Explainer

Three days after the sudden death of Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, his sister, Darline Graham Nordone, was sworn in on Tuesday to fill his vacant Senate seat at the suggestion of United States President Donald Trump.

Announcing his selection of the deceased senator’s sister on Monday, South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster introduced the new senator as Graham’s “darling little sister” who would “finish his work for him now”.

Graham had been among the most influential of senators in the US Congress, using his seat in South Carolina to pursue a consistently hawkish line on foreign policy as well as offering unflagging support to his formerly bitter political rival, President Trump.

Among the Senate’s strongest advocates of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, Graham repeatedly argued against imposing limits on US military support and rejected calls for a ceasefire. He also pressed for a tougher stance on Iran, championing harsher sanctions, backing military action against Tehran’s nuclear programme and warning that the US should be prepared to use force to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

After dying unmarried and without children, his position has now been inherited by his sister, Darline, formerly active in South Carolina’s local government, but with no experience in elected political office.

So, who is Darline Graham Nordone, how significant is this, and are US political powers often inherited? Here’s what we know.

Who is Darline Graham Nordone?

She is Lindsey Graham’s younger sister.

Graham and his sister lost both their parents within 15 months of each other.

At the time, Graham was 22 and his sister was 13. She went to live with relatives, but the pair remained close as Graham studied law and later served in the Air Force.

Years later, Graham legally adopted his sister, saying the move would ensure she was eligible for his military benefits if he died and would be eligible to serve as first lady if he were ever elected president.

Darline Graham Nordone has never held elected office. Neither she nor Governor Henry McMaster has said whether she intends to seek a full six-year Senate term or serve only as a caretaker until January 2027.

“I promise to work hard over the next several months to support the president and carry forward the efforts of my brother on behalf of the citizens of South Carolina and the United States,” she said in brief remarks during the announcement of her appointment on Monday. “I think this is what Lindsey would have wanted, and I plan to honour him in this way.”

What powers has Darline Graham Nordone inherited?

Although Darline Graham Nordone inherits her brother’s Senate seat, she does not automatically inherit his influence.

As a senator, she will be able to vote on legislation, approve presidential appointments, influence foreign policy and help shape US spending priorities.

However, her brother’s committee positions, seniority and political networks were built over decades of negotiating and dealing in the Senate’s corridors of power, and will not transfer to her.

Republican leaders will decide her committee assignments, leaving her to establish her own standing in Washington.

Are US political powers often inherited?

It happens more than you might think.

The practice of relatives stepping into the seats of deceased lawmakers has a long history in US politics, with family members often appointed to complete the remainder of a term.

Figures from the US House of Representatives show that, as of 2025, 45 widows have directly succeeded their late husbands in Congress – including 38 who entered the House and eight who served in the Senate.

Supporters of such appointments point to a long tradition in US politics. Known historically as “widow’s succession”, the practice involved governors appointing the spouses of lawmakers who had died in office, allowing them to serve as temporary custodians until a special election was held. The system also provided an early pathway for women to enter Congress, helping expand female representation in the 20th century.

In modern Washington, inherited seats have, more often than not, served as bridges between one era of family influence and the next, such as the way that the powerful Kennedy family has preserved its influence over past decades.

Has there been any backlash?

Some.

Senior elected officials have yet to comment on Graham Nordone’s appointment, while details of her willingness to run in the midterms remain unknown. However, social media users in the US have reacted angrily to what they see as the unelected transfer of power.

Journalists such as Ben Binday of The Washington Post have also questioned Graham Nordone’s lack of political experience, commenting that nothing is known of her position on key issues such as abortion, foreign policy and healthcare.

The United States carried out attacks against Iran for a third consecutive night late on Monday.

Iran has continued to hit targets in the Gulf in several waves of retaliatory strikes on Tuesday, including UAE‑flagged oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz and US military facilities in Bahrain and Kuwait.

Here is a recap of what has happened on Monday night and Tuesday, and what each side has said.

Where did the US attack Iran?

US Central Command, the military’s regional command known as CENTCOM, said its latest strikes began at 4:45pm ET (20:45 GMT) on Monday and were aimed at degrading Iran’s capacity to attack “innocent civilians and commercial shipping” in the strait.

CENTCOM later announced the conclusion of its strikes and said the latest round of attacks on Iran lasted five hours. It added that US forces “successfully struck military targets across Iran including Bushehr, Chah Bahar, Jask, Konarak, Abu Musa, and Bandar Abbas”.

Iranian state television and semi-official news agencies reported explosions throughout the night across the country’s southern coast, including the port city of Bandar Abbas, and on Kish and Qeshm islands, as well as the town of Jam in Bushehr province.

A projectile that struck western Bandar Abbas caused no casualties, the Fars news agency reported, citing the regional governor’s office.

What areas did Iran target?

For its part, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said it had launched a wider retaliatory campaign against US allies and interests across the Gulf.

Iran’s Tasnim news agency reported that Iranian forces had struck several “violating” vessels in the strait, and that a US-made drone had been shot down near Bandar Abbas.

The UAE: The UAE said two of its oil tankers had been hit by Iranian cruise missiles in Omani waters in the Strait of Hormuz. The UAE added that one Indian national crew member had been killed on one of the tankers, and eight other people were wounded.

Iran’s Tasnim news agency said the IRGC hit two “offending” oil supertankers, citing an IRGC statement – apparently referring to the two UAE tankers.

Kuwait: The Iranian army said on Monday that it had carried out a drone attack on US military targets in Kuwait. In a statement posted by state broadcaster IRIB, the army said it launched drones at a US Patriot missile system, fuel tanks, a watchtower, an ammunition depot and communication systems.

Bahrain: The IRGC said it targeted “several weapons storage depots, a satellite communications centre, and a building housing US forces” at al-Juffair Base in Bahrain. It also said it had hit the US Fifth Fleet in Bahrain with missiles and drones.

Air sirens have been heard four times in Bahrain on Tuesday so far.

Jordan: Jordan’s army said it shot down four missiles in Jordanian airspace that were fired from Iran, according to the official Petra news agency. After this, the IRGC said it launched ballistic missiles at US forces and key facilities at an airbase in Jordan.

In a message addressed directly to Jordanians, the IRGC insisted that the operation was aimed at the US military presence in the country rather than at Jordan or its citizens. “You know that we hold no animosity toward your country. On the contrary, we deeply love you, the noble people. You understand the pain and suffering of the Palestinian people better than any other nation, and you are aware of the crimes of the Zionist regime in the massacre of 70,000 Palestinians, including 20,000 children in Gaza, carried out with the direct involvement of the United States,” it said.

What have the US and Iran said?

US President Donald Trump formally notified Congress on July 10 that fighting with Iran had resumed on July 7, invoking his authority to keep US forces in combat for another 60 days without lawmakers’ approval.

At a news conference on Monday, Trump said Iran’s offensive capabilities were being dismantled, but he still thinks a “deal is possible” despite the return to open fighting.

Trump also repeated an earlier demand that Gulf nations help cover the cost of protecting shipping, saying Washington was “protecting a very rich portion of the world” and expected to be paid for it.

On Monday, Trump also threatened to “take out” Kuh-e Kolang Gaz La, also known as Pickaxe Mountain, a suspected nuclear site near the Natanz uranium enrichment facility in central Iran.

Meanwhile, the US blockade on Iran, confirmed by the US Navy-led Joint Maritime Information Centre (JMIC), is due to begin at 20:00 GMT on Tuesday.

The US’s blockade covers Iran’s ports and terminals along the entire southern coastline, according to JMIC.

Ebrahim Azizi, the head of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security Committee, has warned that Iran remains steadfast in defending its red lines, following the formal introduction of a bill to manage the Strait of Hormuz.

In an X post on Tuesday, Azizi wrote: “Last night, coinciding with the downing of US drones, the ‘Strategic Action for the Security and Sustainable Progress of the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf’ bill was formally introduced in Iran’s Parliament. We remain steadfast in defending our red lines, particularly regarding the management of the Strait of Hormuz.”

What is happening to shipping in Hormuz?

Oil prices rose more than 9 percent on Monday, with Brent crude climbing to about $81 a barrel, its highest level since mid-June.

Kpler, the ship-tracking firm, said crossings through the strait fell by about 52 percent between July 10 and July 12, compared with the previous week.

EXPLAINER

Al Jazeera put nine leading AI models to the test to predict the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup champion.

As the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup enters its final stages, AJLabs asked nine leading AI models to predict the tournament’s final podium based on all available data for each team, including:

• Team strength
• Squad quality
• Coaching
• Historical performance
• Team’s performance during the current tournament

France emerged as the favourite to lift the trophy, receiving five (Gemini, Grock, DeepSeek, Le Chat and Qwen) of the nine champion votes.

Argentina, the defending world champions, received the remaining four votes (ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot and Meta AI).

Predictions for the runner-up were more divided: France and Argentina each received three votes, followed by England with two and Spain with one.

Spain was the clear favourite to finish third, receiving six of the nine third-place predictions, while England and France each received fewer votes.

The predictions reflect a broad AI consensus around the four remaining contenders, France, Argentina, Spain and England, but also highlight differences in how leading language models weigh recent performances, squad depth and tournament momentum.

The AI predictions come as the tournament reaches the semifinals. France will face Spain on July 14 at AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas, while England will meet Argentina on July 15 at Mercedes-Benz Stadium in Atlanta, Georgia.

The third-place playoff will be played on July 18, before the World Cup final on July 19 at MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey.

Champion predictions

• France: 5 models
• Argentina: 4 models

Runner-up predictions

• France: 3 models
• Argentina: 3 models
• England: 2 models
• Spain: 1 model

Third-place predictions

• Spain: 6 models
• England: 2 models
• France: 1 model

European Union foreign ministers met in Brussels on Monday to discuss whether there is enough support for new measures to curb trade with Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.

“Everybody agrees that the situation in the West Bank is really intolerable,”  EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said at the start of a meeting.

“What is happening in the West Bank is actually making it more and more impossible that the two-state solution ever can come into effect.”

Here is more about the ongoing EU discussions on Israeli settlements.

What options are the EU foreign ministers discussing?

The discussions are based on a confidential paper by the European Commission that floats three different options – an import licensing system, prohibitive tariffs, or a ban – an unnamed senior EU diplomat and a European official said, Reuters reported.

The EU has long struggled to take major decisions on Middle East policy because of deep and long-standing divisions among its 27 member countries, particularly on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Diplomats said the debate at a meeting in Brussels on Monday was not expected to yield any concrete decisions, but would help to sound out if there is enough support to move forward.

Are Israel’s illegal settlements in the West Bank expanding?

Israel has occupied the West Bank since 1967. More than 500,000 Israeli settlers live in the territory, excluding east Jerusalem, among some three million Palestinians.

This month, Israel’s Security Cabinet has approved a plan to establish 13 new settlements in the central occupied West Bank.

The number of new settlements has soared recently, according to new data from the Palestinian Forum for Israeli Studies (MADAR). After averaging approximately eight outposts annually between 2012 and 2022, the number jumped to 32 in 2023, then 62 in 2024, reaching 86 during 2025.

Nasser Khdour, Middle East assistant research manager at the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED), said that 2026 is the deadliest year for settler violence since ACLED began tracking incidents in Palestine a decade ago.

“Incidents have included attacks on Palestinians, property destruction, damage to farming equipment and facilities, tree uprooting, and grazing on Palestinian agricultural land. Other incidents have involved looting, including the theft of equipment, sheep, and crops,” Khdour was quoted as saying on the ACLED website in May.

What pressure has the EU faced to take measures about this?

Under pressure for the EU as a whole to take measures, the bloc’s executive last week laid out options to curb trade with settlements, including a ban.

“There have been a lot of asks and requests from the member states regarding the ban of the trade with illegal settlements,” Kallas said.

“Let’s see if these options that have been provided now will have a stronger push from member states.”

Belgium’s Foreign Minister Maxime Prevot said the options laid out appeared to be more “a bone to gnaw on than a genuine desire to move forward”.

“We are calling for concrete proposals,” he said.

There is disagreement in Brussels as to whether that move would need backing from all 27 member states or just a weighted majority.

Diplomats say that key players Germany and Italy are still undecided on the move.

What has the EU’s position been so far?

Several EU countries – including Spain, the Netherlands, and the Republic of Ireland – have already imposed their own trade restrictions on Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories, considered illegal under international law.

In May, the EU imposed sanctions on four entities and three individuals over what it described as serious and systematic human rights abuses against Palestinians in the West Bank.

In a July 2024 advisory opinion, the International Court of Justice said Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories and settlements in the West Bank are illegal and that states should take steps to prevent trade or investment relations that help maintain the situation.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar last year described a push by some European governments to implement the advisory opinion as “shameful”.

Japan is setting up its first centralised intelligence agency since World War II to try to modernise its defence capabilities against spies, foreign interference and other attacks from foreign adversaries.

Legislation to establish the new agency passed the upper house of Japan’s National Diet in May, a month after it cleared the lower house.

After decades of relying on US intelligence support and after a pacifist stance was enshrined in the Japanese Constitution, Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi described this law as “a first step” towards strengthening the country’s espionage capabilities.

What is this new agency?

The legislation creates two bodies: a National Intelligence Council that will act as the government’s command centre for intelligence gathering and analysis and an agency for operations. The reform changes the existing Cabinet Intelligence and Research Office (CIRO) into a centralised National Intelligence Council and National Intelligence Bureau.

Takaichi isn’t exactly building the US Central Intelligence Agency, but The New York Times reported Western allies, including the United States, Germany and Australia, are advising the Japanese government on establishing the new spy agency.

Ken Kotani, professor at Nihon University, said he believes Japan’s new National Intelligence Council and national intelligence agency model will be original to Japan.

Sanshiro Hosaka, a research fellow at the Estonia-based International Centre for Defence and Security, said the reform is aimed at improving the Japanese government’s intelligence abilities “by strengthening coordination, reducing interagency barriers and ensuring that intelligence products better meet policymakers’ requirements”.

Why does Japan want it now?

Tokyo says it is facing threats from a number of nearby countries such as North Korea, Russia and China, and a national intelligence agency is needed to counter their efforts.

Kotani explained that Japan’s foreign and national security policy followed the US during the Cold War period. But he noted that “recently Japan has gradually pursued her own policy, especially in the Trump administration period.”

US President Donald Trump has repeatedly accused Washington’s allies of not spending enough on their own defence and on relying on American help. He has questioned US alliances and has been ambivalent about whether the world’s most powerful military would come to the defence of smaller nations.

That, Kotani said, is why “Japan needs to collect intelligence by herself.”

Japan currently lacks an antiespionage law that would make it relatively easy for foreign intelligence activities to go unpunished.

Hosaka explained that former Russian intelligence officers who operated in Japan, such as Stanislav Levchenko and Konstantin Preobrazhensky, described Japan as a paradise for spies: “During the Cold War, Soviet intelligence targeted Japanese technologies, industrial and commercial information as well as the US bases in Japan,” Hosaka explained. “As a major US ally in Asia and an advanced technological economy, Japan remains an important intelligence target for China, Russia, North Korea and others.”

Hosaka said what Japan needs “is a foreign-influence transparency law to increase the transparency of foreign actors’ lobbying activities as well as to deter illegal foreign interference. And an antiespionage law to conduct undercover operations and investigations using assumed identities.”

Why the current system isn’t working:

A major obstacle within Japan’s current decentralised structure, experts said, is that no one has the authority to force cooperation from other agencies or bodies or prevent intelligence data from being scattered.

Kotani explained that the political power of Japan’s current intelligence agency has been weak: “This was because the CIRO was not given any legal mandates on intelligence when it was established in 1952.”

Another difficulty is that under current Japanese laws, foreign representatives suspected of potential intelligence affiliations or interference are difficult to intercept because legal grounds are weak for Japanese authorities to intercept their communications or prosecute them.

The ambitions of PM Takaichi

Takaichi took office in October and has accelerated the expansion of Japan’s military and security ambitions through a number of measures, including establishing a central intelligence body.

In December, the cabinet approved its largest defence budget ever at $58bn as the Ministry of Defence said it needed to accelerate its “transformation” and would use more than $600m for building a so-called drone and laser shield to protect its southwestern region.

In April, Takaichi’s cabinet moved closer to abolishing a longstanding ban on the export of lethal weapons, such as tanks and warships.

The new direction led to antiwar protests in the streets of Japan in May. However, a Jiji opinion poll in April showed only 19 percent were opposed to the new bill to reform intelligence within the country. About 40 percent were indifferent, and the rest were in favour.

Kotani said he has noticed a lot of the old “taboo has gone” around this subject and it is no longer a topic of concern to many Japanese, He said: “Especially younger generations are not interested in such an old story.”

Why surveillance is controversial in Japan

Japan’s defeat in World War II left its citizens with distrust towards state surveillance as the wartime Special Higher Police, known as the Tokko, monitored, arrested and tortured citizens for their political beliefs.

Article 9 in its constitution, drafted in 1947 shortly after the end of the war, renounced war, and Japan has never had its own foreign intelligence service. Instead, it relied on the US.

The efforts for a new security agency have sparked some domestic criticism, but Hosaka said the latest reforms do not amount to a return to the kind of espionage apparatus that could be used against Japanese civilians.

“The legislation does not itself create significant new intelligence collection or counterintelligence powers,” Hosaka said.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has targeted US military facilities in Bahrain, claimed it has destroyed radar systems in Oman and hit Jordan and Kuwait in its latest round of overnight retaliatory strikes against the United States.

Tehran’s attacks on Monday came as a response to Washington’s escalating strikes as prospects of peace between the two countries recede.

Here is a recap of the latest attacks:

Where were the latest Iran attacks?

Oman: The IRGC said it attacked Oman as part of its latest phase of retaliation. It said it targeted “the FPS long-range aerial radar and the vessel detection radar in Oman”, adding that these radar systems were destroyed.

Bahrain: The IRGC also said it launched missile and drone attacks targeting “installations and infrastructure of the aggressive US army” in Juffair, Bahrain.

Bahrain’s Ministry of Interior said on Monday that sirens had been sounded in the country as it warned people to remain calm and head to the nearest safe place.

The IRGC earlier said it targeted several facilities at the Sheikh Isa Air Base in Bahrain.

Jordan: Jordan’s military said on Monday that it intercepted and downed “four missiles that entered Jordanian airspace” and came from Iranian territory.

Earlier, the IRGC said it targeted Jordan’s Prince Hassan Air Base with missiles and drones and set fire to several fuel depots and ammunition storage facilities.

Kuwait: The IRGC said on Monday that it also targeted a US surface-to-surface missile base in Kuwait, “setting fire to two HIMARS missile launchers and missile-packed warehouses, completely destroying them”.

HIMARS stands for high mobility artillery rocket systems, which are mobile rocket launchers manufactured by the US.

Earlier, the General Staff of Kuwait’s Army said air defence systems were engaging “hostile aerial targets” inside the country’s airspace.

It said any explosions heard were the result of air defence systems intercepting the attacks and urged the public to follow safety and security instructions.

Where was Iran hit?

The US military’s Central Command (CENTCOM) earlier said it hit “dozens of targets at multiple locations with precision munitions to degrade Iran’s ability to continue attacking international shipping flowing through the Strait of Hormuz”.

These targets included “Iranian military air-defense systems, coastal radar sites, missile and drone capabilities, and small boats”, it said.

CENTCOM said it deployed “US fighter aircraft, naval vessels, one-way attack aerial drones, and one-way attack sea drones for the first time”.

Valiollah Hayati, the deputy governor for security and law enforcement in western Iran’s Khuzestan province, told the semiofficial ISNA news agency on Monday that US forces attacked at least eight locations across Khuzestan overnight.

Hayati also said one person was killed and four were injured when a projectile hit an agricultural water-pumping station in Mahshahr, according to the IRNA news agency.

Iran’s Tasnim News Agency reported on Monday that a US-manufactured LUCAS (low-cost uncrewed combat attack system) suicide drone was “accurately hit and shot down” in Bandar Abbas, a city on the Strait of Hormuz.

What has each side said?

The Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs released a statement on Monday condemning the US strikes on targets in Iran.

US President Donald Trump insisted that the Strait of Hormuz was open during an appearance on the NBC TV network’s Meet the Press programme on Sunday.

“They’re very, very evil and sick people. We had meetings with them. They agreed to a deal yesterday, a perfect deal for us. No nuclear, no this, no that, no nothing. They gave up everything. And then after that, they left the room. And then within an hour, they launched a drone at a ship,” Trump said.

When did the conflict reignite?

On July 6, the IRGC struck three commercial vessels, including a Qatari liquefied natural gas tanker, off Oman. Iran accused the ships of trying to pass through the Strait of Hormuz without its permission. Tehran’s interpretation of a key clause in the June memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the US gives it the authority to manage traffic through the waterway.

The following day, the US said it carried out strikes on Iranian military targets. Tehran in turn responded with missile and drone attacks on military bases across the Gulf where US forces are deployed.

On Wednesday, Trump told reporters the MoU was over, and on Saturday, the IRGC said the Strait of Hormuz was closed yet again.

How has this impacted the Strait of Hormuz and shipping?

The number of vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz has fallen to its lowest level in five weeks, according to shipping data.

Six ships sailed through the strait on Sunday, according to data from the trade intelligence firm Kpler, including the Humanity and the Capetan Andreas, transporting 2 million barrels of Iranian oil and 500,000 barrels of Kuwaiti petroleum products, respectively.

Three empty tankers also entered the Gulf to load oil, according to the data.

Iran has mounted attacks on Gulf states and declared the Strait of Hormuz closed after the United States conducted its third round of strikes in a week, in a serious escalation as the ongoing conflict spirals.

Tehran on Sunday claimed attacks on Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, Qatar and Oman, calling them its response to renewed US bombings on cities along its southern coast.

The widescale US strikes came after Iran shut the Strait of Hormuz — a critical waterway and one of the biggest flashpoints in the conflict — accusing Washington of violating a memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed between the two sides last month.

So, where is the conflict headed? Here is everything we know.

Why has Iran attacked Gulf states and closed Hormuz?

Iran launched missile and drone attacks targeting US military bases and facilities in several Gulf states, while the US Central Command (CENTCOM) carried out a third round of strikes targeting radar, missile, and drone sites across southern Iran last week.

The US attacks came after Iran opened fire on commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz and announced the closure of the strategic waterway until further notice, with one crew member missing, according to CENTCOM.

Iran’s powerful parliament speaker and key peace negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, said on Sunday, “The era of one-sided deals is over.”

“We told you: keep your word or pay the price. Reality is knocking,” Ghalibaf posted on X with an image of Article 5 of the MoU, which relates to the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

On Wednesday, US President Donald Trump announced that the ceasefire with Iran was over. His statement was followed by Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei pledging to avenge his father’s killing.

How did we reach here?

The fragile MoU reached between the US and Iran had several glaring gaps, keeping the door to escalation ajar.

The tensions spilled over into the Strait of Hormuz again last Monday, when Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) struck three commercial vessels, including a Qatari liquefied natural gas (LNG) tanker off the coast of Oman.

The next day, the US carried out strikes on Iranian military targets, and Tehran responded with missile and drone attacks on US bases across the Gulf, prompting Trump to call off the ceasefire.

The tit-for-tat attacks continued. On Saturday night, the IRGC announced the closure of the Strait of Hormuz until further notice after attacking a container ship using what it called an unapproved route. On Sunday, a second vessel on the strait was hit.

Where did the latest US strikes hit?

CENTCOM said its third round of strikes on Iran last week was “holding Iranian forces accountable” for their recent attack on a Cyprus-flagged ship in the Strait of Hormuz.

It said it hit about 140 military targets that “included Iranian missile and drone sites, naval capabilities, ammunition storage facilities, communication networks, and coastal surveillance locations”.

It added that more than 300 targets were struck over the course of three nights throughout the week “to degrade Iran’s ability to attack civilian mariners and commercial vessels freely transiting the strait”.

Iran’s state broadcaster IRIB said the US launched air attacks on the outskirts of the city of Veysian, in the western Lorestan province, while another strike hit a military base in Iran’s Khondab.

Officials from Bushehr, on Iran’s southern coast, told local media that US forces attacked five cities in the province, including Asaluyeh, Dir, Bushehr, Dashti and Tangestan.

Tehran has said the loss of lives and the extent of damage are under review.

Where did Iran hit back overnight?

Since the start of the ongoing conflict in late February, Tehran has accused the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries of actively supporting US military operations by hosting its bases and allowing it to use their airspace.

Oman

The IRGC claimed a “heavy and surprise” attack on logistics support centres and refuelling platforms used by US aircraft carriers at the port of Duqm in Oman, according to IRIB.

The IRGC’s public relations office told IRIB the sites were “destroyed” in the attack.

Qatar

The IRGC said it also targeted Qatar’s Al Udeid airbase with ballistic missiles and claimed to have destroyed a fighter plane maintenance centre, as well as a command-and-control centre at the base.

Qatar’s Ministry of Defence said it intercepted incoming Iranian fire. Three people, including a child, were wounded as a result of falling shrapnel from the interception of Iranian attacks, Qatar’s Ministry of Interior said.

Kuwait

Iran’s army said it used explosive drones to target a Patriot air defence system, an ammunition depot and a radar site belonging to the US military in Kuwait.

Bahrain

In another wave of drone attacks, Tehran targeted a US communications system and radar site in Bahrain.

Jordan

The IRGC said it targeted US military facilities at Prince Hassan airbase in Jordan with several ballistic missiles, and claimed to have destroyed a command-and-control centre at the base, as well as hangars housing MQ-9 drones.

What’s happening in the Strait of Hormuz?

Iran has closed down the strait after firing a warning shot that struck a vessel travelling on an unapproved route, and said on Sunday it had disabled a second vessel.

The strait will remain closed until “the end of US interference in this region”, the IRGC said.

Iranian officials told state media the US military has been trying to create an “illegal route” through the Strait of Hormuz, causing insecurity in the area.

The narrow-yet-vital waterway — touted as the artery of global trade, hosting 20 percent of energy flow — has been at the centre of tensions between the US and Iran since the preliminary deal was signed.

Tehran has consistently insisted that only routes approved by Iran shall be taken up during transit through the strait. It says it is open to managing the strait only with Oman, the other coastal country.

The US and the GCC countries have rejected Iran’s claim on the strait and demanded that navigation be freed of interference or any sort of fees.

On Saturday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi landed in Oman, where the leaders discussed the shipping and management of the Strait of Hormuz, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said.

How have Gulf countries reacted?

Some countries had sirens blaring on Sunday afternoon, with governments asking residents to stay indoors.

Oman condemned Iran’s attacks and said it is taking “all necessary measures to deal with the developments to preserve the safety of the country and its residents”.

In Qatar, the Interior Ministry said the country’s security threat level is high and urged everyone to remain in safe places and avoid unnecessary movement.

The Kuwaiti army said its forces were responding to “hostile aerial targets” in the country’s airspace, adding that the sounds of explosions are the result of its defence systems intercepting the attacks.

Bahrain’s Interior Ministry said air raid sirens were activated, urging residents to remain calm.

NATO leaders are meeting in Ankara, Turkiye on Tuesday and Wednesday.

The summit gets underway as US President Donald Trump renews pressure on member states over defence spending. European nations are expected to respond with billions of dollars in new military contracts.

At the NATO summit last year, members agreed to increase their target to 5 percent of GDP: 3.5 percent on military spending by 2035 and 1.5 percent on security-related needs.

Who is there and what is at stake?

Leaders from all 32 NATO member states are at the summit in Turkiye this week.

Two non-alliance heads of state will also be there: Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy and South Korea’s Lee Jae-myung.

Australia, Japan and New Zealand are sending defence or foreign ministers, as are Gulf countries affected by the US-Israel war on Iran: Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa is not expected to attend the summit but is holding a bilateral meeting with Trump in Ankara.

What Trump wants from NATO allies

Trump has questioned NATO’s value since his first presidential campaign. He argued that the US carried an unfair share of the costs. At the time, only five countries spent the agreed two percent GDP on defence.

His questions about shared defence responsibility have produced some results in recent years within the alliance as member states pledged an increased defence budget.

Ozgur Unluhisarcikli, the German Marshall Fund’s regional director for Turkiye, believes NATO this year will focus on implementing its promises from last year. “NATO allies just decided to increase their defence spending to five percent last year at The Hague and European allies took action to upgrade their defence industries,” he said. “This year in Ankara the discussion will be on how to translate spending to capabilities. It is therefore stronger than it was last year.”

But Paolo von Schirach, president of the Global Policy Institute, noted that any capability gains from increased spending are years away, saying that more orders mean more military hardware but only eventually. “You can spend a lot and obtain not too much,” he said.

What Ukraine needs from this summit

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is meeting Trump for a bilateral meeting on Wednesday. Ukraine is not a NATO member.

Zelenskyy will be using his face-to-face with the US president to request additional Patriot air defence systems as Russian attacks are intensifying on Ukrainian cities. A drone attack on the Ukrainian capital Kyiv killed at least 11 people on Monday morning.

Jack Watling, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute said that Ukraine is looking for ongoing political and military technical support from alliance members, to signal to Russia “that this support will be sustained”.

The idea, he said, was “to show Russia that there will be no diminution in its defensive capacity over the next 12-24 months”.

“There is a direct correlation between the number of interceptors supplied to Ukraine and the damage that Russia can inflict with ballistic missiles,” says Watling.

What European nations are trying to solve for

The billions in contracts expected to be announced by European nations at this summit are seen by some analysts as trying to appease the Trump administration.

When European nations didn’t join the war on Iran, Trump stated he didn’t want their money, just their “loyalty”. He added he might not have attended the summit if it wasn’t hosted by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Turkey has in recent years not only increased its defence spending, it also has grown into one of NATO’s largest military exporters.

For now, the tone around defence spending remains sharp. On the eve of the summit, Trump called Germany’s defence spending “ridiculous”. Chancellor Friedrich Merz defended his country’s budget, saying that “this is the greatest effort we have ever made to strengthen our defence capabilities”.

Meanwhile, the US has gone a step beyond rhetoric and announced a phased withdrawal of warplanes, destroyers and submarines from NATO countries. “Less US infantry or armour in Europe has an impact on messaging but little else,” Watling said. But, he added, “the withdrawal of US air power has a more tangible impact”.

Whether the alliance can project unity amid the rhetoric and withdrawals is a key question, said analysts.

“The main value of this summit is political, it shows that the allies are still talking, still meeting, still trying to project unity, even if the underlying disagreements and doubts haven’t disappeared,” von Schirach of the Global Policy Institute said. “Ankara is more about reassurance and signalling than about concrete, immediate changes on the ground.”

EXPLAINER

The far-right leader could be prevented from running for president in 2027 if embezzlement charges are upheld.

France’s appeal court is set to deliver a key verdict on whether Marine Le Pen and other members of her National Rally party misused European Parliament funds in the hiring of aides between 2004 and 2016.

If, on Tuesday, the court upholds her 2025 conviction, which saw her barred from office for five years and sentenced to house arrest, Le Pen – one of the most prominent figures of the European far right and a frontrunner in polls for France’s 2027 contest – is likely to be unable to stand in presidential elections next year.

On Wednesday last week, Le Pen said that even if the court only upholds the order for her to wear an electronic bracelet, she will not stand. “If I can be a candidate, I will be a candidate, provided that I am able to campaign,” the 57-year-old political firebrand told LCI channel.

“Because if I’m allowed to be a candidate but am effectively prevented from campaigning freely, then you understand that wouldn’t be possible.”

What was Le Pen convicted of?

In March 2025, a Paris criminal court ruled that Le Pen was at the heart of “a fraudulent system” that her party used to siphon off EU Parliament funds worth 2.9 million euros ($3.32m).

The court also fined the National Rally party 2 million euros ($2.29m), half of which was suspended.

She had been accused of using money intended to finance the costs of parliamentary ⁠assistants to pay employees working for her political party. EU politicians ⁠are allocated funds to cover expenses, including salaries for parliamentary assistants, but are not allowed to use them for party activities.

Le Pen was ordered to stand trial in 2023, after a seven-year investigation, alongside more than two dozen other defendants. She and her party have denied the accusations, arguing the ⁠money had been used legitimately and that prosecutors had applied an overly narrow definition of what a parliamentary assistant does.

What were the political implications of the verdict?

As part of the initial verdict last year, Le Pen was given a five-year ban from holding elected office and sentenced to two years’ house arrest with an electronic bracelet. Since France will hold the first round of its next presidential election on April 18, 2027, with a run-off set for May 2, Le Pen will not be able to run if she loses the appeal.

The far-right leader has pledged to put up a fight if she’s barred from running. “If I cannot be a candidate, I will make use of every available avenue of appeal,” Le Pen said.

She could go, therefore, to France’s highest court, the Court of Cassation, which does not judge the facts but checks whether the courts and court of appeal have applied the law correctly. The court could take about six months to hear the case and issue a verdict.

If allowed to run, Le Pen is widely seen as a top contender to succeed centrist President Emmanuel Macron in the 2027 election. If not, her 30-year-old protege Jordan Bardella would likely run instead.

What could the Court of Appeal decide?

The appeal court could overturn Le Pen’s conviction in its ruling on July 7, leaving her free to run for president next year. Legal experts say that outcome appears unlikely, however, given the court’s findings at first instance.

The court can instead uphold Le Pen’s conviction. If it confirms the five-year ban requested by prosecutors, it will rule her out of the presidential race, paving the ‌way for Bardella to take her place. Le Pen can then appeal to the Court of Cassation.

A third possibility is that the court upholds the conviction but softens the sentence. If the ban from public office were lifted or shortened to two years or less, the door to a presidential bid would be open.

More than 11,000 people, including over 5,500 children, have fled escalating fighting around Sudan’s strategic city of el-Obeid over the past two weeks, according to Save the Children, as the United Nations warns that up to 500,000 civilians could be at risk if the violence intensifies. The city has become the latest focal point in a war that has already triggered the world’s largest displacement crisis.

For much of Sudan’s three-year civil war between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), international attention has centred on Khartoum and the Darfur region. In recent weeks, however, attention has increasingly shifted to el-Obeid as fighting has intensified across Kordofan, prompting warnings from UN officials and humanitarian organisations that another acute humanitarian emergency could be unfolding.

Francesco Lanino, deputy country director for Save the Children in Sudan, said the consequences of displacement extend far beyond the loss of housing.

“For children, displacement is far more than the loss of a home,” he said. “It often means losing access to school, healthcare, clean water and the support networks that help them feel safe and protected. Many have already been displaced multiple times, and without urgent action to protect civilians, ensure humanitarian assistance can reach those in need and prevent further violence, thousands of children could be forced to flee while facing increasing risks to their safety, health and wellbeing.”

Why is el-Obeid so important?

El-Obeid, the capital of North Kordofan state, lies about 360km (224 miles) southwest of Khartoum at the intersection of roads linking central Sudan with Darfur and the country’s southern states.

That location has made it one of Sudan’s most important commercial centres and a key logistical hub for both military operations and humanitarian aid.

The city has remained under the control of the SAF, making it one of the army’s most important positions in western Sudan. Military analysts say control of el-Obeid helps shape movement along key supply routes connecting central Sudan with Kordofan and Darfur, helping explain why both the SAF and the RSF consider it strategically important.

Why has the fighting intensified now?

The battle for el-Obeid reflects a broader shift in Sudan’s war.

After the SAF regained territory in and around Khartoum earlier this year, fighting increasingly concentrated in western Sudan, particularly across the Kordofan and Darfur regions.

The RSF has expanded military pressure around el-Obeid while the army has reinforced its positions inside the city. UN officials have warned that the growing military build-up raises the risk of a wider assault, although neither side has announced plans for a full-scale offensive.

The conflict has also evolved. Drone warfare has become an increasingly prominent feature of the conflict, targeting military positions as well as infrastructure civilians rely on, including fuel depots, electricity networks and water facilities.

What are civilians experiencing?

Civilians in el-Obeid are facing mounting hardship as the fighting intensifies and essential services come under increasing strain.

Aid agencies and the United Nations say repeated attacks have disrupted electricity and water supplies, contributed to fuel shortages and driven up the prices of food and other essential goods. Damage to water infrastructure, combined with restricted humanitarian access, has also heightened concerns about waterborne diseases, including cholera.

Many of those now fleeing el-Obeid had already been displaced by fighting elsewhere in Sudan, meaning they are being uprooted for a second or even third time. Save the Children says more than half of the people displaced in the latest wave are children, underscoring the disproportionate impact the conflict is having on young people and their families.

Why are the UN and aid agencies so concerned?

The immediate concern extends beyond the fighting itself to the possibility that el-Obeid could become the next city to experience prolonged urban warfare, with civilians trapped between rival forces.

According to the United Nations, up to 500,000 civilians in and around el-Obeid could be at risk if violence escalates. The figure includes longtime residents as well as people who had already sought refuge in the city after fleeing fighting elsewhere in Sudan.

Humanitarian organisations warn that continued hostilities could further restrict the delivery of humanitarian assistance into North Kordofan at a time when many communities already face shortages of food, medicine, fuel and clean water.

The UN has also raised alarm over the growing use of drone strikes, warning that repeated attacks on civilian infrastructure are deepening the humanitarian crisis and making it harder for people to access essential services.

Why are officials comparing el-Obeid and el-Fasher?

Officials increasingly fear el-Obeid could follow the trajectory of el-Fasher, the capital of North Darfur, where months of fighting left civilians trapped, humanitarian access severely restricted and basic services devastated.

The comparison does not mean el-Obeid has reached the same stage. Rather, UN officials say it highlights the risk that the city could follow a similar trajectory if fighting intensifies and civilians cannot safely leave or receive humanitarian assistance.

El-Fasher has become one of the starkest examples of the human cost of Sudan’s war. Since fighting escalated there in 2024, repeated clashes, shelling and attacks on displacement camps have forced hundreds of thousands of people to flee, while hospitals, markets and other civilian infrastructure have been damaged or destroyed. Aid agencies have repeatedly warned that restrictions on humanitarian access have deepened hunger and disease, leaving many residents with little access to food, clean water or healthcare.

UN officials fear a similar pattern could unfold in el-Obeid if military pressure continues to build. The city has become a refuge for people displaced from other parts of Sudan, meaning a major offensive could trap large numbers of civilians while further disrupting aid operations across Kordofan. Preventing another prolonged urban battle, they say, is critical to avoiding an even wider humanitarian crisis.

What could happen next?

The next phase of the conflict will depend on whether the current military pressure around el-Obeid develops into a sustained ground offensive or whether diplomatic efforts succeed in reducing hostilities and improving humanitarian access.

For the Sudanese Armed Forces, holding el-Obeid is important to maintaining its position in North Kordofan and preserving access to western Sudan. For the Rapid Support Forces, increasing pressure on the city could strengthen its military position in the region, although the outcome of any future offensive remains uncertain.

If fighting escalates, aid organisations warn that more families are likely to flee while shortages of food, clean water, fuel and medical supplies deepen. A wider battle could also further disrupt humanitarian operations across Kordofan, a region that serves as an important corridor for assistance to communities affected by the war.

More broadly, the battle for el-Obeid reflects the changing geography of Sudan’s war. As front lines shift away from Khartoum, Kordofan is emerging as one of the conflict’s most consequential theatres, carrying profound implications not only for the military balance but also for hundreds of thousands of civilians caught in the fighting.

As the latest wave of displacement illustrates, the humanitarian consequences are already unfolding. Whether el-Obeid becomes another prolonged urban battleground, or whether sustained international efforts help avert a wider assault, may determine not only the next phase of Sudan’s war but also the fate of hundreds of thousands of civilians caught in its path.

“The signs from el-Obeid are clear and unmistakable: another human rights catastrophe is unfolding in Sudan,” UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk warned late last week. “This is not a drill. It is a red alert that needs to land on the desks of heads of state and government around the world.”

Fifty years ago, in 1976, the median age of the global population was just under 21 years. That means of the 4.1 billion people on Earth at the time, about half were younger than 21 and half were older. Today the median age is 31, and by 2050 the United Nations projects it will reach 36. The typical human being is steadily getting older.

What is the replacement rate?

The engine of that change is fertility. Demographers measure it using the total fertility rate, the average number of children a woman would have over her lifetime at current birth rates. The figure that matters most is the replacement rate, generally put at about 2.1 births per woman. That is the level at which a generation exactly replaces itself, keeping the population stable over the long run without immigration. The slight margin above two accounts for children who do not survive to adulthood.

The global fertility rate today is about 2.2, barely above replacement and down from approximately five in the 1960s. The United Nations expects it to reach the replacement level around the middle of this century and to keep falling after that. More than half of all countries are already below replacement, including China, the United States, India, Japan and most of Europe.

In practical terms, a fertility rate below replacement means that, over time, each generation is smaller than the one before it. Fewer babies today means fewer working-age adults tomorrow, and a growing share of retirees supported by a shrinking workforce. That is the pressure now facing pension systems, health services and labour markets from Italy to South Korea. It is why population ageing, more than raw numbers, is becoming the defining demographic story of the century.

Temperatures in Europe hit a new high this summer, with hotter early-summer heatwaves triggering illness, deaths and the collapse of infrastructure across the continent.

Transport buckled on Sunday as temperatures hit 40C (104F) across Germany, the Czech Republic and Poland. In France, days averaging 29.8C (85.6F) – spiking to 44C (111.2F) in one town – gave way to storms, leaving an estimated 1,000 excess deaths behind.

Scenes like this may well be the new normal.

Last summer’s heatwave alone caused an estimated 2,300 climate-related deaths in 12 European countries, WWA says.

A study by World Weather Attribution (WWA) has found that intense heat on this level is now tens to hundreds of times more likely than it was in 2003, and was unheard of 50 years ago.

“Heat-related mortality is likely to remain a feature of Europe’s warming climate,” warns Dr Hans Kluge, the World Health Organization (WHO)’s regional director for Europe. Deaths have already risen by an average of 52 per million people annually since the 1990s, he told Al Jazeera – a trend he says shows little sign of reversing on its own.

So what does this mean for the future? Are these temperatures the new normal, and if so, why?

We asked the climate experts:

Is this really the new normal?

Yes, it certainly looks that way. According to WWA, heatwaves were generally about 3.5C cooler in June 1976, and 2C cooler even in 2003.

“Think of it like a race where the starting line has been moved much closer to the finish,” Dr Akshay Deoras of the University of Reading told Al Jazeera. Ultimately, this is down to global warming, he says.

Europe has warmed at roughly twice the global average since the 1980s, according to the European Commission’s climate change service, Copernicus.

Deoras says this amounts to “loading the dice” towards once-rare extremes.

WWA’s modelling goes further: at current emissions rates, an event of the magnitude of this summer’s heatwave is expected to occur every couple of decades – and today’s extremes are effectively a preview of what an ordinary summer could look like by the middle of the century.

Why is this happening in Europe now?

The immediate trigger is a stalled high-pressure system, or a “heat dome”, which traps heat in one concentrated area for days or weeks.

Heat domes aren’t new, but Europe’s already-shifted baseline means the same pattern now produces far hotter outcomes than decades ago, Deoras told Al Jazeera.

Professor Hannah Cloke of the University of Reading told Al Jazeera that’s because the warming behind new, extreme weather patterns comes from emissions released decades ago, and the climate system takes time to respond – so we’re feeling the effects now of pollution from the past.

Copernicus’s European State of the Climate 2025 report confirms this: more than 95 percent of the continent saw above-average annual temperatures last year, alongside record Alpine glacier loss and the highest sea-surface temperatures ever measured in Europe.

And because Europe is warming roughly twice as fast as the rest of the planet, that gap with the global average is projected to keep widening – meaning whatever the world experiences on average in the coming decades, Europe will likely see first, and worse.

Is this trajectory irreversible?

Partly. Some of the damage is permanent. Some of it isn’t – yet.

Take glaciers. Because the effects of pollution from decades ago are cumulative, “some of what we are experiencing this summer is already locked in”, Cloke says.

Alpine glaciers, which feed major European rivers, she says, have already shrunk past the point of recovery, and their contribution to summer river flow is “permanently reduced”.

Not everything is set in stone, however. “Every tonne of emissions avoided changes the odds of what comes next,” Cloke says.

What we do now, therefore, will decide the difference between summers that are simply hard to live with in the future, and summers that become “genuinely beyond our ability to cope with”.

Some resources, like groundwater in northern Europe, can still recover – “but the window to act is narrowing with each dry year”, she says.

What is this doing to human health?

The toll is already severe and likely to worsen.

The Lancet Countdown Europe calculates that there were 62,000 heat-related deaths across the region in 2024 alone, with projections showing a steep further rise by 2050 if we don’t make changes.

Much of the problem, Kluge told Al Jazeera, is architectural and largely unaddressed.

“Most of the housing stock across this region was designed for a colder climate – to retain heat, not shed it,” he said, warning that without large-scale retrofitting, deaths could keep climbing past 2050 regardless of how good warning systems become.

His prescription: treat heat as predictable, not an emergency.

“Governments need to plan for heat the way they plan for winter flu – as a recurring, predictable challenge requiring permanent infrastructure, not a one-off crisis requiring emergency improvisation.” The highest-return step, he added, is identifying who’s most at risk – often older people living alone – and reaching them before a heatwave hits, not after.

What else can be done?

Cloke points to two priorities: early warning systems that reliably reach the people who most need to be protected, and an overhaul of water infrastructure in Europe which has been built for rainfall patterns that no longer exist.

Deoras says emissions also still matter: cutting them won’t eliminate heatwaves, which are “a natural part of the climate system”, but doing so would make them “less intense, less frequent and shorter-lived”.

None of the experts who spoke to Al Jazeera describe this as hopeless.

They do warn that the window of opportunity for addressing the issue is narrowing: infrastructure can still be retrofitted, emissions can still be cut, warning systems can still be improved – if the decisions to do so are made now, rather than after the next heatwave.

What a “normal” European summer looks like in 2050 is still being written, they say.

Research published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) has found that a United Kingdom-United States pharmaceutical deal could cause 229,000 excess deaths as a result of the diversion of billions of pounds away from Britain’s National Health Service (NHS).

In December, the UK and US signed a pharmaceutical trade deal, under which the US government agreed not to impose tariffs on UK pharmaceutical and medical technology exports for the next three years.

In return, the British government committed to increasing NHS spending on new US medicines from 0.3 percent in 2026 to at least 0.6 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) by 2036. This means that medicine spending overall should increase from 10 percent to 12 percent of the NHS budget.

UK politicians defended the deal with Science Minister Patrick Vallance saying in April that the arrangement gives patients across the NHS access to “life-changing new medicines that they previously would have been denied”.

“Not only this, but as the first country in the world to benefit from a zero percent tariff on pharmaceuticals to the US, Britain’s life sciences sector will be further boosted,” Vallance argued.

But the research published in the BMJ found that the commitment to spend so much more on new branded medicines over the next decade without any increase in NHS funding will “create substantial opportunity costs elsewhere, having a direct effect on population health”.

Samuel Cross, a professor in the department of pharmacology and therapeutics at the University of Liverpool, who coauthored the report, said the agreement “benefits pharmaceutical companies and comes at a cost of NHS patients”.

“There’s really no way to sugar-coat that. The numbers speak for themselves,” Cross told Al Jazeera.

Here’s what we know about the report:

What is in the US-UK deal?

The agreement signed on December 1 was hailed as a landmark deal between British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and US President Donald Trump on pharmaceutical trade and pricing.

The US agreed not to impose tariffs on UK pharmaceutical and medical exports for the following three years – until January 19, 2029.

According to a policy paper published by the British government, the preliminary understanding of the agreement recognised that the US and UK shared a “mutual interest in developing a global medicines system that supports development and commercialisation of new innovations”.

 What did the research find?

In February, Vallance disclosed that funding for the increased spending on medicines would come from the Department of Health and Social Care, which funds the NHS in England, rather than the Treasury.

The study in the BMJ forecast that if spending targets are met and the economy grows as forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility, the NHS would need to spend an extra 1.3 billion pounds ($1.73bn) a year by 2028 – about 25 million pounds ($33.4m) a week. By 2036, this would rise to an extra 8.8 billion pounds ($11.74bn) a year – about 170 million pounds ($227m) a week). Over the course of the agreement, that would add up to about 44.7 billion pounds ($59.7bn) by the end of 2036.

“Costs are even higher if the impact on publicly funded adult social care is also considered – modelling of English local authority data indicates that every £1bn [$1.33bn] the NHS must find to fund this deal will increase the costs of adult social care by £118m [$157.5m] because of increases in morbidity and mortality,” the report found.

Ultimately, the study predicted, excess deaths are likely as a result.

“Even if we restrict attention to the direct effect of reductions in available NHS expenditure, by 2036 this deal is likely to result in roughly 229,000 excess deaths – more than during the COVID-19 pandemic between March 2020 and June 2022 (137,000). If the indirect effect on adult social care is also included, the increase in excess deaths is even greater (291,000),” the report stated.

The report added that the findings are “unsurprising” given the existing pressures on the NHS and the “large burden of unmet need in highly cost-effective areas of care”.

It also referred to shortfalls in NHS funding and pharmaceutical pricing as “opportunity costs”.

Cross said that in health economics, opportunity costs are the “key to all of this”.

“In the NHS, we have a finite budget – we’re not made of money – and if you take money away to pay for, in this case, more medicines. then that comes at an opportunity cost of the places that the money has been diverted away from,” he explained.

Which health sectors will be worst affected?

The research predicted that the greatest number of deaths would occur in cardiovascular, respiratory, gastrointestinal and cancer patients.

It added that there will also be broader harm caused to quality of life for patients in those sectors as well as “neurological, endocrine, musculoskeletal, and mental health problems”.

“Despite this evidence and reassurances that ‘frontline services’ will be protected, the NHS will need to fund this deal from allocations made six months before the deal was agreed. The evidence suggests that if additional public expenditure was available, it could be more effectively deployed within the NHS itself,” it added.

The report also called the government’s claims that the US-UK agreement would encourage pharmaceutical innovation in the country “uncertain”.

“Pharmaceutical research and development operate within a global market, of which the UK represents a relatively small share. As such, there is limited evidence that UK domestic pricing materially influences global investment decisions,” the report stated.

“Even so, evidence suggests in most cases the UK is already paying more than 100 percent of the long-term value of new medicines; incentivising production of new medicines under this deal will do long-term harm to the public health objective of the NHS,” it added.

Cross added that because money has in effect been diverted away from the NHS, there is no way for the government to offset the impact on the service.

“If the funds are used to pay for new medicines, we will lose positive health outcomes elsewhere, and that is as simple as that,” he said.

He called for the government to release an impact assessment to trigger a public discussion about how good the US-UK deal really is for Britain.

EXPLAINER

China and Sudan signed off on a waiver of $50m as Sudan’s military-led government seeks support amid Western sanctions.

China has waived loans worth $50m that it had given to Sudan, the two countries said over the weekend. The agreement comes three years into a war between Sudan’s army and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) that has shrunk the country’s economy by roughly 40 percent, according to the United Nations.

The sum is small compared with what Sudan owes overall to external governments or agencies, an amount estimated at more than $56bn before the war. But the waiver lands at a moment when Khartoum has few other international lenders extending any financial support.

China’s relationship with Sudan predates the war by decades, built on oil and infrastructure interests that survived multiple changes of government in Khartoum. But the war has narrowed Sudan’s options elsewhere, as Western governments have largely held back or imposed sanctions.

Here’s why this deal is significant for Sudan and China:

What do we know about the deal?

The signed protocol in Port Sudan cancels four interest-free loans worth 344 million yuan, about $50m, with immediate effect, according to Sudan’s official news agency, SUNA.

Sudan’s Finance Minister Gibril Ibrahim welcomed the move, reportedly saying that China has continued investing in the country throughout the war while Western governments, including the United States and European Union members, have largely held back. Gibril himself was added to the US Treasury sanctions list in September 2025 for his alleged “involvement in Sudan’s brutal civil war and … connections to Iran”.

China’s charge d’affaires in Sudan, Xu Jian, reportedly said at the signing ceremony that China was ready to help rebuild what was destroyed during the war in Sudan.

What’s in it for Sudan?

Sudan’s external debt of more than $56bn before the war is expected to have ballooned since.

The $50m debt relief amounts to not even 1 percent of the total external pre-war debt. In fact, Sudan was close to a far bigger debt write-off in 2021. It was on track with the IMF and the World Bank Heavily Indebted Poor Countries initiative to have more than $50bn of its debt forgiven within three years. The 2021 military coup in October derailed that debt relief plan, and the process was formally suspended a year later.

Still, China’s waiver arrives at a moment of acute need for the country. The war is now in its third year. More than 1.5 million people have been killed, according to the UN, and the war has displaced about 14 million people – about a quarter of the Sudanese population. The World Health Organization says less than 14 percent of health facilities are still functioning. Jobs have vanished in many parts of the country, and the rising cost of living has made it difficult for households to survive.

The Sudanese pound has collapsed since the start of the war. It went from roughly 600 to the dollar before the war to more than 5000 to the dollar by June 2026.

What’s in it for China?

In many ways, Beijing’s decision to waive the $50m loan is in keeping with a broader approach it has taken in recent years, one that has helped cement China as Africa’s largest trading partner for 17 consecutive years.

China has provided interest-free loan forgiveness as a diplomatic gesture to multiple countries, and these decisions are recurrent announcements at Beijing’s frequent leader-level summits with African nations. This is especially true for smaller loans. Research from the Johns Hopkins China Africa Research Initiative found that China forgave at least $3.4bn of these kinds of debts across the African continent between 2000 and 2019.

By contrast, larger loans are usually commercial loans through state banks that come with interest, and waiving those is harder.

At a time when the West is largely trying to isolate Sudan’s leadership, a small loan waiver gives China outsized influence in a country that sits at the intersection of the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa.

What have China-Sudan ties been like historically?

Oil has long served as a catalyst for their relationship. From the mid-1990s on, China’s National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) poured billions of dollars into Sudanese oil fields and the pipelines carrying that crude oil to Port Sudan. This was a time when many Western companies were pushed out due to sanctions.

The relationship changed when the southern part of the country voted in favour of independence in 2011. The world’s newest country, South Sudan, left the north and took most of the country’s oil fields with it.

Chinese investment largely dried up afterwards, but Sudan still has more than $5bn of outstanding debt to China. The war has aggravated Sudan’s economic challenges. The CNPC requested a formal exit from Sudan in December 2025.

Israel and Lebanon have agreed on a new framework agreement after four days of marathon talks in Washington, DC, brokered by the United States, trying to end the months-long conflict.

Israel has been occupying almost 20 percent of Lebanese territory in the south and has killed more than 4,000 people since fighting erupted on March 2. A previous bout of fighting ended in a ceasefire in November 2024, but Israel carried out almost daily attacks and refused to end its occupation in breach of the deal.

The new deal, however, does not specifically call for the withdrawal of the Israeli forces and instead ties it to the disarmament of Hezbollah – a condition repeatedly rejected by the Iran-backed armed group.

Hezbollah chief Naim Qassem on Saturday rejected the framework agreement, calling it “null and void”. Hezbollah has demanded that Israel first end its occupation.

Hezbollah supporters flooded the streets of the capital, Beirut, on Friday evening to oppose the deal.

So, what is the new agreement, which does not include Hezbollah, and can it lead to peace in Lebanon?

What’s in the Israel-Lebanon agreement?

After the trilateral signing in Washington, the US Department of State released the text of the agreement, which talks of a “sequenced process” that will see the Lebanese army restore “effective sovereign authority over all Lebanese territory, pending the verified disarmament of non-state armed groups” – a clear reference to Hezbollah.

The deal does not mandate Israeli withdrawal from the fifth of Lebanese land it occupies. Instead, the framework notes that Israel shall “progressively redeploy” out of Lebanon, offering two “pilot zones” where the Lebanese military “will gradually assume full and effective security responsibility”.

“One [pilot zone] is south of the Litani River and outside the security zone altogether, and the other is north of the Litani – a small area in the expanded security zone that we conquered in the last two weeks, and which the [Israeli military] says it does not need,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu later said in a statement.

Once these conditions are met, “Lebanese civilians will be able to safely return to these areas under the exclusive control of Lebanese state authorities,” the framework says. More than 1.2 million people have been forcefully displaced.

Israel says that successfully returning southern Lebanon to Lebanese government control would “eliminate any future need for [Israeli military] action or presence in Lebanon” and “[declared] that it has not territorial ambitions in Lebanon”.

The Lebanese government has signed that it rejects “the claims of any state or non-state actor to use force on its behalf without its explicit authorization,” deeming such attacks “illegal” and “contrary to Lebanese national interests”.

How have parties to the conflict reacted to the agreement?

Israel

Netanyahu issued a video statement shortly after the agreement was announced, stressing that the framework would allow the Israeli military to remain in the occupied Lebanese land.

“We will maintain [the buffer zone] until Hezbollah disarms and as long as there is a threat to the State of Israel,” Netanyahu said.

It is also a partial, momentary win for Netanyahu, who faced intense domestic criticism after the US and Iran sidelined Israel to sign the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding, which mandates an end to hostilities in Lebanon as well.

Lebanon

President Joseph Aoun expressed gratitude to Trump and other regional mediators after the signing of the trilateral agreement, which he hailed as “the first step on the path to restoring Lebanon’s sovereignty”.

In a statement from the Lebanese presidency, Aoun noted that the framework also “marks the beginning of the road to fructify [Lebanese citizens’] sacrifices, so that they may return to their fully liberated land”.

His statement has done little to tamp down the tensions in the capital, where supporters of Hezbollah took to the streets, burning tyres and blocking a road leading to the airport.

Hezbollah

Though the armed group is not a party to the agreement, and was not present at the negotiating table, its posture and actions will dictate where the conflict heads in the future.

The Hezbollah leader on Saturday condemned proposals to tie the Israeli withdrawal to the group’s disarmament. “Linking the Israeli withdrawal to the disarmament of the resistance throughout Lebanon is a very dangerous proposition that crosses all red lines,” he said.

“The framework agreement in Washington is humiliating, shameful, and a surrender of sovereignty,” he said.

He added that the framework agreement should be replaced by the Iran-US Memorandum of Understanding (⁠MoU) signed on June 15.

Earlier, Hassan Fadlallah, a Hezbollah representative in the parliament, said Lebanese authorities would not be able to enforce the framework agreement unless, with US support, “they go to civil war”.

In a televised speech before the agreement was signed, Qassem said that Hezbollah would hold its weapons closer, ready to fight Israel for Lebanon, if the Lebanese state fails to do so.

The Iran-US MOU called for the “territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon” – a similar wording has been used in the framework agreement.

United States

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Washington’s point person in Israel and Lebanon talks, announced an “immediate” $100m donation by the US towards humanitarian assistance in coordination with the UN.

At the signing ceremony at the State Department in Washington, Rubio appeared to acknowledge the limited scope of the agreement, calling it “the beginning of the beginning.”

“There’s a lot of work ahead. We don’t in any way underestimate the difficulty of the task ahead, but we understand the importance of it, how vital it is, and we are honored to have played a part in bringing this together,” he said.

Two previous ceasefire agreements brokered by Washington failed to stop the fighting in Lebanon, as well as the Islamabad MOU, signed by President Trump and his Iranian counterpart Masoud Pezeshkian, earlier this month.

Iran

Though Tehran is yet to officially react to the agreement, its state media has been pressing against the deal.

Fars news agency noted that the agreement is essentially the US permitting Israel to violate the first clause of the Islamabad MOU, which mandated the cessation of hostilities on all fronts, including Lebanon.

Does the Israel-Lebanon agreement contradict the Islamabad MOU?

Analysts point towards two direct contradictions between the preliminary deal signed by the US and Iran, and the latest agreement between Israel and Lebanon.

In short, the Islamabad MOU mandates the end of hostilities on all fronts, including Lebanon, with no conditions – while the Israel-Lebanon agreement ties it to Hezbollah’s disarmament.

Israel has not adhered to any of the ceasefire agreements, including earlier ones, and continued with its assault on Lebanese territories. On Saturday, Lebanese state news agency NNA reported that the Farah amusement park intersection in Nabatieh al-Fawqa was targeted by an Israeli drone strike.

Israel has killed at least 4,192 people in Lebanon since the start of the war on Iran four months ago.

Secondly, the Islamabad MOU does not refer to or mention any of the Iran-backed proxy armed groups among its listed clauses to take forward the negotiations to end the war.

Tahani Mustafa, a visiting fellow on the Middle East and North Africa programme at the European Council on Foreign Relations, told Al Jazeera that Israel and Washington would “definitely use the fact that Hezbollah refuses to disarm and capitulate to blame Hezbollah for derailing the entire process”.

Mustafa further added that Israel “has also proven that it is acting in bad faith, which really gives no confidence to Hezbollah to disarm or capitulate in the way that is being demanded.”

Washington is not blame-free either, she noted, arguing that “the American negotiators actively work behind the scenes to try and decouple Lebanon and Iran.”

“This has really just been something that both the Israelis and the Americans have attempted to cook up behind the scenes and once again obfuscating the blame for its failure,” she told Al Jazeera.

Can a deal work if Hezbollah rejects?

This is not the first time that Hezbollah’s disarmament is on the table – and the existing challenges remain. The 2024 deal also called for Hezbollah’s disarmament, but it could not be achieved as Israel continued to attack Lebanon and refused to withdraw its troops in breach of the deal.

Alon Pinkas, an Israeli former ambassador and consul general in New York, says he is “very doubtful and sceptical” that this will work out because the deal is between Israel and Lebanon with the US; the issue here is Hezbollah.”

Iran’s linking of the Lebanon conflict to the maturation of an agreement with the US, Pinkas says, “complicates things [because] Netanyahu said that [Israel] would not yield to any linkage to Iran and that Israel would defend itself in Lebanon”.

Al Jazeera’s Ali Hashem said that the agreement is an “existential threat” to Hezbollah’s presence.

“Without Hezbollah’s consent, this is not going to happen,” Hashem said. “This is going to be a recipe for another confrontation. The Lebanese government isn’t capable of imposing this deal. It’s not the de facto force on the ground.”

The advertisements all start the same way. It could be a barber, an aunt or a family member in discussion with others about the FIFA World Cup, but in each case, they assume Egypt will be heading home after the group stage.

Then an Egyptian footballer pushes back: “To all the doubters, this time we’re staying longer.”

It’s a line that’s resonating like never before in the nation of 120 million people, as Egyptian football fans wait with bated breath for the final round of group stage matches that could send The Pharaohs, as the national team are known, into uncharted territory: the knockout stages.

Here’s why these commercials have captured the zeitgeist in Egypt:

Egypt’s poor World Cup track record

Egypt was the first African and Arab nation ever to play in a World Cup, back in 1934. It has won the Africa Cup of Nations a record seven times. Football in Egypt isn’t just a sport, it’s a national identity, and The Pharaohs have long been a source of genuine pride and belief.

But the World Cup has always told a different story. Before this tournament, Egypt had qualified just three times — in 1934, 1990 and 2018.

It had never won a single match. Fans still carry the painful memories of a penalty shootout loss to Senegal that kept Egypt out of the Qatar World Cup 2022 entirely.

What’s different this time?

Everything — at least, so it seems.

After two games at the World Cup, Egypt sits at the top of Group G, above Iran, Belgium and New Zealand.

The 26th ranked Egypt drew 1-1 with Belgium — ranked 10 in the world — in its first match. Then, it beat lower-ranked New Zealand 3-1.

Its four points are the most Egypt has ever earned at a World Cup. Its four goals are the most Egypt has ever scored at a World Cup.

Now, on Friday night in Seattle — early Saturday morning in Egypt — the team faces Iran in their final group game. A win or a draw would guarantee that Egypt’s national team goes into the knockout stages for the first time.

If Egypt loses to Iran, they might still make it to the round of 32, but their fate will depend on what happens in the Belgium-New Zealand match that will be held at the same time, and potentially, on the outcomes of matches in other groups. Eight of the 12 teams places third in their groups will also move into the next round.

So in a nutshell, Egypt is on the cusp of going where it never has before — and only a rare set of permutations can deny it that chance.

But it isn’t just the performances. Part of what makes this year feel different, to many fans, is the identity of the main man standing outside the pitch, next to the Egyptian dugout.

Hossam Hassan is Egypt’s all-time top scorer and one of the most iconic figures in the country’s football history. In 1990, he scored the goal that ended a 56-year wait and sent Egypt to the World Cup in Italy. Now, more than three decades later, he is the national team’s coach, making him the first Egyptian ever to reach the World Cup as both player and manager.

For older fans, his presence carries the memory of a time when Egypt genuinely believed it could make its mark on the world stage.

So what are the advertisements really about?

They aren’t really making fun of the team. They’re making fun of the deeply ingrained expectation that Egypt won’t go very far. And that expectation, many argue, goes beyond football. Years of economic hardship and political uncertainty have made expecting the worst feel like common sense for many Egyptians. They protect themselves from disappointment. They assume it won’t work out before it doesn’t.

That’s what has also made the campaigns somewhat divisive. For some viewers, the humour felt honest — a reflection of a habit fans know they have. It prompted real questions about why low expectations have become so normal. Others argued the advertisements risked making those same low expectations feel permanent, even acceptable.

Either way, they underscore how the 2026 World Cup has reignited faith among Egyptian fans, as they wait for the Iran match. An advertisement campaign challenging doubters has come to reflect the broader hopes, doubts and debates surrounding The Pharaohs.

The United Nations’ International Maritime Organization (IMO) has suspended plans to evacuate more than 11,000 sailors stranded in the Strait of Hormuz after a cargo ship transiting the waterway was struck by a projectile.

IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez said several crews had already been evacuated, but the agency had decided to pause the operation until there were “necessary safety guarantees” for those involved.

The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO), a Royal Navy maritime security agency, said on Thursday that a cargo vessel had been struck by “an unknown projectile” about 7.5 nautical miles (14km) southeast of Dahit, Oman. No casualties were reported.

The incident comes despite a memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed by the United States and Iran last week that ended hostilities and included provisions aimed at reopening the strategic waterway. Iran had restricted passage through the strait in early March after the US and Israel attacked it on February 28. In April, the US imposed a naval blockade on Iran-linked vessels trying to pass through the waterway.

Since the MoU was signed, commercial traffic has restarted through the strait, but key disagreements remain over which shipping routes vessels should use — and whether Iran gets to charge a toll or fee.

Oman and the IMO have proposed a new shipping corridor that would partially bypass waters under Iran’s direct control. Tehran has rejected the plan, saying it was announced without consultation and raises safety concerns while demining operations are still under way. While Iran has not claimed responsibility for Thursday’s attack on the ship off Oman, it has not denied any role, either.

The latest attack has heightened concerns that tensions over navigation through the strait remain unresolved. Here’s what we know.

Why is the UN evacuating sailors?

Following the outbreak of the US-Israel war on Iran on February 28, Tehran and Washington imposed counter restrictions on the passage of ships through the Strait of Hormuz, leaving thousands of seafarers unable to leave vessels trapped in the waterway.

More than a dozen sailors have also been killed in attacks on ships — some from American missiles, others from Iranian projectiles. Most of those killed were from India.

Even with last week’s agreement between Washington and Tehran to end the conflict, more than 11,000 sailors remain stranded in the strait.

Announcing the evacuation plan on Tuesday, the IMO’s Dominguez said the operation would be conducted in “close cooperation with Iran, Oman, all other coastal states in the region, the United States and the maritime industry”.

Oman’s Ministry of Defence said the operation, which had been under discussion for months, would be carried out in phases.

Denmark also announced on Tuesday that it would join a multinational maritime mission led by France and Britain to help restore safe navigation through the strait.

Why was the ship attacked?

The Singapore-flagged cargo vessel Ever Lovely was struck by what authorities described as an “unknown projectile” while transiting the Strait of Hormuz on Thursday.

Ship-tracking data from MarineTraffic showed the vessel had been following the southern shipping route proposed by the IMO earlier that day, a corridor that passes closer to Oman’s coastline and has been rejected by Iran.

Singapore’s Maritime and Port Authority (MPA) said the vessel had since completed its transit through the strait and was continuing its voyage, adding that all 21 crew members were safe.

The authority said it was “deeply concerned” by an attack it described as “unprovoked, unjustifiable, and a breach of international law”.

“All actions affecting international shipping must fully comply with international law, in particular the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and not endanger the safety of seafarers and ships at sea,” the MPA said.

The incident prompted the IMO to suspend its planned evacuation of stranded sailors. Dominguez said the Ever Lovely “did not transit under IMO’s evacuation framework”.

“I have always reiterated that the safety of the seafarers remains paramount. Therefore, to ensure a coordinated approach and navigational safety, the evacuation plan will be paused until further clarity is obtained,” he said.

What has Iran said?

While it remains unclear if the attack was carried out by Iran, the country’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps had criticised the new shipping corridor announced by Oman and the IMO, while also warning that passage through the strait, “is only possible via routes announced by Iran,” the state broadcaster IRIB reported.

Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister, has said safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz cannot be guaranteed for vessels transiting “with ambiguous arrangements, parallel routes, or decision-making outside of Iran’s considerations as the coastal state”.

“Any credible framework must be based on coordination with Iran and the provisions of paragraph five of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding,” he said in a statement on X. “Otherwise, the outcome will be the suspension of the designated parallel route.”

Iran first published its own map of approved navigation routes in April, directing ships to sail much closer to the Iranian coastline than before the conflict.

The IRGC’s latest warning came after a Liberian-flagged oil tanker transited the strait on Thursday using a route closer to Oman’s coast.

On Friday, a further three foreign oil tankers that attempted to cross the Strait of Hormuz “without authorisation” were turned back after a warning from the IRGC, Iranian state TV reported.

Analysts say control over the Strait of Hormuz has long been one of Tehran’s most important sources of strategic leverage, allowing it to exert pressure on the US, whose economy is inextricably tied to global markets.

Why was the evacuation suspended?

Reporting from Tehran, Al Jazeera’s Resul Serdar Atas said the attack appeared to show Iran was prepared to enforce its warnings over navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, after Tehran insisted vessels using either the Iranian or Omani route must coordinate with its authorities.

“Yesterday, Oman announced new routes for the passage of the ships. But then the IRGC released a statement, saying that whether the ships go through the Iranian or Omani territorial waters, they need to be in full coordination with Iranian authorities,” Atas said.

“And if they violate that, then Iran is going to act accordingly. So the question was whether Iran is going to really act or not?

“The answer is yes. Now, we have seen that a tanker has been attacked by some projectiles in the Strait of Hormuz. The Revolutionary Guards did not claim responsibility but did not deny it either.”

Atas added that Gharibabadi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister, had also warned that any shipping arrangements made without taking Iran’s position as a coastal state into account would be unacceptable.

“Perhaps, in the coming days and weeks, we are going to see that the Strait of Hormuz will be one of the main sticking points.”

What other disputes remain?

Under last week’s memorandum of understanding, Iran agreed it would “make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge, for 60 days only, from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa”.

Although the agreement says commercial traffic should resume immediately, it also acknowledges that mines laid during the conflict must first be cleared, stating that “demining by the Islamic Republic of Iran will be instated within 30 days”.

It also provides for discussions between Iran, Oman and other Gulf states over future arrangements for managing navigation through the waterway.

However, the agreement does not specify what will happen after the initial 60-day period.

Last week, Tehran announced it would waive any transit fees during those 60 days while negotiations with the United States continue in Switzerland, raising the possibility that charges could be introduced if no broader agreement is reached.

Iran’s chief negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, has also suggested Tehran does not intend to return to the pre-war status quo.

“Hormuz will never return” to how it operated before the conflict, he said. The proposal has also faced resistance from the United States and several Gulf states.

Are ships still moving through the strait?

Commercial shipping has gradually resumed, although traffic remains well below normal levels. Before the conflict, between 120 and 140 vessels typically passed through the Strait of Hormuz each day.

According to maritime analytics firm Kpler, 54 verified commercial and energy-related vessels transited the strait on Thursday, down from 70 verified crossings the previous day.

“West-to-East movements dominated, while the Omani Route accounted for the largest share of identified passages. Yet route transparency remains incomplete, with several Dark or Unknown crossings recorded.

“A reported projectile strike on a cargo vessel southeast of Dahit, Oman, adds fresh operational risk, underscoring the gap between improving physical flows and still-fragile maritime security conditions,” Kpler added.

As two powerful earthquakes hit Venezuela, west of Caracas, in quick succession on Wednesday, the country’s capital sustained extensive damage.

Authorities were continuing to search for people under the rubble of collapsed buildings on Friday as 235 people were confirmed to have been killed, with 4,300 more injured.

Here is more about why Caracas has sustained so much damage.

How badly damaged is Caracas?

A magnitude 7.2 earthquake struck about 160km (100 miles) west of Caracas, followed less than a minute later by a magnitude 7.5 tremor, the strongest since 1900, according to the US Geological Survey (USGS).

Jorge Rodriguez, head of Venezuela’s national assembly and brother of interim President Delcy Rodriguez, said earlier in the day that 200 people had been trapped, with 250 buildings damaged or destroyed nationwide.

In Caracas and nearby coastal areas, at least eight hospitals, the headquarters of the Venezuelan Red Cross and the French embassy were among buildings reported to have been badly damaged.

Initial assessments released on Thursday put the estimated economic damage at between 1 and 7 percent of Venezuela’s $111bn gross domestic product (GDP). Authorities have not yet provided a separate estimate for losses in the capital.

However, the heaviest damage has been reported in Caracas itself, Al Jazeera’s Teresa Bo, reporting from Bogota in neighbouring Colombia, said on Thursday.

Public infrastructure was also heavily damaged, with acting President Rodriguez reporting power outages in Caracas.

Health Minister Carlos Alvarado said late on Thursday that 235 people had been confirmed dead at medical centres across Venezuela. He also told state media that about 4,300 people had been reported injured so far. Hundreds more are feared trapped or missing under the rubble.

How badly has the city been damaged in previous earthquakes?

This is not the first time Caracas has suffered heavy damage in an earthquake.

In 1812, a powerful earthquake roiled the cities of Merida and Caracas, killing about 30,000 people, according to the USGS. The tremors caused near-total destruction of Caracas’s colonial architecture, flattening homes, churches and public institutions.

In 1967, another earthquake hit the city, causing several high-rise buildings to collapse and killing 240 people.

Why has Caracas been so hard-hit?

Venezuela has a long history of devastating earthquakes because it is located along the boundary between the Caribbean and South American tectonic plates.

Caracas is also in a deep sedimentary basin, which amplifies the seismic waves from earthquakes, Vashan Wright, a geophysicist at the University of California in San Diego, told Al Jazeera.

Another reason Caracas is so vulnerable to damage from earthquakes is that its buildings and infrastructure are not specifically designed to withstand tremors and are often standing on insecure ground.

Al Jazeera’s Teresa Bo said the heaviest damage in Caracas occurred in the Altamira district, where emergency crews pulled survivors from the rubble of a 22-storey building while relatives searched for missing family members. Officials said they are still assessing the full extent of the destruction.

“For example, in the [hard-hit] area of Altamira in Caracas, many of the buildings that collapsed are built on sediments, and this makes them much more vulnerable to seismic waves,” Bo said.

“Also, there’s lots of informal housing in several areas across the country, and those types of buildings are not prepared to sustain very strong earthquakes,” she added.

Adequate urban planning and building codes, which incorporate seismic activity, require substantial funding, which Venezuela can ill afford as it has long been subject to heavy sanctions from the United States and other Western countries.

While some sanctions have been lifted since the US abducted former President Nicolas Maduro in a military strike on Caracas in January and he was replaced by Rodriguez, Caracas is still grappling with the effects of decades of underinvestment.

Another issue for Caracas is that at about 7.8km, the earthquakes were shallow, which means they were more destructive than deeper quakes of the same magnitude would have been.

In deeper earthquakes, much of the energy dissipates as it moves through layers of rock. By contrast, shallow ones release their energy closer to the ground, producing stronger shaking and greater damage in populated areas.

How many people live in informal housing in Caracas?

People living in informal housing are more at risk than others during earthquakes because low-cost, self-built housing structures, often built on hillsides and other slopes, are not resilient against tremors.

The slums in Caracas are known as barrios and are densely populated, lacking proper infrastructure. They comprise self-constructed housing or structures built with unreinforced cinderblocks or bricks, often without formal foundations or steel reinforcement, mostly on the mountainous hillsides surrounding the capital.

The lack of proper urban planning, coupled with construction on steep slopes, makes the barrios vulnerable to natural disasters.

While there is no official figure for the number of Venezuelans living in informal settlements in Caracas, academic estimates suggest they account for 40 to 50 percent of the city’s nearly five million residents.

According to the latest National Survey of Living Conditions (ENCOVI), about 55 percent of Venezuelans are living in poverty.

Which countries are better prepared for earthquakes?

Many parts of the world have adapted infrastructure with seismic engineering. Many earthquake-prone countries now plan and construct buildings with damage mitigation from tremors in mind.

Japan, one of the most quake-prone nations in the world, has strict building codes, which means many structures survive shaking that would devastate poorly built homes in parts of Indonesia or Central America. In most inland earthquakes, the majority of deaths and injuries are caused when poorly built structures collapse rather than by the shaking itself.

Japan has made enormous public investments in seismic research and has superior access to advanced engineering technologies like base isolation, which involves the installation of massive steel or rubber shock absorbers beneath the foundations of buildings.

This is why global deaths and destruction from earthquakes have reduced in the past decades. For instance, in 1556, the deadliest earthquake in recorded history in China’s Shaanxi killed about 830,000 people. In 2023, an earthquake hit northwestern China near the Shaanxi province, killing 127 people.

EXPLAINER

Israeli and Lebanese delegations will continue their talks on Friday.

Israel continues to attack southern Lebanon on Friday as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pledges that the Israeli military is “not going to withdraw” from occupied areas.

Israel currently occupies about one-fifth of Lebanon.

This comes amid progress on the interim peace accord between the United States and Iran aimed at ending the US-Israel war on Iran, which began on February 28.

Here is what is happening:

In Iran

• IAEA chief says inspectors to return to Iran: The interim US-Iran peace accord – also being referred to as the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) – gives inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) access to Iran, the agency’s chief Rafael Grossi said, after Tehran indicated that key sites would remain off-limits until a final deal with Washington is reached and sanctions are lifted.
• “There is an agreement and to comply with that agreement, the IAEA will have to have access and inspect,” the UN nuclear watchdog chief Grossi said at a news conference in Japan. “We hope to be there soon.”
• UN halts escort of ships through Hormuz: The UN International Maritime Organization (IMO) paused its operation to escort ships through the Strait of Hormuz on Thursday after a vessel reported an attack, reigniting concerns about whether a preliminary deal to end the Iran war will hold. The cargo ship said it was hit close to Oman by a projectile, the British Navy agency UKMTO said.
• On Thursday, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) warned vessels not to attempt to pass the strait without its express permission, despite Oman and the IMO releasing details of a new safe route. In April, the IRGC released its own safe-transit route for approved ships, showing shipping lanes much closer to its own coast.

In the US

• Trump says unfrozen Iranian assets will be used to buy US agricultural products: US President Donald Trump reiterated during an event for US farmers that unfrozen Iranian assets will be spent on buying wheat, soya beans and corn from the US. Iran has not confirmed this.

In Lebanon

• Two killed in Israeli raid: Two people were killed and another person was wounded in an Israeli raid on the town of Mayfadoun, in southern Lebanon’s Nabatieh district, the National News Agency reported, citing the country’s Ministry of Public Health.
• An Israeli air raid also hit the town of Nabatieh al-Fawqa, according to Al Jazeera Arabic.
• Talks to continue: A US State Department official has told Al Jazeera Arabic that Israeli and Lebanese delegations will resume their meetings on Friday.

Global economy

• India ends commercial gas restrictions: India has lifted restrictions on supplies of commercial liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) imposed during the war, when energy supplies were hit by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the global energy chokepoint.
• Aramco resumes oil loading: Saudi Aramco, the world’s largest oil company, has resumed oil loading at its Ras Tanura terminal in the Gulf after a nearly four-month halt, shipping data showed.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said Iran will not be permitted to charge tolls or fees for vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz under any final agreement with Washington, exposing one of the biggest points of friction in negotiations aimed at ending months of conflict across the Middle East.

The dispute comes after Iran announced it would waive planned transit fees through the strait that crosses through its territorial waters for 60 days while talks with the United States continue in Switzerland, suggesting charges could be introduced once the negotiating period expires.

Washington and Tehran signed a preliminary agreement in Switzerland this week to halt hostilities and launched a 60-day diplomatic process focused on sanctions relief, Iran’s nuclear programme and the future administration of the Strait of Hormuz.

Pakistan, which helped mediate the talks alongside Qatar, has said negotiations to end the four-month US-Israel war on Iran are expected to resume early next week, likely on Tuesday.

The future of Hormuz has already emerged as a key sticking point after Iran effectively closed the waterway during the war, severely disrupting maritime traffic through one of the world’s most important energy chokepoints and causing the price of oil to soar.

In peacetime, one-fifth of the world’s oil and natural gas supplies are shipped for export by Gulf producers through the waterway.

In April, the US imposed a corresponding naval blockade on Iranian naval ports in a bid to stem Iranian oil exports.

While a number of ships have crossed through the strait since the US-Iran agreement was signed last week, uncertainty remains over whether Tehran intends to impose permanent fees or service charges on shipping operators using the route. Here’s what we know – and what else is happening in the Strait of Hormuz this week.

What are the US and Iran saying?

On Friday, Iran’s Persian Gulf Strait Authority (PGSA) said planned fees for ships using the waterway would be suspended during the 60-day negotiation period established under the memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed with the US.

Earlier this week, Iran and Oman said in a joint statement that they would study the future administration of the trade route as well as possible charges for services provided there, while maintaining their sovereignty claims over territorial waters bordering the strait.

Speaking at the start of a regional tour in the United Arab Emirates, Rubio rejected the idea of transit fees. “It’s an international waterway. No country is allowed to charge tolls or fees on an international waterway,” he said, adding that he believed “all the countries in this region would agree”.

Iran’s chief negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, has signalled that Tehran views the post-war arrangement as fundamentally different from the status quo that existed before the conflict, however. Experts also say that Iran will not give up control of the strait, which has proved to be its greatest point of leverage in the conflict with the US.

“Hormuz will never return” to its prewar status, Ghalibaf said, despite both sides agreeing on Monday to establish “communication mechanisms” aimed at keeping the waterway open.

What does international law say?

International law protects the right of transit through strategic waterways such as the Strait of Hormuz, preventing coastal states from imposing explicit tolls simply for passage through international shipping lanes, even when they are passing solely through territorial waters.

However, countries can charge for specific services, including inspections, navigation assistance, security measures and certain insurance-related requirements, insurance experts say.

Examples include fees associated with transit through the Suez Canal and Panama Canal, as well as some services provided in Turkiye’s Bosporus and Dardanelles straits.

Mohammad Reza Farzanegan, an economist at Germany’s Philipps-Universitat Marburg, told Al Jazeera last month that Iran, like Turkiye, could justify a negotiated mechanism for transit fees or service-based contributions through natural straits as payment for maintaining a safe passageway, reducing environmental risks and providing predictability in a waterway that supports global energy, food and technology supply chains.

A key difference, however, is that while those waterways pass through the territory of a single state in each case, the Strait of Hormuz passes through the territorial waters of both Iran and Oman, while also connecting to waters used by the United Arab Emirates and other Gulf states.

“This sort of arrangement is unprecedented, and there would not be such an outcome, unless there is a complete coordination between the GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] countries and Iran, with the approval of major international powers, such as China and the United States,” Nader Habibi, an Iranian American economist, told Al Jazeera.

How many ships are getting through the strait now?

Ship movements through the Strait of Hormuz remain well below prewar levels, when between 120 and 140 ships transited the passage each day, including tankers carrying about 20 million barrels of oil from the Gulf.

As the strait begins to open up, Oman says it is working with the United Nations’ International Maritime Organization (IMO) on temporary arrangements to facilitate safe transit through the strait, launching an operation to evacuate more than 11,000 sailors stranded in the area after the conflict left hundreds of vessels trapped for months.

Traffic through the strait has also been held back by ongoing concerns about the possible presence of sea mines in the central shipping channels used by international vessels before the war.

The Joint Maritime Information Center (JMIC), which includes representatives from the US and other maritime partners, has warned ships to avoid the area “due to the existence of mines”.

Other countries, including Japan, are currently weighing up whether to send ships to help with efforts to remove mines from the strait.

While Iran has never confirmed the presence of mines in the strait, when it first issued a map of the waterway for vessels it had approved for transit while the conflict was ongoing, it ordered ships to pass close to its coast to avoid possible mines. Ships had previously passed much closer to the coast of Oman.

The graphic below illustrates how much shipping through the strait dropped off as a result of the US-Israel war on Iran.

Could the dispute over strait fees derail a peace deal?

Mostafa Khoshcheshm, a professor at the University of Applied Sciences in Tehran, told Al Jazeera that Iran is unlikely to abandon plans to introduce long-term service fees in the strait.

“According to the MoU, Iran is not going to charge service fees for 60 days, but afterwards, Iran is definitely going to do that,” Khoshcheshm told Al Jazeera.

He said many Iranians were already unhappy that Tehran had agreed to suspend fees for the duration of the negotiating period.

“The money is not the real core of the issue,” he said. “The point here is how to impose your new protocols in the region. This is highly important for the Iranians.”

Cyrus Schayegh, professor of international history and politics at the Geneva Graduate Institute, told Al Jazeera the success of any new administrative arrangement would depend heavily on regional support.

“I think this is a very big question, and the biggest question is whether they will be able to sell it to the Emirates,” Schayegh told Al Jazeera.

“I think the Emirates will need to be involved in a really substantive way for any sort of new authority to actually work.”

More broadly, he said, the future of Hormuz forms part of a wider debate over Gulf security architecture following the war.

“It is only one piece of a much larger puzzle,” Schayegh said, adding that several regional states now accept that Iran has strengthened its deterrence capabilities following the conflict.

What other issues remain unresolved?

Hormuz is far from the only serious obstacle to a peace deal.

Questions also remain over the future of Iran’s nuclear programme, with Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister for legal and international affairs, saying that access for international inspectors to nuclear facilities damaged during the war would only be addressed as part of a final agreement with Washington.

His comments came after US President Donald Trump claimed Iran had agreed to “the highest level” of nuclear inspections.

Iranian officials insist no commitments were made in Switzerland regarding Tehran’s nuclear programme and say they did not meet representatives of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), including Director-General Rafael Grossi.

Regional security remains another major source of disagreement, with Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz insisting Israeli forces will not withdraw from southern Lebanon “even if there is an American demand” to do so.

Meanwhile, Ghalibaf has identified the withdrawal of foreign military forces from the Middle East as one of Tehran’s strategic objectives in the negotiations.

The future of Iran’s frozen assets also remains a sticking point, with Trump indicating Washington is reluctant to release large sums of Iranian funds directly, arguing that money could ultimately benefit the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

Instead, he has suggested a mechanism under which some funds would be used to purchase US goods.

“Food is desperately needed in Iran, and we will be purchasing it for them exclusively from the United States,” Trump said. Iran has not confirmed plans to do this.

EXPLAINER

Paris and other European cities are experiencing temperatures above 40C (104F), reaching levels normally seen across the Middle East.

A blistering heatwave has gripped much of Europe, prompting the highest-level red alerts in parts of the United Kingdom, France, Spain and Italy.

Authorities have warned of health risks, wildfires and travel disruptions as extreme temperatures persist.

With temperatures approaching record highs, officials have taken emergency measures, including a localised alcohol ban in parts of France under red alert, nationwide heat warnings in Germany and the cancellation of a World Cup fan zone screening in Madrid, where temperatures hit 39C (102F).

Why is it so hot in Europe?

A persistent area of high pressure, known as a heat dome, has trapped hot air over Western Europe, bringing clear skies, weak winds and prolonged sunshine. Hot air moving north from North Africa has added to the extreme temperatures.

Unusually warm seas around the UK, Ireland, France and the western Mediterranean have also helped keep coastal areas hot, especially at night. Coastal waters around Spain have reached record warm levels, according to Spain’s port authority.

In the worst-affected areas – western France, England and Wales – daily average temperatures have soared more than 12C above the 1991-2020 baseline, according to Copernicus data.

Scientists say the early-season heatwave is part of a broader warming trend. Europe is the world’s fastest-warming continent, with temperatures rising by approximately 0.56C per decade since the mid-1990s, more than double the global average.

Climate change is making heatwaves more frequent, more intense and likely to occur earlier and later in the year.

How hot are European cities today?

To contextualise the temperatures Europe is dealing with, Al Jazeera looked at the maximum temperatures in five European capitals on June 24 and compared them with cities across the Middle East, North Africa and Asia, where high temperatures are more typically experienced.

Europe is particularly vulnerable – much of its housing and infrastructure was not built for prolonged extreme heat, and only about 20 percent of European homes have air conditioning.

The graphic below shows how European cities’ maximum temperatures today compare with some other cities around the world:

How is temperature measured?

The temperature you see on the news or the weather app on your phone relies on a network of weather stations positioned around the globe.

To ensure accurate readings, weather stations typically use specialist platinum resistance thermometers placed inside shaded instruments known as a Stevenson screen.

Measurements are taken at a standard height of 1.25-2 metres (4-6.5 feet) above the ground. This provides a reading that reflects the air temperature that people actually feel.

There are two well-known scales used to measure temperature: Celsius and Fahrenheit.

Only a few countries, including the United States, use Fahrenheit as their official scale. Most of the world uses the Celsius scale, named after Swedish astronomer Anders Celsius, who invented the 0-100 degree freezing and boiling point scale, although originally inverted, in 1742.

Why does the temperature feel hotter than the forecast says?

Air temperature alone often doesn’t match how hot it feels to your body. That is why forecasts report a “feels like” temperature, which adjusts air temperature based on factors like humidity, wind speed and sun exposure.

Humidity

Humidity measures how much water vapour is in the air. This moisture slows the evaporation of sweat, so your body can’t cool itself as effectively.

Wind speed

In hot weather, a light breeze can help evaporate sweat, making it feel cooler.

Sun exposure

Even if the thermometer reads the same, direct sunlight adds extra warmth, which is why shaded areas feel cooler.

The United States Senate has voted in favour of invoking its war powers to force President Donald Trump to halt his military campaign against Iran or seek congressional approval before any further action is taken.

Here is a closer look at Tuesday’s vote – the 10th attempt Congress has made to rein in the US-Israel war on Iran – and what this means for the US government.

Why did this vote take place?

A similar measure had already been approved in the House of Representatives on June 3 by a vote of 215 to 208, and on Tuesday, the Senate passed it in a 50-48 vote. Trump’s Republican Party has slim majorities in both chambers.

Speaking on the Senate floor before the vote, top Democrat Chuck Schumer advocated for the war powers resolution as he criticised Trump’s military campaign against Iran.

“For years, Trump promised to put maximum pressure on Iran, but he ended up delivering maximum confusion, maximum chaos, maximum cost to the American people with his disastrous war,” Schumer said.

“Time after time, the vast majority of Senate Republicans sided with Trump and his war instead of the American people. The American people have paid the price for Trump’s historic blunder in Iran. It’ll go down in the history books as one of the worst foreign policy forays America has ever made.”

The war against Iran has proved highly unpopular in the US. A poll released on Tuesday by the news agency Reuters and the research firm Ipsos found that 24 percent of respondents felt the war had been worth the cost.

The Senate passed its first war powers resolution against the Iran conflict on May 20, but that effort was a procedural move only and did not progress.

Who voted and how?

Four Republican senators crossed party lines to vote for the resolution, and all but one of the chamber’s Democrats also voted in favour.

Tuesday’s breakaway Republicans were Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky. A further two Republicans did not vote: Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Dave McCormick of Pennsylvania.

The lone Democrat to vote against the measure was Pennsylvania’s John Fetterman.

What does the resolution say?

The war powers resolution “directs the President to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran”.

Only if “explicitly authorised by a declaration of war or a specific congressional authorisation” would Trump be allowed to use further military force against Iran, it says.

The resolution, however, does allow for a limited military presence to remain in the Middle East to prevent any “imminent attack” against the US or its allies.

What is the significance of the vote?

The vote reflects growing unease even among some of Trump’s Republican supporters about the unpopular conflict, which began with US-Israeli air strikes on Tehran on February 28.

This is the first time both chambers of Congress have passed a resolution directing a president to remove US armed forces from a warzone under the War Powers Act although it was not immediately clear how the votes might affect the conflict.

Technically, the Trump administration should now seek explicit congressional approval for further strikes on Iran. However, previous administrations have found routes around this by securing more limited authorisations for the use of military force (AUMFs) instead.

For example, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks in 2001, Congress passed an AUMF that gave then-President George W Bush broad powers to conduct what would become the global “war on terror”.

And one year later, it passed another AUMF, allowing the use of the military against the government of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, which became the basis of the 2003 invasion.

The two authorisations remain in place, and presidents continue to rely on them to carry out strikes without first seeking congressional approval. The assassination of top Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in 2020 in Baghdad was authorised by Trump under the 2003 AUMF.

In addition, a resolution does not have the force of law. Experts said, therefore, that while the Senate vote is viewed as a rebuke to Trump, it is largely symbolic.

What effect will this have on US-Iran talks in Switzerland?

Before the vote on Tuesday, some Republican senators had warned that the war powers resolution would weaken Trump’s standing in the Switzerland negotiations.

“If this passes, the Iranians are going to simply stand up and walk away from negotiations,” Senator James Risch of Idaho told the Senate on Tuesday.

“They’re going to say: This thing’s over. The Congress has told the president of the United States, ‘Leave us alone. We can do whatever we want to do,’ and they will walk away.”

How will the Trump administration respond?

Risch also argued that the resolution is essentially useless, given its symbolic nature. “It’s going to have no effect. The president isn’t going to pay any attention to it,” he said.

The US Constitution gives Congress the sole power to declare war, but that division of power has eroded over the past 75 years as successive presidents alone have committed US forces to overseas conflicts.

Trump has pointed to that precedent to argue that he does not need congressional authorisation at all.

In an appearance on The Axios Show last week, Trump denied learning any “lesson” about the limits of his executive powers during the Iran war. “There are no limits,” he said.

The last time Congress voted to go to war was during World War II although it has passed AUMFs in the decades since, which allow for limited military engagement without congressional approval for all-out war.

During Trump’s first term, there were concerns that he could use the 2001 AUMF to strike Iran under the unfounded claim that Tehran supports al-Qaeda.

Some critics pointed out that Republicans may be more willing to confront Trump over the issue of congressional authorisation now as they defend their seats before November’s midterm elections.