared to compromise, there is still a path towards ending the conflict and reopening the strait,” Mortazavi told Al Jazeera on Wednesday.

“If they are not, Hormuz could remain restricted, and the confrontation risks becoming another prolonged, open-ended conflict in the Middle East.”

What are the latest demands from Iran and the US?

At the end of last week, Iran’s Supreme National Security Council set out new conditions it says the US must meet before the Strait of Hormuz can fully reopen.

The six conditions include an end to US threats against Iran and insults to what Zolghadr described as the country’s national and religious values; a permanent end to attacks against Iran and its allies in Lebanon, Palestine, Yemen and Iraq; the lifting of the US naval blockade and withdrawal of naval and air forces from around Iran; compensation for damage from what he called two “imposed wars”; the lifting of sanctions; and the unconditional release of frozen Iranian assets.

Trump told reporters at the White House on Monday that his administration was going to seek payment for “50 years” of damage caused by Iran, framing the move as a direct response to Tehran’s claims.

The payments, he said, would cover deaths among US forces in the region as well as civilian protesters in Iran, claiming that 52,000 people have been killed in Iran in the past four months. Tehran says some 3,117 people died in antigovernment protests that swept the country in January, prior to the launch of the US-Israel war. In February, the US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) reported about 7,000 deaths, including 6,500 protesters.

On Thursday, Al Jazeera’s Tohid Assidi reported, citing observers, that Iran is focused on two primary issues.

“First was the security assurances Iran sought, ensuring that a reached deal could pave the way for a period of stability in the country,” Assidi said.

“Second were economic concerns, primarily articulated in demands for the US naval blockade to be removed and sanctions frozen, which represented the key demands coming from the Iranian side,” he added.

Despite the rhetoric from Trump, analysts have told Al Jazeera that the US may have to concede to some of Iran’s demands as it faces growing pressure domestically to avoid another escalation.

The US media have reported that concerns over dwindling defensive munitions have contributed to Trump’s decision not to carry out his threatened large-scale strikes against Iran.

Three-quarters of the world has abolished the death penalty in law or in practice, according to Amnesty International.

Lebanon has become the first country in the Middle East to abolish the death penalty.

On Tuesday, a majority of the 128-member parliament voted in favour of scrapping capital punishment. Death sentences will be replaced with life imprisonment with aggravated hard labour.

Lebanon has observed an unofficial moratorium on executions since January 2004, but its courts have continued to issue dozens of death sentences.

At the end of 2025, 85 people were facing death sentences, according to the Lebanese Ministry of Justice’s Directorate of Prisons.

Which countries still have the death penalty?

According to the latest Amnesty International report on death sentences and executions, as of December, close to three-quarters of the world’s countries had abolished the death penalty in law or practice, meaning they have not carried out executions for the past 10 years.

Some countries have abolished the death penalty for “ordinary crimes” only, which refers to exceptional crimes such as those committed under military law or those committed in exceptional circumstances

Overall, this includes:

• Abolition for all crimes: 113 countries
• Abolition for ordinary crimes only: nine countries
• Abolition in practice: 23 countries
• Retention: 54 countries

The map below highlights where each country stands on capital punishment:

Amnesty International’s monitoring of worldwide use of the death penalty recorded 2,707 executions in 2025, up 78 percent from 1,518 in 2024. Amnesty attributed that spike primarily to executions in Iran, which more than doubled from 972 in 2024 to at least 2,159 in 2025.

Amnesty’s figures exclude what it says are thousands of executions that have been carried out in China. Executions were carried out in 17 countries, consistent with the historical lows seen since 2018.

A piece of a SpaceX rocket which has been floating in space since last year was believed to have crashed into the moon at high speed on Wednesday.

The event, not visible to the naked eye, is expected to be confirmed by experts monitoring it with a telescope.

This event posed no danger to Earth but was also expected to create a new lunar crater, experts said.

Here’s what we know so far.

Has the rocket hit the moon yet?

It is believed to have hit the moon already, but this has not yet been confirmed as it takes time for signals to return from the moon to the Earth. The rocket segment was expected to hit the moon around 2:35am ET (06:35 GMT) on Wednesday, crashing into the surface at 5,400mph (8,690km/h).

The ⁠rocket piece is believed to have hit Einstein Crater on the moon’s western limb, which is often difficult to see from Earth.

Weighing 4 metric tonnes (4,000kg), it was expected to kick up a plume of lunar dust that would likely be illuminated by sunlight but would be difficult to spot with the naked eye from Earth.

The crash landing is unintentional, SpaceX has said.

Which rocket did this piece of space debris come from?

It comes from a SpaceX Falcon 9, which is a reusable model and has been used for several space missions.

It is made of two parts: upper and lower. The lower part can detach from the upper part and return to Earth. It is the upper part of the rocket which likely crashed into the moon.

Is this dangerous for the Earth?

“There is no danger to Earth,” NASA spokesperson Jimi Russell said in a statement on Tuesday.

“NASA will continue to track the booster for training purposes, as well as later observe the impact site for scientific purposes.”

What was the Falcon 9 doing near the moon?

The Falcon 9 rocket took off last January from Florida, United States, carrying two lunar landers. The booster returned to Earth, but the upper segment remained in space to push the landers onwards.

After pushing the lunar landers onwards, the upper segment of the rocket typically falls back into Earth’s atmosphere and burns up or plunges into the ocean.

But, because the January lunar lander mission required more thrust than missions closer to Earth, the rocket’s second stage remained in space, floating aimlessly among thousands of other pieces of space junk that active satellites have to steer clear of as a matter of course.

According to the United Kingdom’s Natural History Museum, humans have launched thousands of objects into space since the 1950s. “When these spacecraft, rockets, and satellites stop working or break apart, they stay in orbit instead of falling back down right away,” it says.

Why was this rocket section heading to the moon?

It was not until earlier this year that astronomers determined that the rocket section, which had dumped its remaining fuel and could no longer be controlled, was on an orbital trajectory which would end at the moon.

Generally, for such “high-energy missions”, SpaceX performs a manoeuvre to make sure the second stage “is safe per the appropriate rules and regulations”, said Julianna Scheiman, director of NASA science missions at SpaceX, at a Monday news conference.

“We did that,” she continued, but “what has happened is essentially a mixture of solar activity and gravity forces have put it on a path towards the moon”.

Does it matter if part of a rocket crashes into the moon?

This collision raises concerns about human-made debris in space generally. The rocket section was just one of many pieces of “space junk” already orbiting Earth.

There are more than 46,000 pieces of space debris weighing a total of 17,000 tonnes currently in orbit, the European Space Agency reported in late July.

“The environmental impacts that we’re most concerned about include climate and the ozone hole,” Eloise Marais, atmospheric chemist in the geography department at University College London, told Al Jazeera last year.

“Depletion of the protective ozone layer results from chemicals released by rockets during launch that can undergo reactions that deplete ozone,” Marais added, explaining that air pollutants such as particles of soot, which can absorb sunlight and warm the atmosphere, are released during rocket launches.

NASA and SpaceX are discussing ways to prevent future lunar impacts, NASA’s Scheiman said. The US space agency plans to build a lunar base and send routine astronaut missions to the lunar surface beginning later this decade under its multibillion-dollar Artemis programme. It would not want errant pieces of space junk impacting those assets.

How common is it for space objects to crash into the moon?

Not very. The moon routinely weathers impacts from space debris, including meteoroids. Collisions with artificial objects are less common.

A Chinese rocket segment crashed into the moon in March 2022 after completing a lunar test mission.

In 2009, NASA intentionally crashed a rocket segment into the moon to study the plume of lunar material kicked up by the impact.

In the 1970s, NASA also intentionally crashed stages ⁠from its Saturn V moon rocket into the moon to study the impact’s seismic effects.

Several spacecraft intending to land softly on the moon in recent years have crashed instead.

• Russia’s nuclear-powered Luna-25 mission spun out of control and crashed ⁠in 2023. Its small power source of plutonium-238 likely remains harmlessly on the lunar surface.
• India’s Chandrayaan-2 lander mission crashed in 2019.
• Israel’s Beresheet lander crashed that same year. Among the Israeli lander’s payloads were tiny tardigrades, microscopic animals known for surviving radiation and other harsh environments and which may still be on the surface.

What are observers expecting to see?

Like many scientists, Scheiman said, “I also am very excited to see the observation.”

“This may be of some – probably minor – scientific interest, and we may learn some things from it,” said Bill Gray, creator of widely used astronomy software who published a report on the stage’s impact in April.

“It doesn’t present any danger to anyone, though it does highlight a certain carelessness about how leftover space hardware [junk] is disposed of.”

NASA hopes to soon establish a sustained human presence on the Moon, making it critical to better understand space debris in lunar orbit.

US President Donald Trump has threatened to fire US Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro, after she said the government would not press ahead with criminal charges of vandalism of Washington’s Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool against former Olympic athlete David Hearn.

The reflecting pool project is one of several changes to the landscape of Washington, DC that Trump has pursued during his second term in office.

But following a multimillion-dollar refurbishment ahead of the 250th anniversary of US independence this year, parts of the lining of the pool were seen floating on the surface, and algae turned the water from blue to green, which Trump claimed was caused by vandalism.

Hearn, 67, was among a number of people arrested for suspected criminal damage to the “American flag blue” lining of the pool.

Pirro, however, acknowledged last week that the pool’s peeling sealant appeared to be the result of a “botched installation”, putting her at odds with the US president.

On Monday, Trump sharply criticised Pirro, who he had appointed as attorney for the District of Columbia in May last year, saying she had “choked” under pressure from a judge and “folded like an umbrella”.

Pirro met the president on Monday as he pondered firing her, but sources familiar with the matter told US broadcaster CNN late on Monday that Trump held back from firing his long-term ally.

Who is Pirro, and why has the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool become a flashpoint in her relations with Trump?

Here’s what we know:

Why was Hearn arrested for vandalism?

David Hearn, who said he only visited the reflecting pool to find out what the fuss was about, was among at least seven people arrested or cited over alleged damage to the pool.

He says he had put his hand into the water to examine a piece of lining which had started peeling away on June 19. But he was accused of pulling the lining away, causing more than $1,000 in damage. He was charged with destruction of government property, an offence that carries a maximum prison sentence of 10 years.

His indictment was announced at a news conference held by Pirro on July 2. The prosecutor accused Hearn, an Olympic canoeist, of “forcefully and violently” ripping the newly installed liner of the reflecting pool, part of a renovation project Trump had championed.

She described his actions as “an affront to the dignity of our shared history” and warned that Hearn could face up to 10 years in prison for the destruction of government property.

Then, this week, the charges were dropped when Pirro announced the damage had most likely been caused by faulty installation of the lining.

The pool has since been drained.

Who is Pirro?

Born to Lebanese-American parents in June 1951 in Elmira, New York, Pirro is currently the US attorney for the District of Columbia. She was hand-picked by Trump in May last year for an interim period, and her position in the Senate was confirmed in August 2025.

According to the US government, Pirro has worked in the legal field for several decades, having started as an assistant district attorney for Westchester County, New York, in 1975 and later working as the first female judge in the Westchester County Court from 1990 to 1993.

She also became the first woman elected to serve as Westchester County district attorney for three consecutive terms from 1994 to 2005 and was the first female president of the District Attorneys Association of the State of New York.

Pirro also played a key role in starting the first domestic violence unit in a prosecutor’s office in the US and has authored eight books.

Besides politics, Pirro has also appeared on television in the US true crime series The Jinx, which aired in 2015, as well as hosting the reality show You the Jury, which aired in 2017.

What has Trump said about Pirro?

When Trump hand-picked Pirro as the attorney for the District of Columbia, he said he was confident she would improve Washington, DC.

“Jeanine Pirro, I have no doubt will be an exceptional US attorney for the District of Columbia, one of the truly most important positions in our country of any position, where she will restore public safety in our nation’s capital, break up vicious street gangs and criminal networks, and ensure equal justice under the law. You’ll see very, very big improvements in the DC area, that I can promise you,” Trump said when he appointed her on May 8, 2025.

Pirro, a Trump ally, vowed to tackle violence in the city and said DC would “again become a shining city on the hill in an America that President Trump has promised to make great again and will make safe again”.

But now, relations with Trump have frayed after Pirro refused to support the US president’s claim that the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool had been vandalised.

In a motion filed on Friday afternoon, Pirro acknowledged that the accusations levelled against Hearn did not appear to be substantiated.

“The damage was the result of a botched installation and not vandalism, as initially represented by [the Department of the Interior],” Pirro wrote.

Pirro emphasised she had not received the “new information” until after the criminal indictment against Hearn had been returned. She blamed, in part, the “barebones police reports” her office had received.

“It was not until after the return of the indictment, that the DOI [US Department of the Interior] provided additional documents to the [US Attorney’s Office for Washington, DC] indicating that damage to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool in June 2026 was the result of flawed installation by the contractor,” Pirro wrote.

She added that the pressure to finish the reflecting pool renovation project before the Independence Day holiday – marking the 250th anniversary of the US – contributed to the renovation’s failure. Trump had planned several events for the occasion.

“The rush to complete the project led to hasty and botched work that was not remediated before the project was finished and the fencing removed,” Pirro explained, citing delayed installation work, inclement weather and repeated testing failures.

Why is Trump so angry with Pirro?

Trump has aggressively pushed claims that the algae and tears to the lining in the reflecting pool are the result of vandalism.

“We caught some people vandalising our beautiful reflecting pool,” Trump said at a news conference in June. “They took a cutter, a box cutter, or something very sharp. Can you imagine? Where do these people come up with this? And they threw a little fertiliser in the water.”

Separately, he suggested those responsible should face “years in jail” for their alleged crimes.

After Pirro’s announcement, Trump said she should have continued pursuing the case.

“Pirro made a mistake. It was vandalism,” Trump said, adding he was “really disappointed” in Pirro and that “she folded like an umbrella”.

According to US media reports, he has also considered firing Pirro over the reflecting pool saga.

In a post on his Truth Social Platform on Saturday, Trump said: “I disagree 100% with Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, on the reflecting pool. I don’t know what she was thinking? To me, it was a pure case of VANDALISM.”

Trump and Pirro spoke by phone on Saturday, according to CNN. Sources familiar with the call said their conversation “wasn’t pretty”.

Following an in-person meeting with Pirro on Monday, sources told CNN that Trump had held back from firing her.

Neither the White House nor Pirro’s office has commented.

What happened to the reflecting pool?

The 618-metre (2,028-foot) Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool has served as the backdrop for many iconic moments in US history, including the 1963 March on Washington, when civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech.

It sits between the Washington Monument, a large obelisk, and the Lincoln Memorial, two popular tourist sites mere blocks from the White House. But the pool had long struggled with leaks along its granite edge and concrete bottom.

In April, Trump abruptly announced he would address the problem by relining the reflecting pool with swimming pool coating in the colour of the “American Flag Blue”.

The Trump administration granted a $13.1m contract to Atlantic Industrial Coatings, a company the president claimed to have worked with as a real estate developer, and which is led by one of his donors. The deal was struck without taking competitive bids, as is standard, on the basis that the renovation was necessary immediately.

By early June, Trump had announced the project was complete. But within days, a thick layer of green algae had appeared on the surface of the pool, and the blue coating appeared cracked, with sheets of paint flapping in the water.

On June 11, a National Park Service engineer observed that the reflecting pool’s new lining had begun to peel, Pirro said in her announcement.

Citing the engineer’s report, Pirro wrote that the damage to the pool appeared to have been caused by “over spraying and delamination”.

Just over one month into the war on Iran, US President Donald Trump made an apocalyptic threat that raised the alarm in Washington and Middle Eastern capitals alike, attached to a tight deadline.

If Iran didn’t immediately reopen the critical Strait of Hormuz, Trump warned on April 7, “a whole civilisation will die tonight, never to be brought back again”.

Tehran didn’t blink. And with two hours to the deadline, Trump walked back the threat and instead announced a two-week ceasefire, brokered by Islamabad.

Since then, the US president has repeated this pattern multiple times. It goes like this: Trump ups the ante, shaking up the markets, and then dials it back down at the 11th hour, apparently hoping this strategy will influence negotiations.

On Monday, Trump again insisted that negotiations were close to ending the war – and, yet again, gave “duplicitous” Iran “one last chance” to make a deal or suffer catastrophic strikes.

For its part, Tehran denies any ongoing talks with the US, saying it is only talking to Oman about how to manage the Hormuz strait, the closure of which has caused oil prices to soar amid havoc in energy markets around the world.

The war is now in its 23rd week, with no end to hostilities in sight, and both Washington and Tehran are more entangled than before, with additional variables in the conflict that could determine its direction.

So, how many times has Trump given Iran “one last chance” to make a deal or suffer the consequences, before walking his threat back? And how many times have we heard from the US president that a deal is just around the corner?

The times Trump threatened heavy attacks – before backing down

There have been several times since February 28, when the US and Israel launched their first joint attacks on Iran, that Trump has threatened an attack but did not follow through.

March

Less than a month into the war, Trump threatened Tehran over its closure of the Strait of Hormuz, saying the US would strike Iran’s power plants if the critical waterway was not reopened. Two days later, he postponed the strikes for five days, citing “progress” in talks.

As the delayed deadline neared on March 26, Trump delayed the strikes again, this time for 10 days, claiming that Tehran requested it.

April

Then came the April 7 threat that a whole “civilisation will die”, before Trump called off those strikes and announced a two-week ceasefire, to give Iran a chance to reach a peace deal.

No deal emerged. And then, after threatening to strike Iran “harder”, and in the final hours of the ceasefire, on April 21, Trump announced an indefinite ceasefire, saying Pakistani mediators had asked him to do so.

May

With those talks making no progress, Trump returned to his threats to strike Iran on May 17, saying “nothing will be left” of Iran if Tehran did not make a deal with the US.

But the next day, Trump again told reporters that he had decided to “put it off for a little while, hopefully maybe forever, but possibly for a little while, because we’ve had very big discussions with Iran”.

By May 27, US strikes were back on after negotiations faltered, once again.

June

On June 11, after two days of back-and-forth strikes, Trump threatened the US would take “total control” of Iran’s oil and gas industries. But then, a few hours later, he posted on social media, claiming there had been a breakthrough in negotiations and called off the attacks.

On June 17, the US and Iran signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), announcing a ceasefire and a 60-day period to complete negotiations for a lasting peace. Within days, that had fallen apart over the glaring gaps in the two sides’ positions over the contents of the MoU, triggered mainly by who had control of the Strait of Hormuz – and both sides returned to tit-for-tat, widening strikes.

July-August

On July 27, Trump halted the strikes, claiming the “perimeters of a deal” had been agreed to, but noting that Washington “is locked and loaded and ready to go against the Islamic Republic of Iran, at levels of Military Terror, Strength, and Power not seen since World War II”.

On Monday this week, Trump told reporters again that negotiations were close to ending the war and that this was Iran’s “last chance before decapitation”. The US has not followed up on this latest threat yet.

Iran denies it is talking to the US, although it may be holding indirect talks via mediators, analysts say.

The times Trump said Iran peace deal was imminent

Trump has insisted that Iran is “desperate” to cut a deal, or that a deal is imminent, multiple times since the start of the war.

March

Two days after launching the first attacks on Tehran on February 28, which the US initially appeared to believe would be a quick operation, Trump seemingly conceded it might take a bit longer when he said at the White House: “We projected four to five weeks [to end Iran war], but we can go far longer than that.”

The US president changed tack again on March 9, when he told CBS that “the war is very complete, pretty much”, and that the US military operation was “way ahead of schedule”.

Later the same day, he shifted his stance again, saying the war is “both complete and just beginning”. And later that day again, he said: “We’ve already won in many ways, but we haven’t won enough.”

On March 23, Trump told reporters outside Air Force One that “major points of agreement, I would say – almost all points of agreement” had been reached with Iran. Tehran was denying that it was party to negotiations at this point.

Two days after that, Trump repeated that Iran wanted to “make a deal so badly”. The next day, he also told a cabinet meeting that Iran was “begging to make a deal”.

April

On April 7, Trump said, again, that Washington was “very close to a deal” with Iran, before threatening to blow up a “whole civilisation”, but then walked back on that to announce a ceasefire the next day.

Over the following days, throughout April, Trump reiterated that the war was, in fact, pretty much over. But it continued.

Trump repeatedly claimed on separate occasions that Iran had “agreed to everything”, that “I think we will get a deal in the next day or two”, and that “I don’t think there’s too many significant differences” between the US and Iranian positions.

May

On May 23, Trump said the administration was “getting a lot closer” to a deal, which was “largely negotiated, [and] subject to finalisation”.

June

On June 8, Trump called for “total victory” in the next two weeks and claimed Iran was “willing to give us everything”. Still, no peace deal has materialised and the conflict began again in July.

August

On Monday this week, Trump again told reporters that Iran was “desperate” for a deal and warned Tehran it had “one last chance” before “decapitation” to make an agreement. Iran denies it is even holding talks with the US, saying that it is only speaking with Oman about management of the Strait of Hormuz.

A new study by Australia’s internet regulator has revealed that more than eight in 10 young Australian teens and preteens are continuing to use social media platforms despite the government’s prohibition for children under 16.

The ban came into effect in December last year.

Here is what we know about how it’s going.

What did the latest report find?

Australia’s internet regulator, eSafety, said it had found that more than eight in 10 Australian under-16s are continuing to use social media despite being banned from doing so.

The report also found that most of those children aged 10 to 15 were using social media just as frequently in March as they had been before the ban came into force on December 10 last year.

“Most under-16s who had social media accounts before commencement were able to either retain them or create new ones at the three-month ⁠mark, with social media platforms’ failure to implement effective age assurance measures cited as the main reason,” eSafety said in a statement.

About half the children who retained their accounts said platforms had not checked their age, the most common reason they were able to stay on the services. Others said that their accounts listed them as aged 16 or older or ‌that age-checking ⁠systems had incorrectly determined they were older.

Prior to the ban, nearly 86 percent of children surveyed reported using at least one age-restricted platform. Three months later, that figure remained above 81 percent, the eSafety report said.

Around 58 percent of teenagers reported using social media daily, the report found. Before the ban, the number was roughly 60 percent.

The report showed minimal change in “sports and physical activity, arts and music, spending time with friends and family, and attendance at community events”.

At the time the new rule was introduced, experts warned that enforcing it would be extremely difficult.

Joanna Orlando, a researcher in digital wellbeing and the author of Generation Connected: How to Parent in a Digital World, told Al Jazeera in December last year: “Tech-savvy teens simply use VPNs, fake birth photos for face scans, or migrate to less regulated platforms like Lemon8, or to platforms not part of the ban like video games. Enforcement is proving to be difficult in the days leading up to the ban.”

In December 2025, Australia prohibited children under 16 from using social media platforms, becoming the world’s first country to do so. Video game platforms are not included in the ban.

The government said this was prompted by increasing concerns about the effects of cyberbullying, sexual exploitation and self-harm content on the mental and physical health of children and young people.

Research commissioned by the Australian government in 2023 found four out of five children aged eight to 16 use social media, often beginning between the ages of 10 and 12. That report was led by former National Australia Bank CEO Andrew Thorburn, who recommended age restrictions.

Under the law, 10 of the biggest social media platforms face $33m in fines if they fail to take “reasonable steps” to block Australian-based users younger than 16. Such steps include using age-verification tools to determine how old users are.

As of January 16, social media companies had revoked access to about 4.7 million accounts identified as belonging to children in Australia, according to officials.

“We stared down everybody who said it couldn’t be done, some of the most powerful and rich companies in the world and their supporters,” Australian Communications Minister Anika Wells told reporters in January.

However, several months later, it now appears that youngsters have been able to open new accounts with relative ease.

Days after Australia’s ban took effect, Reddit, one of the 10 platforms required to block minors, lodged a challenge to the ban in the High Court, while still complying with it. The case is still ongoing.

How has the Australian government responded to the latest findings?

On Saturday, Andrew Leigh, Australia’s assistant minister for productivity, competition, charities and treasury, defended the new law, arguing that the social media ban has already reshaped the “national debate” about the use of social media by children.

The ban has been “an important game changer in the conversation among parents”, Leigh said in televised remarks.

“We’ve had millions of accounts shut down,” he said.

“We never expected that this would have 100 percent compliance. We don’t get 100 percent compliance out of minimum drinking age laws, but it’s still appropriate that we have that law on the books.”

While social media has long provided easy access to unregulated and often harmful content, misinformation and hate speech, the recent explosion of AI‑generated material poses new risks to the wellbeing of children and young people, experts say.

The American Psychological Association published an advisory last year warning that generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems can amplify harmful content such as violent or sexual videos.

It also added that adolescents are less likely than adults to question the accuracy of AI-generated content. “They may also be unaware of the persuasive intent underlying an AI system’s advice or bias,” the advisory stated.

AI can also amplify pre-existing societal prejudices, according to Ayo Tometi, co-creator of the US-based antiracist movement Black Lives Matter.

Children worldwide are also worried about the misuse of AI for online child sexual exploitation and “deepfakes”, according to research by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) on children’s perspectives and AI, which it published in October 2025.

Following the introduction of Australia’s landmark law, some other countries are contemplating similar bans.

In the United Kingdom, the government has announced that it also plans to introduce a ban on social media platforms such as TikTok, Snapchat and Instagram from spring 2027 onward. 

Messaging platforms such as WhatsApp and Signal, educational tools, and e-commerce and music streaming will be excluded.

The government will announce the new regulations by the end of this year.

In November 2025, Denmark’s government said it also plans to prohibit social media platforms for children under 15, saying it had secured majority support in parliament. The ban is due to come into effect later this year.

Around the same time, Malaysia said it would ban social media accounts for people under 16 from this year.

In April, Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis formally announced plans to prohibit social media access for children under 15 from January 1, 2027, subject to parliamentary approval.

Spain’s two tiny enclaves on the north coast of Africa have long been a flashpoint in its relationship with Morocco, which the territories border.

The only such European territories on African soil, they include the autonomous city enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla, as well as Plazas de Soberanía – a group of rocky islands off the Moroccan coast, which include the Chafarinas Islands, Alhucemas Islands and Penon de Velez de la Gomera.

While Spain says it owns these enclaves, Morocco does not recognise Spain’s sovereignty over them and has been demanding their return since independence from France in 1956.

The territorial dispute has resulted in long-standing political tensions between Spain and Morocco.

Last week, after more than 50,000 migrants surged over the border into the Spanish enclave of Ceuta, those tensions between Madrid and Rabat intensified. While most have since returned to Morocco, several thousand remain in Ceuta this week.

So why does Spain have these territories at all and what does their future hold?

Here’s what we know:

Why does Spain have enclaves in North Africa?

The enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla, along with a few islets off the coast of Morocco, constitute the last vestiges of the Spanish colonial empire.

Ceuta first came under Portuguese rule in 1415 before becoming part of Spain in 1580, while Melilla was conquered by a Spanish nobleman in 1497. Ceuta remained under Spanish control after Portugal regained independence in 1640 following a long war.

“Spain reached its greatest extent in Latin America, and with the loss of Cuba, Costa Rica and the Philippines in 1898, it shifted its influence to Africa, although most European colonial powers had already divided it among themselves,” explained Yolanda Aixelà Cabré, an anthropologist at IMF-CSIC in Barcelona.

After the decolonisation of Africa in the last century, Ceuta and Melilla remained the only European-held territories on the African mainland. Although geographically in Africa, the enclaves are considered Spanish territory and form part of the EU’s external border.

“For Spain, maintaining these enclaves [on the northern coast of Africa] is fundamental on a symbolic level because they reinforce Spanish grandeur, its imperial past which the State continues to consider a bearer of civilisation in contrast to barbarism, a notion perfectly encapsulated by the repetitive discourse that [Christopher] Columbus, representing the Catholic Monarchs, ‘discovered’ America,” she said.

Why didn’t the enclaves pass to Morocco on independence?

Selim Balouati Lakhloufi is a historian and researcher specialising in the history of North Africa and the Rif mountainous region in northern Morocco, which stretches along the Mediterranean coast from Tangier to the border with Algeria. He said Ceuta and Melilla continue to exist as separate territories because their origins “predate modern Morocco”.

“They are enclaves that have been occupied for centuries,” he told Al Jazeera.

But since gaining independence from France in 1956 – which Spain recognised while retaining its enclaves – Morocco has consistently maintained that the territories of Ceuta and Melilla, which it calls “Sebtah and Melilah”, and the Plazas de Soberanía, are part of its territory and has been demanding their return.

“This has always been used by the Moroccan political class as a point of criticism against Spain,” Lakhloufi said.

Samir Bennis, a Washington, DC-based senior political adviser who is also the co-founder of Morocco World News and an expert on Morocco’s foreign policy, said since independence, Morocco’s territorial claims over Ceuta and Melilla have frequently been at the centre of tricky relations between Spain and Morocco.

“Perhaps this issue would not have had the same detrimental effect on bilateral relations had Moroccan leaders shown greater determination in the early 1960s, during the height of the decolonisation period, to bring the matter before the United Nations and seek recognition of these two cities as colonial territories that should be liberated from any foreign presence,” he said.

He explained that there are, however, two important factors which led the Moroccan authorities to refrain from pursuing this course in their efforts to restore the country’s territorial integrity.

“The first was the sheer scale of the territorial disputes between Spain and Morocco. Given the difficulty Morocco faced in simultaneously contesting Spanish control over several territories, the Moroccan government decided to proceed gradually in its efforts to recover the parts of Moroccan territory that remained under Spanish rule.”

“The second factor that led the Moroccan leadership to postpone addressing the question of Ceuta and Melilla was the willingness shown by the Spanish authorities to resolve their territorial disputes with Morocco progressively. In the end, this strategy proved highly beneficial for safeguarding Spain’s interests in the two cities,” Bennis added.

How strong is Morocco’s claim to these enclaves?

Morocco’s claim to the territories is relatively weak, Bennis said. But “the country can invoke a range of historical, geographical and human arguments that cast doubt on Spain’s position”.

Jamie Trinidad, a fellow and director of studies in law at Wolfson College, Cambridge University, also said that Morocco’s claim to the territories is weak under international law. “It is a political, rather than a legal, claim, similar to Spain’s claim to Gibraltar, which lies across the strait from Ceuta,” he said. Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory.

“In the 1970s, Morocco asked the UN to include the territories on the list of ‘Non-Self-Governing Territories’ overseen by the UN’s Special Committee on Decolonisation, but the Moroccan request was ignored by the UN,” he added.

What do people living in these enclaves want?

Around 84,000 people live in Ceuta and 86,000 in Melilla.

In Spanish possession since 1580, Ceuta is home to a mixed population of Christian and Muslim, Spanish and Moroccan residents and day workers who live and work in relative harmony.

But after more than 50,000 migrants entered Ceuta illegally last week, divisions and tensions in the enclave have risen.

Hundreds of residents rallied on Sunday – two days after the surge of migrants to Ceuta – to oppose a planned far-right anti-migrant rally, forcing organisers to cancel the event.

“I am half Christian, half Muslim, as many in Ceuta are. We live peacefully together. But the numbers this time were scary,” Ceuta resident Isabel told Al Jazeera over the weekend.

Melilla, which has been in Spanish possession since 1497, is also home to Spanish and Moroccan residents, as well as small Jewish and Sindhi communities, the latter a diaspora of Hindu merchants who arrived following the 1947 partition of India.

The Plazas de Soberania is mainly populated by Spanish military personnel.

Lakhloufi noted that polling shows an overwhelming majority of people living in Ceuta and Melilla wish to remain part of Spain.

“This has been reflected consistently in public opinion and in the absence of any significant political movement advocating a change in sovereignty,” he said. “Even the population with Moroccan origin want to stay as Spanish and European. This is because the social welfare difference between Morocco and the cities it’s really high,” he said.

“At the same time, both cities maintain strong historical, cultural and economic ties with Morocco, making cooperation across the border an important aspect of daily life,” he added.

According to the Spanish government, Ceuta and Melilla are part of the Schengen area, which guarantees freedom of movement within the EU, but are subject to a special Schengen regime. People travelling between the enclaves and mainland Spain undergo separate border checks.

“Schengen checks are carried out on exit by sea or air, the only two routes available. Therefore, no one can travel from Ceuta or Melilla to mainland Spain without being identified by the National Police at the port or the airport. In addition, ferry operators and airlines are required to verify travel documents,” a Spanish government document states.

Will Spain give up these enclaves?

Analysts are divided.

In March 2022, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez wrote to the Moroccan king, confirming Spanish support for Moroccan sovereignty over the Western Sahara, which Spain gave up control of in 1975. Sanchez said this was “the most serious, realistic and credible” initiative for resolving the decades-long dispute over the vast African territory and declared “a new stage” in Spain’s strained relations with Morocco.

Cabre said, therefore, that after last week’s overwhelming migrant influx into Ceuta, Spain could ultimately cede sovereignty to Morocco.

“Their [the enclaves] mere presence is an unsustainable historical anomaly at a time when the decolonisation of European states is being promoted at all levels, like European countries returning of items stolen during colonialism and recognising the citizenship rights of their former colonies,” she said.

But Lakhloufi does not expect a fundamental change in Spain’s policy on the enclaves.

“What may change is the way Spain manages its relationship with Morocco, particularly regarding border management, migration and security cooperation. However, tactical adjustments should not be confused with a shift in Spain’s long-standing position on sovereignty. It’s usually Morocco that puts pressure on the borders, not Spain,” he said.

A sweeping package of new Russian sanctions has cleared its first hurdle in the United States Congress, and, if passed, could trigger huge tariffs for countries such as India and China which continue to buy oil from Moscow.

The bill, which was advanced in the US Senate this week, has been named for the late Lindsey Graham, whose funeral was attended by world leaders including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu earlier in the week.

Here’s what we know:

What happened in the Senate?

The “Lindsey O Graham Sanctioning Russia Act of 2026” was advanced overwhelmingly by the Senate this week in a vote of 86 to 12, meaning it can now proceed to the House of Representatives for further deliberation.

Named for the late Senator Graham, a staunch Ukraine supporter who died unexpectedly this month, the bill moved forward with the support of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who was in Washington to attend Graham’s funeral and watched the proceedings from the gallery.

“It was an honour to be present as the votes were counted – 86 senators supported the bill,” he wrote on X afterwards. “This is the first step towards implementing Lindsey [Graham]’s plans, and certainly a step towards peace. It is important that this tool works.”

After clearing the Senate, there will be a delay before the bill can move forward to the House, which is now in summer recess.

On Wednesday this week, US President Donald Trump ordered lawmakers to amend the bill to include tariffs covering Iran as well. This will likely delay the bill further if it deters Democrats from supporting it, analysts said.

David Smith, an associate professor at the University of Sydney’s US Studies Centre, told Al Jazeera: “One of the things they’re worried about is how the tariff power in relation to Iran is going to be expanded. They’re going to be ok with tariff powers on Russia but they’re worried about tariff power on countries buying Iranian oil, which means China. I think there are going to be a lot of Democrats that are going to say these powers should be limited to sanctions and not tariffs.”

Without the Iran addition, he said he would have expected the bill to pass once the House resumes given strong Democratic support for Ukraine.

“Democrats have been genuinely worried about the Trump administration abandoning Ukraine. Something like this, which is ramping the pressure up on Russia so much, I just think there will be a large critical mass of Democrats who will vote for this,” he said.

What’s in the bill?

The bill makes use of sanctions and tariffs to target Russia and cut off the economic pipeline that has kept the Ukraine war going.

Major provisions include new sanctions on Russian President Vladimir Putin as well as on more than 20 top officials and companies which work with the Russian defence industry. It also targets Russia’s “shadow fleet” of oil tankers and the network it uses to evade international sanctions on its energy exports.

The bill gives the president authority to impose sanctions by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Under it, he would be able to apply tariffs of up to 100 percent on exports to the US from the top five purchasers of Russian energy, military equipment or countries facilitating Russian sanctions evasion.

Tariffs of up to 500 percent can also be applied to Russian imports directly into the US. The US imported $3.8bn in goods from Russia in 2025.

Which countries are likely to be targeted?

China, India and Türkiye are potential targets of the bill, as they are among the largest buyers of Russian energy, according to data compiled by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA).

China has historically responded to Trump’s tariffs with tariffs of its own on US exports. Even Pay, a director at the Beijing-based consultancy Trivium China, told Al Jazeera that the US may wait to impose tariffs as Trump is due to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping later this year.

Trump would still welcome the option, she said, after the Supreme Court struck down many of his tariffs in February.

“If passed and signed into law [which is still a big if at this point], the legislation would give Trump something he’s wanted for a while, namely, the legislature’s permission to impose high tariffs on China, alongside the small handful of other countries that import Russian oil,” Pay told Al Jazeera.

India is in a tricky position as its attempts to diversify away from Russian energy were disrupted by the shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz, according to Maia Nikoladze, a deputy director of the Economic Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council.

Due to the disruptions, it has also applied for and received US sanction waivers to continue buying Russian oil in the interim, Nikoladze wrote in a report this week, and it is expected to do the same in the future.

“India will face a trade-off between maintaining energy security and managing the risk of US tariffs, potentially prompting it to again seek waivers and exemptions,” Nikoladze said.

What do critics say about the bill?

Critics like Senator Maggie Hassan say the bill gives Trump too much power to impose tariffs while also potentially harming both the US taxpayer and allied countries.

Turkiye, for example, buys Russian energy but it is also a US ally and NATO member, while “major non-NATO ally” Brazil and “major security cooperation partner” Singapore both buy Russian oil products, according to CREA.

In a post on X, Hassan wrote that while she supports sanctioning Russia, she does “not think tariffs, which are paid for by American businesses and consumers, will help Ukraine win”.

The bill is also opposed by lobby groups such as the US Chamber of Commerce, which also says the true cost will be passed on to US businesses and consumers, as with past tariffs.

While many of Trump’s tariffs have already been struck down by the Supreme Court, the Russia tariffs could have more staying power because they would be imposed on a stronger legal basis, according to Smith.

That’s because it is new legislation which has been crafted using the powers of the IEEPA.

“Previously what Trump has done is to go back to old pieces of legislation and invoke from those his power to use tariffs in ways they haven’t been used before and in ways courts have subsequently found less lawful, whereas this looks like new legislation that is going to lawfully expand his tariff authority,” he told Al Jazeera.

Dr Anthony Fauci, a former top United States public health official, has declined to answer questions at a Republican-led Senate committee hearing into the origins of COVID-19 and the handling of the pandemic.

The former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) repeatedly invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination on Wednesday.

Fauci was called to testify by Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who accuses him of misleading Congress and questions whether US-funded research in China played a role in the pandemic, allegations Fauci denies.

Although former President Joe Biden granted Fauci a preemptive pardon in 2025, Republicans claim it does not protect him from any alleged crimes committed after it was issued, such as perjuring himself at a Senate hearing.

Fauci’s lawyers advised him not to testify, arguing that anything he said under oath could expose him to new legal risks.

Here is what to know:

Who is Anthony Fauci?

Fauci, 85, is a physician and immunologist who led the US NIAID for 38 years, advising seven presidents, both Republican and Democratic.

He became the public face of the US response to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, after helping lead the country’s response to health crises including HIV/AIDS, Ebola and the 2001 anthrax attacks.

He became a target of conservative criticism over pandemic policies, including mask recommendations, vaccines and school closures.

During his last year in government, Fauci was also chief medical adviser to Biden until he retired in 2022.

During the pandemic, between 2019 and 2022, he kept more than 1,000 pages of diary entries documenting his work advising the White House and responding to the pandemic.

The notes chronicle his interactions with senior officials and the media.

Why is Fauci being questioned?

He was subpoenaed to testify over his handling of the pandemic and its origins before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

The hearing, led by Paul, focused on several issues:

• COVID-19’s origins: Paul has long argued that the coronavirus that causes COVID may have leaked from a laboratory in Wuhan, China, and questioned whether US-funded research played a role in the outbreak.
• Gain-of-function research: Republicans say Fauci misled Congress about whether the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, involving modifying viruses to understand how they evolve and assess pandemic risks. Fauci says the NIH did not fund research that caused COVID-19.

• Allegations of a cover-up: Paul accused Fauci of making false statements to Congress and concealing the NIH’s involvement in research in Wuhan. Fauci denies that.
• Fauci’s diary: Before the hearing, Paul released more than 1,100 pages of Fauci’s typewritten diary. Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr said the notes were government record because they were written by a federal employee on a government computer during a public health emergency and they were found on government property.
• Paul said the diary showed differences between Fauci’s private discussions and his public statements. Fauci’s supporters say the entries reflect the uncertainty scientists faced as they learned more about a new virus.

What happened at the hearing?

The tense hearing lasted about three hours.

After a brief opening statement, Fauci repeatedly invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and declined to answer more than 100 questions.

He accused committee chairman Paul of having an “obsession” with prosecuting him.

The hearing included several tense moments:

• Contempt vote: Paul said the committee would vote next week on whether to hold Fauci in contempt of Congress over his refusal to answer questions, threatening “consequences for refusing to answer”.
• Lawyer removed: Paul directed Capitol Police to remove Fauci’s lawyer, David Schertler, after he tried to speak without being recognised by the committee. “This testimony is from Anthony Fauci. This is not a game with his lawyers,” Paul said. Schertler later described the hearing as an “obsessive vendetta”.
• Democrats defend Fauci: Democratic senators said the hearing was politically motivated. Senator Gary Peters called it “a partisan exercise” designed to support “a predetermined conclusion” rather than offering legitimate oversight.

Closing the hearing, Paul asked rhetorically: “Did [Fauci’s] actions lead to the largest man-made plague in history?”

Why did Fauci invoke the Fifth Amendment?

Fauci said he invoked the Fifth Amendment on the advice of his lawyers because he believed his answers could expose him to new legal risks.

He argued that Paul was trying to build a criminal case against him rather than conduct legitimate congressional oversight.

Although Biden’s pardon protects Fauci from prosecution for actions before January 2025, Republicans say any false statements made under oath during this hearing could still expose him to perjury charges.

The Fifth Amendment protects people from being forced to give evidence that could incriminate them in a criminal case. Invoking it is a constitutional right and does not imply guilt.

What do scientists believe about COVID-19’s origins?

Most scientists believe COVID-19 likely spread naturally from animals to humans, known as zoonotic spillover, pointing to a wildlife market in Wuhan as the most likely place where it first spread.

Fauci has consistently said he believes that scientific evidence points to a natural origin, while remaining open to other possibilities.

Notes from his diary detail a January 2020 call with 11 top virologists and evolutionary biologists – only two were convinced the virus had a natural origin, while the rest debated whether it could have been engineered.

Today, most scientists favour a natural origin, while the US intelligence community is divided.

The FBI said in 2023 that a laboratory-related incident is the most likely origin of the pandemic. The CIA reached the same conclusion in 2025, but with low confidence. Other agencies and the National Intelligence Council continue to favour a natural origin or remain undecided.

Does Biden’s pardon protect Fauci?

Yes, but only what happened before the pardon was issued.

On January 19, 2025, Biden granted Fauci a full and unconditional pardon covering any federal offences he may have committed since 2014, saying the move aimed to protect Fauci from “politically motivated prosecutions”.

The pardon does not cover actions taken after it was issued. Fauci could face legal consequences if he were accused of committing a new crime, such as making false statements under oath during Wednesday’s Senate hearing.

Paul and other Republicans also argue that because Biden’s pardon shields Fauci from criminal liability for his past actions, he can no longer claim that his testimony about those actions would incriminate him and should not be able to invoke his Fifth Amendment.

The legal standing of this argument is not clear, and Paul has acknowledged that it is a novel “legal question that the courts may have to decide”.

Can Fauci be held in contempt or prosecuted?

Potentially, but it remains unclear whether either will happen.

Paul said the Senate committee will vote next week on whether to hold Fauci in contempt of Congress after he refused to answer more than 100 questions.

Being held in contempt means lawmakers believe a witness has refused to cooperate with a lawful investigation. It does not automatically lead to criminal charges, but can trigger further legal action.

If the committee approves the measure, it could refer the case to the Justice Department for possible criminal prosecution, ask a federal court to pursue a civil action, or, in the rarest case, ask the Senate to use its powers to detain a witness through the Senate sergeant-at-arms.

Paul has not said which option, if any, he plans to pursue.