Explainer

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.

EXPLAINER

Iran and the US clash over nuclear inspections and Hormuz as negotiators push for a final deal within 60 days.

Iran and the United States have offered conflicting accounts of key issues as negotiators work towards a final agreement within a 60-day window. Differences remain over nuclear oversight and the implementation of any deal, underscoring the challenges facing both sides.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Iran would not be allowed to charge tolls in the Strait of Hormuz under a final agreement, stressing that the strategic waterway must remain open to international shipping.

Meanwhile, Iran rejected US claims that it had agreed to allow nuclear inspectors back into the country after President Donald Trump said Tehran had accepted the “highest level” of monitoring. The conflicting statements highlight the gaps that negotiators are still trying to bridge.

Here is what has happened:

In Iran

• Iran’s military shifts to ‘offensive doctrine’: General Ahmad Reza Pourdastan, head of Iran’s Army Strategic Studies and Research Center, said Tehran has moved away from a purely defensive posture and now includes preemptive operations in its military strategy. Quoted by the semi-official Fars news agency, Pourdastan said Iran could “severely surprise the enemy” if national interests required it and added that much of the country’s military capability has yet to be used.
• Iran says no IAEA inspections planned: Tohid Asadi, reporting from the Strait of Hormuz, says the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei has denied reports of a meeting with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Rafael Grossi and said there are currently no plans for visits or inspections by the UN nuclear watchdog. Baghaei said Iran’s dealings with the IAEA would be governed by existing procedures, its safeguards obligations, parliamentary legislation and decisions by the Supreme National Security Council. Iran suspended cooperation with the IAEA after US and Israeli strikes on its nuclear facilities in June 2025, and while diplomacy continues under a 60-day framework, Tehran says it has not granted permission for inspectors to return.

War diplomacy:

• ‘No way’ US and Iran can finalise deal in 60 days, analyst says: Charles Kupchan, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, told Al Jazeera there is “no way” Washington and Tehran can complete a final agreement within the 60-day timeframe repeatedly cited by President Donald Trump. “I think we’re talking about at least into the next calendar year,” he said, adding that he would not be surprised if both sides simply “run out the clock” by continuing negotiations and keeping the Strait of Hormuz open without reaching a final deal before the end of Trump’s presidency.
• Qatar says LNG production could return to normal within weeks: Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani told the Financial Times that Qatar is preparing to restore normal liquefied natural gas (LNG) production after the interim US-Iran deal. Qatar, the world’s second-largest LNG producer, halted output in March following an Iranian drone attack on the Ras Laffan facility. Sheikh Mohammed said most production could resume within weeks, except at the damaged site, adding that QatarEnergy would only lift its force majeure declaration once it is satisfied that all safety and operational concerns have been addressed.

In the Gulf:

• Rubio ‘trying to sell the deal’ with Iran on Gulf tour: Alan Fisher, reporting from Washington, DC, said US Secretary of State Marco Rubio is visiting the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Bahrain, three Gulf countries seen as having been among the most affected by the war with Iran. Rubio, who also serves as Trump’s national security adviser, is expected to reassure regional allies that US security commitments remain intact. He will also address the Gulf Cooperation Council in Bahrain, where he is “really trying to sell the deal”, amid concerns over Washington’s response to Iranian attacks.

In the US

• US Senate approves resolution to curb Trump’s war powers on Iran: The Senate voted 50-48 to pass a measure requiring congressional approval for further US military action against Iran, marking the first time a war powers resolution on the conflict has cleared both chambers of Congress. Four Republicans – Bill Cassidy, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins and Rand Paul – joined nearly all Democrats in backing the measure, while Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman voted against it. The resolution is expected to face a veto from President Trump.

In Israel

• US ‘very naive’ on Iran, Ben-Gvir says: Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said the US would be “very naive” if it believed Iran would abandon its nuclear programme, and hinted that Israel may act independently against Tehran. “It is Israel’s responsibility to confront this Iranian threat and act against it alone,” he told Israel’s Channel 7, adding that “no circumstances” could force Israel to act “according to the dictates of a friend, even if that friend is truly great”. His remarks come amid reported tensions between Washington and Tel Aviv over Israel’s attacks on Lebanon and ongoing US-Iran negotiations. Last week, US Vice President JD Vance publicly criticised Israeli cabinet ministers for “attacking” Washington, calling the US Israel’s “only powerful ally” left in the world.

In Lebanon

• UN says ceasefire ‘largely holding’ in southern Lebanon: The United Nations said the ceasefire in southern Lebanon appears to be “largely holding”, although peacekeepers continue to observe Israeli military ground and air activity. UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said UNIFIL troops witnessed “heavy” machine-gun fire and three tank rounds fired by Israeli forces near Biyyada on Monday, while drones were also seen “apparently to monitor UNIFIL peacekeepers”. The incident came a day after peacekeepers reported the first day without exchanges of fire since fighting escalated on March 2. The UN urged all sides to “adhere fully to the ceasefire and refrain from any escalation, particularly during this delicate period of ongoing negotiations”.

As Africa navigates the challenges posed by the U.S.-Iran crisis, creating worldwide economic instability, the 52nd Ordinary Session of the Permanent Representatives’ Committee (PRC) called for consistent commitment to the peaceful resolution of disputes through dialogue and diplomacy. The 49th Ordinary Session of the Executive Council and the 8th Mid-Year Coordination Meeting (MYCM) between the AU, Regional Economic Communities (RECs), and Regional Mechanisms (RMs), scheduled to take place on 27 June 2026 in El Alamein, Egypt.

Chairperson of the AU Commission, Mahmoud Ali Youssouf, has acknowledged that the multifaceted challenges currently facing the continent, including geopolitical tensions affecting global supply chains, macroeconomic instability, delays in fertilizer imports, ongoing conflicts, and health emergencies such as the recent Ebola outbreak. He noted that external factors, including the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, continue to disrupt continental plans.

Despite these difficulties, the AUC chairperson affirmed the commission’s commitment to redoubling its efforts, implementing contingency plans, and reinforcing fiscal discipline. He stated that the 2027 budget would be an austerity budget, while underscoring the imperative to continue the post-SACA (Skills Assessment and Competence Audit) trajectory. He revealed that the AU currently operates with only 30% of its required staffing levels and approximately 25% of its global budget, including programs funded by statutory contributions.

That, however, Youssouf appealed to Member States for enhanced solidarity and material support, emphasizing that achieving the objectives of Agenda 2063 demands greater involvement and commitment. He reassured the Permanent Representatives’ Committee that the Commission is developing scenarios to address human and financial resource gaps and remains ready to work collaboratively with Member States to identify appropriate solutions.

He concluded by reaffirming the Commission’s dedication to strict budgetary discipline and its unwavering support to Member States. “The African Union should have the necessary human and financial resources to attain the objectives of Agenda 2063. I am aware of the difficulties that our member states are facing. The Commission is ready to find, together with you, the appropriate solutions to take up these challenges together,” said Mahmoud Ali Youssouf.

Ambassador Willy Nyamitwe, Chairperson of the PRC and Ambassador of the Republic of Burundi to Ethiopia, delivered a compelling address calling for unity, self-reflection, and action. He expressed gratitude to Member States for entrusting Burundi with steering the continental organization this year. Ambassador Nyamitwe highlighted the profound technological transformations reshaping economies and the rising expectations of African citizens.

Ambassador Nyamitwe cautioned against national positions that may unintentionally undermine continental unity, urging ambassadors to ensure that their decisions tangibly improve the lives of ordinary Africans. He stated that unity is not merely a virtue but a weapon and that history will judge not speeches but the courage to acknowledge mistakes and strengthen collective institutions. He called on the PRC to choose solidarity over division and vision over hesitation. “History will remember whether we strengthened the institutions entrusted to us. It will remember whether we chose solidarity over division and vision over hesitation. I have every confidence that this committee, the PRC, possesses the wisdom, the experience, and the determination required to meet these expectations. Together, let us continue building an African Union that is stronger, more effective, and more responsive to the aspirations of our peoples,” concluded Ambassador Willy Nyamitwe.

The official meeting was attended by Selma Malika Haddadi, Deputy Chairperson of the AU Commission, along with AU Commissioners, representatives of AU organs, and senior officials. The PRC will deliberate on reports from its Sub-Committees, the AU Commission, and other AU organs and specialized agencies. The Committee will subsequently adopt its report and the draft decisions for the 49th Ordinary Session of the Executive Council, scheduled for 24-25 June 2026 in El Alamein, Egypt.

US announces the temporary easing of oil sanctions for 60 days after Iran agrees to allow international nuclear inspections.

Iran’s top negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, says an agreement has been reached with the United States to release $12bn in frozen Iranian funds following talks in Switzerland.

The US eased sanctions on Iranian oil for 60 days after Tehran committed to allowing international nuclear inspectors to return to the country during negotiations to end the US-Israel war on Iran.

Israel and Lebanon are scheduled to hold talks in the US as a ceasefire appears to be holding in Lebanon.

So what’s the latest as the conflict enters its 116th day?

Diplomacy

• Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi says technical talks with the US have concluded and the next phase “will take place under the supervision of the high-level committee” that includes Ghalibaf, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and US Vice President JD Vance.
• Ghalibaf has hailed “good achievements” in the US-Iran talks and confirmed the release of two tranches of $6bn in frozen funds.
• The US Treasury Department has waived sanctions on the sale of Iranian crude ⁠oil, petrochemicals ⁠and petroleum products until ⁠August 21.
• Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi reaffirms a commitment for “toll-free passage” in the Strait of Hormuz after talks with Iranian diplomats in Muscat.
• Henry Ensher, a former US ambassador and deputy assistant secretary of state, says the release of frozen Iranian assets and the resumption of maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz suggest that Washington and Tehran are both “getting what they want”. “Both sides are very interested to show that, somehow, they’ve gotten the upper hand or at least that they’re not being taken advantage of,” Ensher tells Al Jazeera.

In Iran

• Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has called for a “full commitment to agreed obligations”. “The effectiveness of the talks depends on full commitment to the agreed obligations and their precise implementation,” Pezeshkian says.
• Ghalibaf has defended the decision to hold talks with the US, saying Iranian delegates went to Switzerland to end the bloodshed in Lebanon.
• Central Bank of Iran Governor Abdolnaser Hemmati has denied comments by US President Donald Trump that released Iranian funds would be used to buy US farm products. Hemmati tells the Tasnim News Agency that Iran has “no obligation to buy” agricultural products from the US. He says the agreement between the US and Iran on the matter says the first $6bn can be used to buy “basic goods and medicine”.

In the US

• Trump says Iran “will agree” to have weapons inspections and any released Iranian assets will be used to buy US produce.
• Democrats on the Foreign Affairs Committee of the US House of Representatives have accused Trump of granting Iran sanctions relief before making progress on key issues under negotiation, including Tehran’s nuclear programme. “Trump officials repeatedly said sanctions relief would be tied to Iran addressing its nuclear program and terrorist proxies. Neither has been addressed, but the regime has been gifted sweeping sanctions relief it has dreamed of for decades,” they say in a post on X.

In Lebanon

• A ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah has largely held, even as fear of renewed hostilities has kept displaced people from returning home.
• The United Nations said Sunday marked the first time its peacekeepers have detected no air attacks in Lebanon since March 2, the day the war between Israel and Hezbollah escalated and two days after the US-Israel war on Iran began.
• Mahmoud Qamati, deputy head of Hezbollah’s political council, has warned that the Lebanese group will respond to any violation of the ceasefire by Israel, according to Iran’s Press TV. “Hezbollah remains fully alert with its finger on the trigger, ready to confront any violation by the Israeli regime,” Qamati is quoted as saying.
• Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defence Minister Israel Katz and Chief of the General Staff Eyal Zamir say Israeli troops will continue to occupy southern Lebanon.

• The Israeli military will continue to “act with determination in order to neutralize threats against our soldiers and our citizens” and to demolish infrastructure belonging to Hezbollah, they say in a statement.

• The Israeli military will also continue to “maintain the security zone in southern Lebanon”, they say, referring to the land Israel occupies there, razing buildings and forcibly displacing one million people.
• Israel and Lebanon are to start a new round of direct talks in Washington, DC, on Tuesday.

The small constituency of Makerfield in northwest England has found itself in the eye of the storm of British politics with a by-election on Thursday that will not only produce a new member of parliament but could also pave the way for a new prime minister.

The by-election was triggered last month when the previous MP, Josh Simons, stood down to allow Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham to contest the seat. If Burnham wins, he intends to challenge UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer for the leadership of the ruling Labour Party.

Starmer is facing mounting pressure to step aside following dismal council election results last month and this week’s resignation of Secretary of State for Defence John Healey and Armed Forces Minister Al Carns over the United Kingdom’s defence budget.

Seeking to derail Burham’s hopes for the Labour leadership, however, is far-right Reform UK candidate Robert Kenyon, whose campaign has been dogged by controversy over alleged sexist and misogynistic social media posts but who remains within striking distance in the polls. Reform came second at the last election in Makerfield, however, and are seen as presenting a real challenge to Labour, which has held the seat since its creation in 1983.

Here’s a closer look at the race, why it matters and how its consequences could extend far beyond Makerfield.

Why is a by-election happening in Makerfield?

Despite winning the 2024 general election in a landslide, Labour’s popularity has tanked over the past two years as support for the far-right, anti-immigration Reform UK has soared. In council elections last month, Reform swept up hundreds of council seats at Labour’s expense. Overall, Labour lost nearly 1,500 local council seats while Reform surged from 100 to about 1,450 seats.

On the right, Labour’s rhetoric on immigration has failed to stem support for Reform UK, which continues to attract both former Conservative voters and sections of Labour’s traditional working-class base – particularly in the north of England. On the left of the party, many voters who feel aggrieved by Starmer’s stance on Israel and cuts to welfare have shifted towards the Green Party.

Now, according to polling group Ipsos, Starmer is the most unpopular prime minister since it began voter surveys in the late 1970s.

As Labour’s internal tensions have grown as a result, Burnham has consistently emerged as one of the party membership’s preferred alternatives to Starmer. Recent polling suggests Starmer would defeat most potential challengers in a leadership contest, with one notable exception: Burnham.

As Mayor of Manchester, Burnham is not an MP and cannot currently stand for leadership of the Labour Party. Earlier this year, he was blocked from standing for Parliament via another by-election in Gorton and Denton, a seat Labour ultimately lost to the Green Party.

As pressure on the prime minister has mounted, however, Labour’s National Executive Committee has been increasingly unwilling to block Burnham from standing as an MP again.

Announcing his resignation as Makerfield MP following the council elections, Simons said Labour was heading towards a divisive leadership contest with “no hope, no energy that anything would change”. He described Makerfield as “where Andy Burnham has lived for 25 years” and said the mayor was “coming home”.

“Labour needs to change and the whole government needs to change,” Simons added.

Who is standing and what are they campaigning on?

Labour: Andy Burnham

Burnham currently serves as the highly popular Mayor of Greater Manchester, having left Westminster after previously serving in several cabinet positions under former Labour prime ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

As mayor, Burnham has built a reputation as one of Labour’s most recognisable politicians, benefitting from his distance from Westminster while arguing that it could learn from what he calls “Manchesterism” – a blend of pro-business policies designed to attract investment while bringing essential services back under public control.

Known by some supporters as the “King of the North”, Burnham gained national prominence for challenging the Conservative government during the COVID-19 pandemic and for his long-running campaign for justice for the victims of the Hillsborough disaster.

His appeal to Labour’s working-class base in the north of England has led some party members to view him as Labour’s strongest candidate for winning back the so-called “Red Wall” – former industrial constituencies that have increasingly shifted towards Reform UK in the north of England.

Political commentator and journalist Aaron Bastani told Al Jazeera that Burnham’s personal reputation “makes a difference” and that he represents Labour’s best chance against Reform UK.

“A lot of Reform voters actually like him. Many people have a good word to say about him, and he’s been a politician in the area for 25 years.”

But he added that, among some voters, he is still tarred by his “association with Labour as the party of government”.

“Many Reform voters see Labour as the party that backed the Iraq war, and there’s a deep sense of disillusionment with the political establishment … What’s interesting is that some Reform voters were making left-wing criticisms of Burnham, such as the cuts to winter fuel payments and broader dissatisfaction with the government’s direction.”

Reform UK: Robert Kenyon

Hoping to spoil Burnham’s chances is Reform’s Kenyon, affectionately referred to by some members of the UK media as “the plucky plumber” in reference to his profession. He represents a party whose rapid rise and anti-immigrant message has transformed Britain’s political landscape.

Reform UK’s rise has largely been driven by Nigel Farage, the architect of Brexit, whose party has capitalised on the collapse of support for the former ruling Conservative Party. Many big names from the Conservatives have defected to Reform in recent months. That has enabled Reform to attract both traditional right-wing voters and some former Labour supporters, largely on a platform that directs local grievances towards migration.

“For many voters, the proliferation of vape shops and takeaways on high streets has become a shorthand for a sense of decline,” Bastani told Al Jazeera.

“It’s often one of the first things people talk about when discussing immigration and changes to their local area. The concern isn’t really about vape shops themselves – they’re seen as visible symbols of a declining economic model, the loss of local identity and a feeling that places are deteriorating.”

Bastani, however, described Kenyon as “unimpressive”. His campaign has been overshadowed by allegations relating to historic social media activity.

Anti-extremism group HOPE not hate published posts attributed to Kenyon that included COVID-19 conspiracy theories, endorsements of sexualised comments about television presenter Carol Vorderman and remarks about female rugby players.

The group also highlighted comments on an online forum in which Kenyon allegedly described himself as sexist and suggested women make false rape allegations to obtain abortions.

Restore Britain: Rebecca Shepherd

Another factor is Restore Britain, a breakaway far-right party founded by former Reform UK MP Rupert Lowe, who argues that Reform UK has become too mainstream and is no longer hard enough on combating undocumented immigration.

Lowe, a former Reform member, was suspended by Reform UK in March 2025 after publicly criticising party leader Nigel Farage and was later expelled following a series of workplace bullying allegations and complaints from female staff members, which he denies.

Since launching the new party less than four months ago, Restore Britain claims to have attracted more than 96,000 members and 13 councillors, many of them former Reform figures. Should a significant share of those voters ultimately switch from Reform UK, it could dent Reform’s share of the vote just enough to benefit Labour.

Conservative: Michael Winstanley

Winstanley is the former mayor of Wigan, standing as candidate for the former ruling Conservative Party. He was elected as a councillor for the local ward of Orrell and 2000, and served for 16 years.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch called Winstanley “an excellent champion of the area having lived in, worked in and represented the local community for years”.

Observers do not expect any great show of Conservative voters at this election, however. In May’s local elections in Wigan, Labour won 42 seats, Reform 25, and the Conservatives got none. And, in the last general election in Makerfield, the Tories came in third – behind Labour and Reform – with just over 10 percent of the vote.

What do the polls say about the candidates?

Polling suggests the contest is effectively a two-horse race between Labour and Reform UK. The largest survey of the campaign, conducted by Opinium for Forward Democracy, indicates Burnham holds a narrow lead.

Based on a mixed-method survey of 543 local residents, Burnham leads Kenyon by five percentage points among voters most likely to cast a ballot. Among those rating themselves at least seven out of 10 likely to vote, Burnham stands on 46 percent compared with Kenyon’s 41 percent.

However, Kenyon’s share may have been damaged by the 7 percent that Shepherd is expected to win in Restore Britain’s first parliamentary outing. The Conservatives are polling at just 2 percent.

Furthermore, while Labour currently leads in the by-election campaign, the constituency’s longer-term political trajectory may ultimately favour Reform UK. When respondents were asked how they would vote in a future general election, Reform UK led with 42 percent compared with Labour’s 34 percent, suggesting that Burnham’s personal appeal may be helping Labour outperform its own national reputation.

In May, Labour lost all eight of its local council seats in Makerfield to Reform.

Tom de Grunwald, founder of Forward Democracy and StopReformUK.Vote, said tactical voting could prove decisive. “If you live in Makerfield and you would normally vote Green, Liberal Democrat, or anyone else, and you don’t want Reform UK to win this seat, the maths is clear: Andy Burnham is the only candidate who can stop them,” he said.

However, Bastani said he is sceptical that many Restore Britain supporters will ultimately return to Reform UK. “A lot of those voters now see Farage as part of the establishment,” he said, adding that Restore Britain could outperform expectations on polling day – which could split the far-right vote and benefit Burnham. While he expects Burnham to win, Bastani said the result should not obscure the rise of Reform.

“I’d be surprised if Burnham didn’t win. But if Reform were running a stronger candidate, this could look very different. If Farage somehow managed to win a seat like this against someone with Burnham’s profile, it would rank among the most significant political achievements of his career.”

The US-Iran memorandum of understanding expected to be formally signed in Switzerland on Friday could allow for the establishment of a $300bn investment fund for Iran, as part of a broader settlement to end the war that triggered a global energy crisis and upended markets worldwide.

US Vice President JD Vance told CBS News on Monday that the incentives would be connected to Iran’s “performance” in adhering to the deal, which was digitally signed by both sides on Sunday.

The scale of the financial incentives grabbed the headlines due to US President Donald Trump’s longstanding criticism of a 2015 nuclear accord that he claimed delivered economic benefits to Tehran.

In a bid to manage perceptions around this politically sensitive issue, Trump took to his Truth Social platform to claim that “the story that the US is paying Iran 300 million Dollars is Fake News,” while Vance told CBS News that the money would not be a US payout in exchange for Iran’s enriched uranium.

“When people say that billions of dollars of assets will be released, that’s not true,” the vice president told the CBS Morning programme. “What is true is that Iran will have a much better and much more prosperous future if they meet the obligations they make in this agreement.”

What do we know about the $300bn investment fund?

Vance said the deal “fundamentally extends a hand to Iran and says, ‘Look, if you guys are willing to honour your obligations, if you’re willing to allow real inspections of your nuclear programme, then we will welcome you back into the world economy.’

“That’s the sort of thing they could have access to, funded by the Gulf Coast coalition, so long as they honour their end of the obligation,” Vance told CBS. He also claimed that while US money would not be injected, economic opportunities could arise once Iran repositions itself in the global economy.

The New York Times quoted sources saying the fund would not come from governments but be created for companies eager to invest in Iran.

Muhanad Seloom, a non-resident senior fellow at the Middle East Council on Global Affairs, said the setup was a no-lose solution for Washington. “If Iran reforms, the administration owns the peace; if it doesn’t, the US loses nothing and the Gulf carries the risk,” he told Al Jazeera.

What about the Iranian frozen assets?

Seloom said the idea of an investment fund was built precisely to escape the optics of releasing Iran’s frozen funds. While the exact amount of Iran’s frozen assets is unclear, official Iranian reports and experts have set the total amount at more than $100bn.

Iran’s economy has been crippled due to years of sanctions imposed on the country by the United States and other nations following the Islamic revolution in 1979, and then amplified over Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missiles programmes. These measures have restricted Tehran’s ability to access its own assets, such as revenues from oil sales, which have been frozen in foreign banks.

Tehran was granted sanctions relief in the wake of the landmark 2015 nuclear deal signed under President Barack Obama, but Trump tore it up in 2018 during his first term. The 2015 deal had put limits on Iran’s nuclear enrichment in exchange for sanctions relief.

Iran’s state-affiliated Mehr News agency reported on Sunday that the 14-point draft memorandum of understanding provided for the release of $24bn in frozen Iranian assets.

Pressed by CBS News on the possibility of releasing frozen funds, Vance said the $24bn figure “just doesn’t appear anywhere in any of the texts that we’ve talked about with the Iranians”.

“What we have said is that we’re willing to talk about unfreezing assets, but a much, much bigger deal is unsanctioning their economy – so long as they make the long-term commitments on the nuclear programme,” the vice president added.

For Iran, where the war inflicted an estimated $29bn damage and the population is struggling with the highest inflation rate since 1942, the investment fund may constitute a much-needed lifeline.

But the optics will not be as favourable, raising a “dignity problem”, Seloom said. “Tehran reads this as supervised, conditional money rather than sovereign relief,” the analyst told Al Jazeera.

Which other contentious issues will be discussed after signing the deal on Friday?

One of the US’s main declared objectives has been to assuage concerns surrounding Iran’s nuclear programme, including a stockpile of more than 440kg (970lbs) of enriched uranium.

The memorandum extends an existing ceasefire arrangement for another 60 days, during which the two sides are expected to hold further negotiations on issues including the disposal of the enriched uranium.

Vance said Tehran had agreed to surrender its stockpile, undergo regular inspections and refrain from producing or buying nuclear weapons, but the full text of the memorandum of understanding has yet to be disclosed.

The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, which has been subject to competing blockades by the US and Iran, has also been a point of contention. Trump suggested an agreement to reopen the waterway had been reached when he announced a deal on Sunday with the words: “Let the oil flow!”

Speaking to CNBC, however, Vance acknowledged that not all sticking points surrounding the passageway had been resolved. “Well, our expectation is that the strait is gonna be opened in a toll-free way for the long term, and that’s the sort of thing that we’re gonna figure out in these technical negotiations,” he said.

Israel’s ongoing aggression on Lebanon is also expected to create friction, as Iran has insisted any ceasefire deal must include the allied nation. Israel has so far rejected any arrangement that would limit its ability to strike what it says are Hezbollah targets. Defence Minister Israel Katz on Friday said the military would continue operating in Lebanon regardless of any agreement with Tehran.

Mixed reactions to the agreement

Iranian ⁠⁠Foreign ⁠⁠Minister Abbas Araghchi said the memorandum of understanding would reap economic benefits for Iran but stressed that Tehran would not rely on those benefits for all of its needs.

“We have a history of broken promises, non-compliance, and the tearing up of agreements,” Araghchi said on Monday, according to Press TV. He said discussions about the lifting of US sanctions and Iran’s nuclear programme would be held during a 60-day period of negotiations following the official signature on Friday.

Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, has yet to comment. Some Iranian observers objected to the timing of the announcement, which coincided with Trump’s birthday. Referring to the assassination of former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei at the beginning of the US-Iran war, conservative journalist Parisa Nasr wrote on X: “Was giving a birthday gift to the killer of the martyred Leader also one of the unwritten conditions of the deal?”

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said Iran’s Supreme National Security Council had approved the deal so that “America’s genuine commitment to respecting the rights of the Iranian nation could be tested in practice.”

Speaking at the G7 summit in France on Tuesday, Trump described the deal with Iran as “fair”, “good”, and under which Iran “can’t have a nuclear weapon” or “they get blown up.”

Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, who is also attending the summit, said the Iran-US agreement will result in positive outcomes for the region.

“This is a very important deal, there’s still a lot of work to be done, but with this momentum – if we continue like that, Mr President – I think we can achieve and do great things in the region,” Sheikh Tamim said.

US Democratic lawmakers welcomed a deal to halt the war with Iran but stressed that its terms must be made public. Senator Gregory Meeks said “any final agreement must be durable, enforceable, transparent” and more than “vague announcements or political spin”.

US Republican Senator Lindsey Graham on Sunday said he was “pleased” about the deal but also “somewhat concerned that Iran’s view of the agreement seems different than what the American negotiating team is claiming”.

Seloom, at the Middle East Council on Global Affairs, said the different narratives underlined that the two sides were “not really talking to each other”. “They’re talking past each other, to domestic audiences,” he said. “Each side has to sell this as a victory it cannot sell honestly.”

EXPLAINER

US President Donald Trump and Iranian leaders say a deal has been agreed to end more than 100 days of war that killed thousands.

United States President Donald Trump and Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said on Sunday that they had reached an initial deal to end the war and to resume traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump said the deal allows for toll-free shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, which has been largely closed since the US and Israel launched an assault on Iran on February 28.

“The Deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is now complete,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Sunday.

The US and Iran will sign a memorandum of understanding in Switzerland on Friday, said the prime minister of Pakistan, whose country has served as a mediator.

Monday marks 108 days since the war began, with the US and Israel’s attacks on Iran. Here is what’s happening:

What we know about the deal

• The content of the agreement, which follows weeks of fraught negotiations and periodic threats from Trump of new hostilities unless Iran reaches a deal, remained unclear.
• Strait of Hormuz to reopen: Iran’s semi-official Mehr news agency said the draft deal called for reopening the Strait of Hormuz within 30 days under Iranian arrangements. Trump, who turned 80 on Sunday, said the deal allows for toll-free shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, which has been largely closed since the US and Israel launched an assault on Iran on December 28.
• Frozen assets to be released: Iran’s Mehr news agency reported that the US would release $12bn in frozen assets to Iran before the start of negotiations.
• Iran’s enriched uranium: In an interview with The New York Times on Sunday, Trump said Washington was still negotiating whether Iran would suspend its enrichment for 20 years. Trump hinted that he might settle for a 15-year suspension, but said he did not want to negotiate via the press.
• Israel has not commented: There has been no official comment from Israel about the peace agreement.

In Iran

• The secretariat of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council said on Monday that the deal with the US includes the immediate suspension of hostilities on all fronts. “Based on the agreements reached, the war and military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon, will end immediately and permanently as of tonight, and in addition, the naval blockade against Iran will end immediately and completely,” it said in a statement.

In the US

• Democrats slam Trump over war: While Democratic lawmakers welcomed the deal, they criticised the Trump administration’s decisions pertaining to the war. Senator Chris Coons of Delaware said that while the deal moves the situation in the “right direction”, several questions remain. He warned that competing interpretations of what was agreed upon could pose risks. Senator Chris Murphy, who serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the deal is a “surrender to Iran” but that the US should be “glad about it because every day this insane, illegal war continues, we get weaker”.

In Lebanon

• Trump rebukes Israeli attack on Beirut: On Sunday, shortly before the deal was announced by Trump, Israel launched an air attack on Beirut. Trump angrily blamed Israel for delaying the deal’s signing after launching this attack. In an expletive-laden phone interview with US news outlet Axios, Trump fumed about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying: “I was so pissed off. I let him know.”

Global response

• Western leaders praise deal: UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he was ready to aid the further technical talks between the US and Iran, adding that he hopes the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz will stabilise energy markets.
• French President Emmanuel Macron also praised the deal and said Paris would support the Lebanese government.
• European Union chief Antonio Costa welcomed a deal between the US and Iran to end the Middle East war, adding that the bloc was ready to contribute to a strategy for “lasting peace”.
• UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said it was a “critical step” towards resolving the war in the Middle East.

Global economy

• Oil prices drop: Oil prices slipped to their lowest since March on Monday, with global benchmark Brent crude futures falling $4.08, or 4.7 percent, to $83.25 a barrel by 04:15 GMT. US West Texas Intermediate was at $80.53, down $4.35, or 5.1 percent. Both contracts fell to their lowest levels since March 10 on Monday after tumbling more than 3 percent on Friday.
• Asian markets soar: Markets in Japan soared, more than 5 percent up; in South Korea, they were up 5.3 percent; in Taiwan, they were up 2.4 percent. In Shanghai, they were up 1.3 percent; and in Hong Kong, they were up half a percent; while in Indonesia, they were up 2.07 percent; and in the Philippines, they were up 5.2 percent.

Friday marks one year since a deadly Air India Boeing crash, which killed 260 people in a densely populated suburb of the city of Ahmedabad in India’s western state of Gujarat.

Families of those killed gathered at the site on Friday to mark the anniversary of the disaster, but they are still waiting for answers about what caused the plane to come down shortly after takeoff from the nearby airport.

Indian authorities are expected to issue an interim report in the coming days, another source of frustration for the victims’ relatives, who had been hoping for a definitive finding and a final disclosure. Media reports, citing unnamed sources, suggest that Indian investigators will delay issuing a final report into the crash, citing the need to complete an analysis of the plane’s engines.

Under international aviation rules, a final report is due “if possible” within a year of an accident. If an investigation goes on for longer, an interim statement should be issued on each anniversary.

What happened to the Air India plane?

Flight AI171, an Air India Boeing 787 Dreamliner plane which had taken off only moments before, en route to London Gatwick, crashed into a medical college hostel in the residential area of Meghani Nagar, close to the international airport on the edge of India’s western city of Ahmedabad.

According to flight tracking website Flightradar24, the plane’s final signal was received seconds after takeoff at 1:38pm local time (08:08 GMT). It had reached an altitude of 625 feet (190 metres) before crashing back to the ground outside the airport.

The plane had issued a mayday alert to air traffic control just before all communications from the aircraft ceased.

How many people died in the crash?

Of the 242 people on board, all except one passenger were killed. These included 169 Indian nationals and 52 British nationals. A total of 260 people died, as 19 people on the ground close to the crash site were also killed. Another 67 people near the site were injured.

The sole survivor on board the plane, Vishwash Kumar Ramesh, is a British national whose brother was killed in the crash.

On Thursday, Ramesh’s representative, Sanjiv Patel, told the UK’s Guardian newspaper that Air India had paid £21,500 ($28,800) in compensation to Ramesh to help support his wife and their five-year-old son. It is not clear whether similar payments have been made to other families.

Relatives of the victims are meeting on Friday at a conference organised by lawyers, along with aviation and air safety experts, in Ahmedabad. They are due to hold a candlelight vigil after sunset.

What have preliminary reports shown?

This was the world’s first airliner crash involving a 787 Dreamliner, a Boeing model that has been in service since 2011.

In accordance with international aviation law, India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) published a preliminary report one month after the disaster.

That 15-page document said the fuel supply to the jet’s engines had been cut off moments before the crash, raising questions about possible pilot error.

It also published a conversation between the captain and his copilot about the fuel supply being cut off – two brief sentences that prompted theories of pilot suicide.

The report was met with strong criticism.

It did not state why the fuel switches were turned off – whether it was the fault of a pilot, or a result of a malfunction.

The preliminary report did not make any safety recommendations to Boeing or engine maker GE Aerospace, suggesting no technical issues had been discovered.

The crash also hit Air India at a sensitive stage of its post-privatisation turnaround, which has been slowed by supply-chain snags, an airspace ban imposed by Pakistan on Indian carriers and, more recently, the US-Israeli war on Iran.

What’s the latest on the investigation?

Under international rules, a final report is due “if possible” within a year of an accident, but sometimes investigations take longer. If it cannot be completed, therefore, an interim statement should be issued on each anniversary. With investigations continuing, the AAIB is expected to issue only an interim report at this stage.

The Federation of Indian Pilots union has been pushing for investigators to seek more technical data about the plane from Boeing and Air India to allow for a “rebuttal of the pilot suicide theory being explored by the AAIB”.

“It [an interim report only] will cause more speculation and more misunderstanding,” Charanvir Randhawa, the union’s president, told reporters at a packed news conference in Ahmedabad ahead of the anniversary of the crash.

“We have requested the Indian government and India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) not to come out with any interim report.”

A cockpit recording of dialogue between the two pilots of the Air India 787 before it crashed supported the view that the captain cut the flow of fuel to its engines, according to US officials’ early assessment reported by Reuters last year.

But the AAIB said at the time it was “too early to reach any definite conclusions”.

Investigators conducted engine testing in April and visited France last month as part of their analysis of the engine management unit, a source told Reuters on the condition of anonymity, as the information is not public.

On Thursday, Bloomberg also reported that the final report into the crash can be expected within three months, once studies of the engines, which had been sent to the US for examination, are concluded.

The captain’s father has asked India’s top court to order an independent investigation that examines possible causes other than deliberate pilot action – a cause that has been suspected in some other fatal crashes and was confirmed in the case of Germanwings Flight 9525, which crashed into the French Alps in 2015, killing all 150 people on board.

EXPLAINER

Trump cancels planned Iran attacks, saying talks are close as Tehran reviews a proposed US deal.

United States President Donald Trump said he had cancelled a third straight night of planned attacks on Iran, saying talks with Tehran were close to producing a deal.

The announcement marked a dramatic turnaround. Just hours earlier, Trump warned that Iran would be hit “very hard” and threatened to target Kharg Island and other oil facilities.

Reporting from Tehran, Al Jazeera’s correspondent said a senior Iranian official confirmed that a proposed memorandum of understanding with the US was being considered by Iran’s top leadership.

Here is what has happened:

In Iran

• Trump calls off planned Iran attacks: Hours after warning that Iran would be hit “very hard” and threatening attacks on Kharg Island and other oil facilities, Trump said he had cancelled the planned strikes, claiming negotiations had reached a breakthrough. In a Truth Social post, Trump said discussions had been elevated to Iran’s top leadership and that the “final points” of an agreement had been approved by all parties involved, including the US and several regional allies.
• Tehran says the sacrifices of war were worth it: Reporting from Tehran, Al Jazeera’s Mohamed Vall said many Iranians would be relieved to see the conflict end after months of hardship and loss. But the government is also trying to sell a potential deal as a victory, telling people that “it is worth the suffering” because Iran could come out of the war “in much stronger shape”, with the possibility of sanctions being lifted and assets being unfrozen.

In the US

• Expert says Trump used an ‘escalate to de-escalate’ strategy: Richard Weitz, an international security expert at the NATO Defense College, told Al Jazeera that Trump’s threats to intensify the conflict may have been aimed at forcing a diplomatic breakthrough. The strategy, he said, is to “threaten to escalate” a conflict “in order to force an end to it”. However, Weitz cautioned that “we still have a bit of uncertainty over what precisely was agreed and how it will be implemented.”
• Trump has tried to hold Netanyahu back in recent weeks: Reporting from Washington, DC, Al Jazeera’s Kimberly Halkett said Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have long had “a shared desire to limit Iran’s nuclear programme” and ensure Tehran never obtains a nuclear weapon. But she said there was a “growing concern” within the White House that Netanyahu could “derail efforts in the diplomatic realm”, with Trump increasingly trying to restrain the Israeli leader and, in the US president’s words, “allow time for diplomacy”.

In Lebanon

• Hezbollah says it carried out 24 attacks on Israeli forces: The Lebanese armed group said it launched a series of drone, missile and rocket attacks on Israeli soldiers, armoured vehicles and military positions across southern Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley between Wednesday and Thursday. Hezbollah said it repeatedly struck troop concentrations near Tayr Harfa, while also attacking Israeli forces in Naqoura, al-Qaouzah, Rashaf, Qantara, Zawtar al-Sharqiyah and Yohmor al-Shaqif.

Four activists from the Palestine Action group face sentencing in the United Kingdom as “terrorists” on Friday, despite only being convicted by a jury of other criminal charges.

Palestine Action was formally proscribed as a “terrorist” organisation in the UK last July.

Last month, four of six activists on trial were convicted at Woolwich Crown Court in London of criminal damage during a 2024 raid on a factory in Filton, Bristol, operated by Israeli defence firm Elbit. One of the defendants was also found guilty of striking a police officer with a sledgehammer.

The possibility that the judge will rule that the offences have a “terrorist connection” for sentencing purposes has prompted protests.

What is Palestine Action?

The protest group Palestine Action, launched in July 2020, describes itself as a movement “committed to ending global participation in Israel’s genocidal and apartheid regime”.

It seeks to use “disruptive tactics” to target “corporate enablers” and companies involved in the manufacture of weapons for Israel, such as Israel-based Elbit Systems, Italian aerospace company Leonardo, French multinational Thales and Teledyne from the United States. The group has targeted British facilities linked to those companies.

The UK parliament voted in favour of proscribing the group on July 2, 2025, classifying it as a “terrorist” organisation, and bringing it into the same category as armed groups such as al-Qaeda and ISIL (ISIS). The proscription came days after its activists sneaked into an air force base in southern England.

Critics decried the move by MPs, arguing that while members of the group have caused damage to property, they have not committed violent acts that amount to terrorism.

What were they convicted of?

In August 2024, Palestine Action activists raided a factory in Filton near Bristol in southwest England, operated by Israeli arms manufacturer Elbit Systems. They entered the site and caused extensive damage in an attempt to disrupt the production of weapons and drone components they say would be used by Israel in Gaza.

The raid, which prosecutors said caused about one million pounds ($1.36m) of damage, happened 10 months into Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza that began in October 2023.

Last month, jurors at Woolwich Crown Court convicted Charlotte Head, 30, Samuel Corner, 23, Leona Kamio, 30, and Fatema Zainab Rajwani, 21, of criminal damage. The four activists have become known as “the Filton 4”.

Corner was also found guilty of striking a police officer with a sledgehammer and convicted of inflicting grievous bodily harm.

Two other Palestine Action activists, Zoe Rogers, 22, and Jordan Devlin, 31, were found not guilty.

The verdict followed an earlier trial, at which all six defendants were acquitted of aggravated burglary, while the jury was unable to reach verdicts for the criminal damage charges.

Each of the defendants gave evidence, admitting that they damaged Israeli military drones and equipment inside Elbit’s research and development facility in Filton – in order to “save lives in Palestine”, according to a statement by their lawyers.

What would a terrorism sentencing mean?

The jury was not told that, if they convicted, the four could be sentenced under terrorism laws. Criminal damage is not usually a terrorism offence, but in England and Wales judges can decide to treat an offence as having a “terrorist connection” at sentencing, even when the charge itself is not a terrorism offence.

If the court decides there was a terrorism connection, the activists would have to serve their entire sentences in prison, unless they have already completed at least two‑thirds of the sentence and a parole board decides they can be released.

Conversely, non-terrorist prisoners usually serve about 40 percent of their sentence in custody and are released early, but under conditions and supervision, sometimes called licence conditions. If they break those conditions, they can be sent back to prison to finish their sentence.

Additionally, if the activists are sentenced in this way, they can be recorded as “terrorists” for the rest of their lives, would be required to register new mobile devices, email addresses and bank accounts with the police for their lifetime, and face being returned to prison if they breach their licence conditions or reoffend.

What has the reaction to all this been?

On Wednesday, a group of more than 50 lawyers and law professors published an open letter denouncing plans to sentence the four Palestine Action members as terrorists.

The letter highlights that damage to property has been a recurring feature of protest campaigns from the Suffragettes who fought for women to have the right to vote, to environmental protest group Extinction Rebellion.

“It has never previously even been suggested that those taking such action should be treated as terrorists. Blurring the distinction between principled direct action and terrorism is the hallmark of authoritarian regimes,” the open letter stated.

The letter has been signed by law professors from universities in the UK, the Netherlands, Norway and Canada as well as by dozens of practising barristers and solicitors.

According to local news reports, a protest is expected at Woolwich Crown Court on Friday against the potential judgement.

The World Cup 2026 starts on Thursday, kicking off the biggest tournament in football history across the United States, Canada and Mexico.

A record 48 teams will play 104 matches over the next six weeks, with millions of fans turning their attention to the opening ceremony, the first games and the storylines set to define the tournament.

Here’s what to watch on day one:

What’s the schedule on June 11?

The World Cup gets under way on Thursday, June 11, with two Group A matches taking place in Mexico.

The opening ceremony at Mexico City Stadium in Mexico City begins at 11am local time (17:00 GMT) and will feature a celebration of Mexican and Latin music.

Mexican singer Alejandro Fernandez will perform the national anthem, joined by artists including Mana, Los Angeles Azules, Lila Downs and Belinda. Colombia’s J Balvin and Venezuela’s Danny Ocean are also set to appear, while Shakira headlines the ceremony alongside Nigeria’s Burna Boy with the debut performance of “Dai Dai”, the tournament’s official song.

Hosts Mexico then face South Africa at the same venue at 1pm local time (19:00 GMT).

Later, South Korea take on Czechia at Estadio Guadalajara (Estadio Akron) in Guadalajara, with kickoff scheduled for 8pm local time (02:00 GMT on June 12).

What do the predictions say for Mexico vs South Africa match?

Mexico are the clear favourites to beat South Africa in the World Cup opener, with the Opta supercomputer giving the hosts a 66.3 percent chance of victory based on 10,000 pre-match simulations.

South Africa are assigned a 14.3 percent probability of winning, while a draw occurs in 19.4 percent of the simulations.

Looking beyond the opening fixture, Opta also projects Mexico to finish top of Group A, ahead of South Korea, Czechia and South Africa.

El Tri will be led by veteran striker Raul Jimenez and 17-year-old midfielder Gilberto Mora, while goalkeeper Guillermo Ochoa is set to make history by playing in a record sixth World Cup. South Africa, meanwhile, are appearing at the tournament for the fourth time and for the first time since hosting it in 2010.

Teams playing in Mexico will compete at some of the highest-altitude venues in the tournament. Mexico City Stadium is located about 7,300 feet (2,225 metres) above sea level, while Guadalajara sits at roughly 5,138 feet (1,566 metres).

What do the predictions say for South Korea vs Czechia match?

South Korea are slight favourites against Czechia, with Opta assigning them a 42.9 percent chance of victory compared with Czechia’s 31.1 percent.

The likelihood of a draw stands at 26.0 percent, suggesting a closely contested match.

In the wider Group A outlook, South Korea have a 70 percent chance of reaching the knockout stages and a 21.3 percent probability of winning the group, while Czechia are given a 64.3 percent chance of advancing and a 17.9 percent chance of topping the standings.

What else is shaping the World Cup?

While the opening ceremony and first matches take centre stage, they are far from the only stories defining this World Cup. From immigration controversies and soaring ticket prices to new technology and late injury setbacks, here’s what else is making headlines as the tournament gets under way.

Somali referee Omar Artan receives hero’s welcome after World Cup ban

Artan received a hero’s welcome in Mogadishu after being denied entry to the US ahead of the tournament. Hundreds of supporters waving Somali flags gathered to greet the referee, who had been set to become the first Somali official to officiate at a World Cup.

US authorities stopped him at Miami International Airport, citing unspecified “vetting concerns”, and FIFA later removed him from the referees’ roster. Artan told The New York Times he was questioned for 11 hours before being sent back.

Despite the setback, he remained hopeful. “I promise you, God willing, that I will attend the next one,” he told supporters.

Sky-high ticket prices anger fans

World Cup 2026 is shaping up to be the most expensive in the tournament’s history, with soaring ticket prices, costly transport and accommodation, and concerns over US immigration policies prompting some fans to reconsider attending.

FIFA introduced dynamic pricing for the first time, meaning ticket costs rise with demand. With more than 500 million ticket requests submitted during the initial sales phase, some seats have reached eye-watering prices.

“Already there’s so much inflation. I have to pay so much already for the gas to get here, and now even more for tickets, you know, that’s so awful,” a football fan told Al Jazeera.

“That definitely means I won’t be able to go and I think a lot of people are going to feel very jaded for that. So I really hope they can re-evaluate it or at least give some kind of a discount for people who are really huge fans,” she added.

When tickets first went on sale in December, prices ranged from $140 to $8,680 for the final. By April, FIFA had raised the top price to $10,990, nearly seven times the $1,550 maximum outlined in North America’s original bid.

New tech rules

FIFA and the International Football Association Board (IFAB) have introduced a series of changes aimed at speeding up play and improving decision-making.

These include upgraded semiautomated offside technology, a smart match ball fitted with sensors that send real-time data to VAR, visible five-second countdowns to discourage time-wasting on throw-ins and goal kicks, stricter substitution rules and expanded VAR powers to review clear errors involving second yellow cards, mistaken identity and incorrectly awarded corner kicks.

World Cup injury setbacks

The Netherlands have been dealt a blow with Arsenal defender Jurrien Timber ruled out after failing to recover from a groin injury. The Dutch FA said the 24-year-old was not fit enough to cope with the demands of the tournament.

Brazil have also lost a key defender, with AS Roma right back Wesley ruled out after suffering a left thigh injury in a friendly against Egypt. He has been replaced by Atalanta midfielder Ederson ahead of Brazil’s Group C opener against Morocco.

Why are drinks breaks controversial?

FIFA has introduced mandatory three-minute hydration breaks midway through each half of all 104 World Cup games, saying the measure is necessary to protect players from extreme heat following concerns raised during last year’s Club World Cup in the United States.

Critics, however, argue the rule applies too broadly, even in cooler venues, and have accused FIFA of commercialising the stoppages after allowing broadcasters to air advertisements during the breaks.

Trump might not attend United States World Cup opener

President Donald Trump has not said whether he will attend the United States’s opening World Cup match against Paraguay in Los Angeles on Friday. However, several people familiar with the tournament planning said they do not currently expect him to be there, according to a report by Politico, although his plans could still change.

The US government will still be represented at the match. The State Department said Secretary of State Marco Rubio will attend, along with Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin.

Mexico’s Claudia Sheinbaum won’t attend either

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum won’t be using the ticket FIFA gave her for the opening match. Instead, it went to Yolett Cervantes Cuaquehua, a 21-year-old from Veracruz who won a contest by showing off her football juggling skills.

The challenge invited young women to keep the ball up for one minute on camera, and Sheinbaum also awarded tickets to three other winners.

“They are the pride of Mexico. They will not represent the president, or the head of government, they will represent Mexico,” Sheinbaum said at a news conference to give away the ticket to Cervantes Cuaquehua.

World Cup celebrations begin amid protests in Mexico City

As Mexico gets ready to host the opening match, protests are taking place across the capital. Teachers from the CNTE union, along with transport workers, farmers and families of missing people, have taken to the streets to demand better pay, pension changes and action on longstanding issues.

Some demonstrations have affected World Cup preparations, with protesters blocking roads leading to the Estadio Azteca and removing some tournament installations.

The 2026 World Cup arrives carrying more baggage than most.

Alongside the excitement of the opening matches are concerns about immigration crackdowns, travel restrictions, the wars in Gaza and Iran, and the close relationship between FIFA boss Gianni Infantino and US President Donald Trump.

Journalist Ashish Malhotra, speaking to Al Jazeera’s The Take, argued that Trump has placed himself at the centre of the tournament. “One reason, Donald Trump. He’s really put himself front and centre for this World Cup,” he said, adding that the US president is using the event as a distraction from other crises.

Malhotra was equally critical of football’s governing body. “FIFA is 100 percent a political actor and it has been for close to a century,” he said, pointing to the organisation’s history of aligning itself with leaders accused of human rights abuses.

And yet, despite the contradictions, billions are still expected to tune in. “Sports are a bit of a drug. It’s a bit of an addiction,” Malhotra said. “The way that a World Cup brings people together is why people get sucked in.” It is perhaps the tournament’s greatest paradox: even amid controversy, the pull of the beautiful game remains difficult to resist.

The United States government has faced sharp criticism from immigration and human rights experts due to the ongoing visa-related complications and entry denials for athletes and officials participating in the FIFA World Cup.

The censure of US President Donald Trump’s administration grew after top Somali football referee Omar Artan, who was set to officiate in World Cup games, was denied entry into the country this week.

“Human rights organisations and advocacy groups have repeatedly raised concerns regarding immigration enforcement practices and treatment of migrant communities in the US,” international sports lawyer Khayran Noor told Al Jazeera last month.

Noor said that while these debates are “independent” of football, they inevitably become relevant when a country hosts one of the world’s largest international gatherings.

“The challenge is that major sporting events rely not only on logistics and security but also on atmosphere and perception.”

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk called for a “massive rethink” of US immigration policies, saying that he hoped issues around “racial profiling, around surveillance, around immigration enforcement are not going to affect this World Cup in the way that they have already done”.

Although Artan returned home on Wednesday to a hero’s welcome and sporting a positive attitude, the incident rehashed the conversation on geopolitics and racism being cloaked by US visa denials ahead of the 48-nation, 39-day tournament starting on Thursday.

Fans from several countries, including Morocco and Scotland, who spent thousands of dollars on flights, hotels and tickets for the most expensive World Cup in history, have also reported having their travel documents denied or revoked just days before they were due to travel.

Here’s a look at the athletes, officials and fans affected by US visa complications:

Omar Artan: Somalia

Artan, 34, was set to make history as the first Somali referee to officiate at a World Cup, but his dream debut ended at Miami airport where he was denied entry into the country and flown back to Istanbul, despite having a valid US visa and all required documents.

The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) confirmed to Al Jazeera on Monday that Artan was “determined to be inadmissible” to the country “due to vetting concerns”, despite having been listed as one of FIFA’s 52 World Cup referees.

Trump has targeted both Somalia and the Somali-American community with inflammatory rhetoric, at one time calling the community “garbage”, and has put Somalia on the US travel ban list.

Iranian World Cup squad and officials

Until last week, there was uncertainty over whether Iran’s football team would be granted visas by the US due to the ongoing US-Israel war on Iran, which has brought geopolitical tensions into the sports sphere.

The US awarded visas to all the players on Friday, just ⁠10 days before their first match, but several members of the ⁠support squad were denied visas, including “key managerial and administrative members,” according to the Iranian football federation.

Iran’s team, whose base camp was to originally be in Arizona, will be based in Tijuana, in neighbouring Mexico, throughout the tournament, despite playing their entire group stage on the US West Coast.

The team will be able to enter the US the day before each of their three World Cup matches, the DHS said on Tuesday.

Media reports over the weekend quoted the Iranian ambassador to Mexico, Abolfazl Pasandideh, as saying that Iran’s team would have to enter and leave the US on the same day as they were playing, raising questions about logistics and whether it would affect team performance.

Aymen Hussein: Iraq

Iraq striker Aymen Hussein was detained for nearly seven hours and his phone inspected at Chicago’s O’Hare airport before he was eventually allowed into the country.

“Why is America hosting the World Cup if it is so hostile to foreign nationals?” the 30-year-old said after the incident.

Meanwhile, national team photographer Talal Salah was held for more than 10 hours, underwent similar phone checks, and was ultimately denied entry into the US.

Woodensky Pierre: Haiti

Woodensky Pierre, the only member of Haiti’s national football team who lives in the Caribbean country, was granted a late visa by the US government to play in the World Cup.

Pierre had been training with local players in an upscale area of Haiti’s capital, Port-au-Prince, as he awaited the visa, which was a “great moment for him, a moment of happiness”, an official of the Haitian Football Federation had said.

The midfielder from Cite Soleil was unable to play in a friendly against New Zealand because his visa was not approved by US authorities until it was too late. He landed at Miami airport around half-time with Haitian football officials and hoped to catch the last part of the game.

Breel Embolo: Switzerland

Swiss forward Breel Embolo was unable to travel with his team due to a flagged visa, but eventually caught up with them after being cleared to enter the US.

The snag was linked to a previous conviction over an altercation in Basel in 2018. Embolo had been convicted of making threats five years later, which he chose not to appeal, but it left his fate to be decided at a meeting at the US Embassy in Bern, where he made his case and was cleared for travel.

Is FIFA obligated to ensure visas?

FIFA’s bidding rules in 2017 for nations wanting to host this World Cup stated that visa processing “must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner”, with the caveat it must not “adversely affect the national immigration and security standards”.

Sports lawyer Noor explained that states understandably retain sovereign responsibilities regarding border control and national security, but global sporting events often require exceptional frameworks.

“This is not about requiring states to abandon immigration laws or surrender sovereignty.

“Rather, it is about asking whether hosting the world’s largest sporting events also carries responsibilities around meaningful inclusion and access,” Noor said.

FIFA president Gianni Infantino has fended off concerns and criticism, saying the global football body’s executives are not “kings of the world” and cannot override government decisions.

Infantino, facing questions from the media on the eve of the World Cup on Wednesday, said that FIFA ⁠is focused on being a “sports organisation” and will not intervene in helping the US determine approvals for entry into the country.

“We try always to find solutions – always,” Infantino said at a news ⁠conference in Mexico City. “But then we need to respect that we are not the kings of the world who can rule over governments and police forces and I don’t know what. We are a sports organisation; we try to do our best ⁠with the means that we have.”

At least 11 people were killed on Sunday during clashes between police and protesters in Pakistan-administered Kashmir’s Rawalakot city, capital of Poonch district, before a major demonstration scheduled by a banned civil society group for Tuesday.

Authorities in Pakistan-administered Kashmir deployed federal paramilitary troops and issued a strict travel advisory before the Tuesday protest, which has gone ahead despite the restrictions.

Here is what we know about the latest unrest.

What’s happening in Pakistan-administered Kashmir?

Eleven people have been killed in clashes between the police and protesters, while more than 70 have been injured. The ban on the organisation, alongside regional grievances, set off the protests.

On Tuesday, Sardar Waheed Khan, commissioner of the Pakistan side of the Poonch district, a militarised region shared between Indian-administered and Pakistani-administered Kashmir, told the news agency Reuters that four police officers and a passer-by died “after miscreants shot at them”. Six protesters were killed, he said.

Police Chief Liaqat Malik said 23 security officials and 50 protesters were among those injured in Sunday’s clashes.

On Friday, local authorities issued an advisory urging visitors to avoid travelling to the area.

“The measure is advised to save intending visitors from any unexpected situation or inconvenience,” an unnamed official said in a statement issued by the region’s Press Information Department (PID).

“The government also requests those already in the territory for sightseeing or any other purpose to leave by Friday evening so that they do not confront any unpleasant situation,” the statement added.

Kashmir is a disputed Himalayan region which is claimed in full by both India and Pakistan, with China also controlling a portion of the territory. Pakistan-administered Kashmir – known locally as Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) – is governed under a semi-autonomous system, with its own prime minister and legislative assembly, but ultimate authority resting with Islamabad. Its population exceeds four million people, according to the 2017 census. It is separated from India-administered Kashmir by what is known as the Line of Control (LoC).

The LoC is the 740km (459-mile) military border dividing the disputed Kashmir region between Indian-administered and Pakistan-administered territories.

Who is behind the protests?

The Jammu Kashmir Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC) is a grassroots umbrella organisation that emerged in 2023 as the leader of a protest movement across the Pakistani-administered part of the region. The JAAC, led by activist Shaukat Nawaz Mir, represents traders and civil society groups.

On Friday, the local government proscribed the JAAC under a regional legislative framework in Pakistan-administered Kashmir called the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2014.

In a circular, the government’s home department claimed the JAAC “is engaged in terrorism, acted in a manner prejudicial to the peace & security of the State, involved in creating anarchy in the State by intimidating public, promoting hatred & creating sense of insecurity in society and public at large, etc”.

In the past, protests organised by the JAAC have led to violent clashes between protesters and security forces, leading to casualties.

In a video message on X responding to Sunday’s incident, Mir accused the authorities of unleashing violence in Rawalakot, saying, “The state has begun a massacre of our people in Rawalakot.”

In response, Khan, the commissioner of Pakistani Poonch, said, “The JAAC leadership is misleading the masses by terming it a massacre. The state’s action was meant to restore law and order.”

On Tuesday, the internet monitoring group NetBlocks said that its data showed that access to the web remained severely restricted in Pakistan-administered Kashmir for a third day in a row.

What is the trigger behind these protests?

These protests are against the reservation of 12 seats in Pakistan-administered Kashmir’s legislature for refugees from Indian-administered Kashmir who now live in other parts of Pakistan. If the refugees live in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, they are not eligible to contest for these reserved seats.

The region votes on July 27 to elect its next legislature, which has 45 seats in all — including the 12 reserved ones.

The JAAC is calling for the abolition of the reserved seats, arguing that all seats in the legislature must go to those who actually reside in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, and not those living in other constituencies scattered across Pakistan.

Abdul Jabbar Nasir, a journalist currently based in Karachi, but originally from a village near the LoC in the Gilgit Baltistan area, which is the majority of the Pakistan-administered Kashmir region, told Al Jazeera that the seats are reserved for those who migrated from Indian-administered Kashmir to Karachi or any other part of Pakistan in 1947.

Nasir explained that the reserved seats have existed in various forms since the late 1940s and were formalised in Pakistan-administered Kashmir’s 1974 interim constitution, which treats the region as a self-governing, autonomous state, with its own prime minister, president and courts, while defence, foreign affairs, currency and communications remain under Pakistan’s control.

“If the constitutional protection provided begins to be changed by these protesters, then I don’t think things can function,” Nasir said.

“It is essential for these seats to exist. If we abolish them, on one hand, Pakistan’s own case for Kashmiri statehood in the United Nations will be weakened, and India’s case will be strengthened,” he added.

He drew a parallel with India, noting that New Delhi historically kept a number of seats vacant in its parliament and the former Jammu and Kashmir assembly as a way of asserting that those bodies represented the entire former princely state, including areas under Pakistani control. If Pakistan now dismantles refugee representation in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, he warned, India could argue that both countries have effectively “regularised” their control over their respective portions of the disputed region.

Marathon talks between a federal ministerial team, including leaders from Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, and JAAC leadership in late May failed to yield a breakthrough. This resulted in the JAAC announcing that the protest on Tuesday would proceed as planned.

On Sunday, a top court in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, called the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, ruled that the 12 reserved seats are constitutionally protected, and a constitutional amendment would be needed to abolish the reservation.

“This ruling effectively closed the legal route for groups seeking to challenge the existing arrangement and intensified calls for protest by the [JAAC],” Raja Qaiser Ahmed, director for the Area Study Centre for Africa, North and South America at the Islamabad-based Quaid-i-Azam University, told Al Jazeera.

What are the deeper issues?

Experts say the current crisis is part of a deeper, long-running debate about governance, political representation, resource allocation and regional autonomy in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. The protest on Tuesday is the fourth such protest led by the JAAC.

“The current crisis reflects a broader and longer-term debate about governance, political representation, resource distribution, and regional autonomy in AJK,” Ahmed said.

“While the refugee-seat issue has become the focal point of the present mobilisation, it is intertwined with wider grievances that have surfaced repeatedly over the past several years.”

In September and October 2025, the JAAC officially released a comprehensive 38-point charter of demands and initiated a lockdown. The government, in response to a lockdown initiated by JAAC, imposed a complete communications blackout.

The protests had their roots in May 2023, when residents first protested skyrocketing electricity bills alongside widespread flour smuggling and acute shortages in subsidised wheat supplies. The movement hit its first major flashpoint in May 2024, when protesters set off on a long march towards Muzaffarabad. The ensuing violent clashes left at least five people dead, among them a police officer.

The 38-point charter remains the focal point of current tensions. The demands of the charter include economic subsidies, investigation of corrupt officials, social welfare and infrastructure, as well as the abolition of the 12 reserved seats.

Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari, chairman of the Pakistan Peoples’ Party (PPP), the party with the most seats in Pakistan-administered Kashmir’s Legislative Assembly, said on Sunday that he would meet Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif to discuss the ongoing tensions in the region.

“Thirty-five out of 38 demands have been implemented,” Bhutto-Zardari said during a news conference in Islamabad, explaining that the rest of the demands are not feasible or have court orders barring their implementation.

“More fundamentally, the protests reveal an ongoing tension between constitutional arrangements linked to the broader Kashmir dispute and growing demands for greater local accountability and political participation,” Ahmed said.

“The debate is therefore not only about a specific set of assembly seats but also about competing visions of representation, governance, and the future political trajectory of the region.”

For many Iranians, the most immediate threat is no longer just war, but water.

Years of drought, falling rainfall and unsustainable water use have pushed the country into severe water stress, depleting reservoirs, rivers and groundwater reserves. The US-Israel war on Iran has added further strain after reports of damage to desalination plants, pipelines and other civilian water infrastructure in the early weeks of the conflict.

Iran is classified by the World Resources Institute as facing “extremely high” baseline water stress, using more than 80 percent of its renewable water supplies each year.

In this visual explainer, Al Jazeera breaks down Iran’s worsening water crisis and what is driving it.

How Lake Urmia disappeared

One of the most striking examples of Iran’s water crisis can be seen from space.

A time-lapse display of Lake Urmia in northwestern Iran shows how the largest saltwater lake in the Middle East, which covered nearly 6,000sq km (2,300sq miles) in the 1990s, shrunk to just 581sq km (224sq miles), less than 10 percent of its former size.

Consecutive droughts, agricultural water use, river diversion, and groundwater extraction have transformed vast stretches of Lake Urmia into exposed salt flats.

More than 60 dams built on its feeder rivers choked off inflows, while farmers diverted water into irrigation channels and decades of groundwater extraction drained the aquifers below. Rising temperatures accelerated evaporation as precipitation fell.

Iran’s growing water deficit

To sustain its freshwater resources, a country must replenish at least as much water as it withdraws for agriculture, industry, and household use.

Iran has long been on the wrong side of that equation. Decades of dam construction, intensive farming, and groundwater extraction have pushed consumption far beyond what rainfall can replenish.

In 2025, Iran’s 92 million people consumed around 100 billion cubic metres of water, nearly 13 billion more than its renewable resources could provide.

Agriculture is by far the largest consumer of water in Iran, accounting for about 91 percent of all withdrawals, compared with seven percent for households and two percent for industry. Yet much of that water is lost before it reaches crops, as ageing and inefficient irrigation systems waste a significant share of the country’s most precious resource.

Disappearing dams around Tehran

Iran is one of the world’s major dam-building countries, and has constructed hundreds of large and small dams to store water, generate electricity, and manage shortages.

In recent years, dozens of reservoirs have dropped to extremely low levels, leaving several to nearly run dry.

Before-and-after satellite imagery of Lar Dam, Latyan Dam and Mamloo Dam, all clustered around Tehran and the southern slopes of the Alborz mountains and forming part of the main water supply system for the capital region, reveals how water levels have declined over time as drought and rising demand strain Tehran’s water system.

Drought displacing thousands

Water scarcity is increasingly reshaping where Iranians can live.

As wells run dry and farming becomes harder to sustain, many families are leaving rural communities in search of more secure livelihoods. According to Abdolkarim Hosseinzadeh, Iran’s vice president for Rural Development and Disadvantaged Regions, only 38,000 of the country’s 69,000 villages remain inhabited, while 31,000 villages have been abandoned.

The pressure extends far beyond abandoned settlements. According to Iran’s state-owned Water and Wastewater Company, about 27,000 villages, home to more than 10 million people, are currently experiencing water shortages. In total, more than 70 percent of Iran’s villages are facing some form of water crisis.

Many migrants head towards major cities such as Tehran, Mashhad, Isfahan, and Shiraz. Yet these cities are facing water pressures of their own. Home to more than nine million people, Tehran has seen growing strain on its water system as drought and demand continue to rise.

The map below shows how Iran’s population is concentrated in the western half of the country. Today, roughly 75 percent of Iranians live on less than 40 percent of the country’s land area, concentrating both people and water demand in a relatively small region.

The effects of water scarcity can also be seen along the Zayandehrud River, once one of central Iran’s most important waterways.

Satellite imagery of Zayandehrud Dam reveals declining water levels upstream after years of drought and overuse.

Further downstream, the consequences become visible in the heart of Isfahan. The historic Allahverdi Khan Bridge (Si-o-Se Pol) was built over a river that sustained the city for centuries.

Today, residents increasingly encounter dry riverbeds beneath its arches as sections of the Zayandehrud repeatedly run dry.

Only a tiny fraction from desalination

Desalination accounts for only about three percent of Iran’s water needs, a stark contrast to Gulf neighbours, which depend on it for the majority of their drinking water.

Most of Iran’s desalination plants are located along its southern coast on the Gulf. As a result, desalination is largely concentrated in coastal cities, while inland areas such as Tehran, Isfahan and most agricultural regions rely on other water sources.

India’s fertility rate has for the first time fallen below the level needed to stop the population from shrinking, raising concerns about future labour shortages and an ageing society.

For decades, India has seen rapid population growth. According to government statistics, including the Sample Registration System (SRS) Statistical Report — the country’s largest demographic survey — India has had a falling fertility rate for some years, but the reproduction rate remained high enough to keep the population growing.

The latest SRS report, released last month by India’s Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, said that India’s Total Fertility Rate (TFR) had dropped to 1.9 children per woman – lower than the benchmark level of 2.1 needed to keep the population stable in the long run. TFR is the average number of children that a woman is expected to have in her lifetime. In the 2000s, India’s TFR was around 3.3 births per woman.

So, what is behind reduced fertility? Why does it matter and what are the consequences?

Here’s what we know:

What has led to the falling fertility rate ?

For decades starting in the 1970s, Indian governments and policymakers have tried to battle what they argued was overpopulation — too many people, and too few resources to manage for what was then a relatively poor nation.

Many top-down government initiatives — including a brief controversial effort to forcibly sterilise people in the 1970s — aimed to control India’s population.

Despite that, by 2019, India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi was still warning of a “population explosion”.

But by 2022, the first signs that India was about to tip over into uncharted territory: The National Family Health Survey released data suggesting that India’s TFR was falling fast, across communities. Yet a year later, India surpassed China to become the world’s most populous nation — and the trend of a declining fertility rate was swamped by the headlines of a 1.5 billion population.

Now, latest survey suggests that the prospect of a shrinking population might be more imminent than policymakers had planned for.

Experts say better access to education and contraceptives are among key factors behind the falling fertility rate — along with the increased costs of bringing up children.

“Total fertility rate often drops when more women in society have access to education, contraceptives and more agency in decision-making in households,”  Dipa Sinha, a development economist who works on social policy in India, told Al Jazeera. “It also drops when the economy becomes expensive so raising children also becomes expensive.”

She said there’s another reason too.

As infant mortality reduces, the desire to have more children also decreases. According to the latest SRS report, India has recorded a significant decline in infant deaths from 30 per 1,000 live births in 2019 to 24 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2024.

These factors also correlate almost perfectly with the differential levels of fertility rates across the country.

According to the May demographic survey report, India’s poorest states, such as Bihar in northern India with the lowest levels of education and high infant mortality rates, also recorded the highest fertility rate in the country at 2.9, followed by 2.6 in Uttar Pradesh.

By contrast, India’s capital New Delhi — with among the highest levels of education and lowest infant mortality rates — registered the lowest fertility rate, with an average of 1.2 births per woman. Southern states such as Tamil Nadu and Kerala, with among the best health and education systems in India, recorded a rate of 1.3.

“A lot of studies on regional development in India from the early 80s have revealed that states in the South have developed faster with respect to both the economy and women’s status in society. So these reasons have contributed to the lower fertility rate,” Sinha said.

What are the consequences of a falling fertility rate?

In 2005, India’s population entered a stage called ‘demographic dividend’, a phase when the proportion of a country’s working age population (15-64 years) is higher than the number of old people and children who are not in the labour force. According to the UNFPA, India’s demographic dividend is expected to last until 2055.

Japan, Singapore and Hong Kong entered this phase in the 1960s and rapidly became developed economies. China entered this phase in the 1980s and — coupled with economic reforms — rapidly rose as an economy. Today it’s the world’s second-largest economy.

In India too, the demographic dividend has helped propel the economy. But millions remain unemployed and — as with China — India is far from a developed economy.

Now, with a declining fertility rate, India might not be able to reap the benefits of a demographic dividend, experts are cautioning, because of a shrinking workforce and a rapidly ageing population.

“If there are fewer children born, then in about 30 to 40 years, India will have more older people who cannot participate in the labour force as much, posing a challenge to the country’s workforce,”  Sinha said.

What is the politics behind India’s population data?

The widely varying fertility rates in different parts of the country mean that northern states — which already have higher populations — will in coming years be home to an ever-increasing share of India’s population.

Southern states have already in recent years been complaining that the Indian federal government — especially under Modi — are being “punished” with fewer funds, Sinha said. Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has historically struggled to make major political inroads in southern India, though it has made gains in recent years.

Now, “the distribution of financial resources by the country’s government to state governments” could become an even bigger political flashpoint, she suggested. Later this year, India’s government will introduce a policy in parliament called “delimitation”, which will assign seats to each state according to population figures based on the subcontinent’s new census that began earlier this year and conclude in 2027.

“When delimitation comes into effect, there is a fear that the share of southern seats in the Parliament will reduce,” Sinha added.

Moreover, India’s ruling BJP has long stirred the stereotype that Muslims in India are producing more children than Hindus — fanning fears among Hindus that Muslims might some day overtake them as the majority faith in India. The Hindu far-right has been urging Hindus to have more kids. In February, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief, Mohan Bhagwat, urged Hindu couples to have at least three to four children to prevent the community’s long-term societal decline.

In reality, the Muslim population of India was 13 percent in the last census in 2011. Government data shows that the Muslim fertility rate has been falling faster than in any other religious group, India, including Hindus. The fertility rate among Muslims fell from 4.41 to 2.36 between 1992 and 2021, while it dropped from 3.3 to 1.94 for Hindus.

The latest survey further suggests that India’s fertility rate is falling sharply across faiths.

Is India responding to its declining fertility rate?

While the Indian government has not yet announced a nationwide policy to tackle its falling fertility rate, individual states have been trying to encourage people to have more children.

Last month, the southern Indian state of Andhra Pradesh said families will receive 30,000 rupees ($314) for the birth of a third child and 40,000 for a fourth child ($418). According to the SRS data, Andhra Pradesh’s total fertility rate is 1.4.

States such as Goa in the west and Karnataka and Telangana in the south have introduced state-funded IVF centres for first-time parents, encouraging people to have more children.

Sinha said the Indian government should respect people’s individual reproductive choices and support them.

“It is important for countries like India to develop a public policy based on its demographic structure and future needs. So if we are going to be an ageing population, then we have to be ready to help a lot of old people,” she said. The country needs “a policy now which guarantees that they have better healthcare, pensions and social security in old age”.

Which other countries in Asia have seen dramatic fertility rate declines?

Other Asian countries such as China, Taiwan and South Korea are also experiencing fast-falling fertility rates.

According to the World Bank, China’s 1.0 fertility rate is well below the 2.1 replacement level.

Taiwan’s interior ministry said earlier this year that its total fertility rate is around 0.86 and likely to fall below that.

The United Nations says South Korea’s rate is approximately 0.75 children per woman – the lowest worldwide.

EXPLAINER

Tensions have escalated between Iran and Israel while ongoing diplomatic efforts have failed to yield a lasting peace deal.

Iran and Israel were on Monday locked in tit-for-tat missile attacks, as the fragile ceasefire that has held in place since April 8 appeared closer to collapse than at any point in the past seven weeks.

These escalating hostilities between Iran and Israel come as the United States-Israel war on Iran enters its 101st day on Monday.

Here is what is happening:

In Iran

• Explosions heard in Iran: Iran’s IRNA news agency reported that at least “two powerful explosions” were heard in Tehran and at least three in the city of Isfahan. The broadcaster also reported that explosions were heard in Tabriz. The Israeli military had said it “attacked military targets” in western and central Iran.
• Power plant in Mahshahr attacked: A security officer in the southwestern Khuzestan governorate told the Fars news agency that Israeli forces have attacked the Karun Petrochemical Company in the city of Mahshahr. The Israeli army confirmed striking the petrochemical plant. The Mahshahr Petrochemical Special Economic Zone announced that its workers have evacuated the site following the Israeli strike.
• Iran denies attacking base in Saudi Arabia: Responding to reports of an explosion at the Al-Kharj airbase in Saudi Arabia, Iran’s IRIB broadcaster cited a military official as saying that “Iran has not fired any shots.”
• Red Crescent on standby: The Iranian Red Crescent says it is standing by to respond to any fallout from Israel’s attacks across the country this morning.

In Israel

• Security cabinet meeting: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will convene a security cabinet meeting at 11am local time (08:00 GMT) amid escalating hostilities with Iran, according to multiple Israeli media reports.
• The Israeli military issued a series of alerts starting Sunday over waves of missiles launched from Iran towards Israeli territory.
• Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said on Monday that they launched attacks against Israel’s Nevatim and Tel Nof airbases as a response to attacks on radar sites within Iran, the Fars news agency reported.
• Israel’s Channel 12 broadcaster and Ynet News said a missile fired from Yemen was intercepted.

In the US

• The US State Department issued a security alert for citizens in Jordan over reports of projectiles in the country’s airspace – presumably missiles fired by Israel towards Iran, or by Iran towards Israel.
• Democratic Senator Chris Murphy said Israel’s latest attack on Iran “compounds” the “humiliation” for US President Donald Trump, as it comes after the US president reportedly told Netanyahu not to retaliate to Iran’s missiles fired at northern Israel.

In Lebanon

• Explosions were heard in the Lebanese capital Beirut early on Monday, but these were likely rocket interceptions, Al Jazeera’s Zeina Khodr reported from Beirut.
• On Sunday, Israel had hit the suburbs of Beirut, in attacks that Iran described as crossing a red line in terms of violating a ceasefire between Lebanon and Israel. Iran then said its decision to hit northern Israel was in response to these attacks near Beirut.

War diplomacy

• Israel defends attacks on Iran: The Israeli ambassador to the US, Yechiel Leiter, defended the attacks on Iran, saying “no self-respecting country” would tolerate Iran’s missile launches against Israel.
• Canada expresses concern: Canada’s Foreign Ministry has expressed concern about the resumption of conflict between Iran and Israel, saying it jeopardises the ongoing negotiations and “the prospects for peace”.
• Saudi-Qatari foreign ministers speak: Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud spoke by phone with his Qatari counterpart, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani, the Saudi Foreign Ministry said.
• Qatari-Iranian foreign ministers speak: The Qatari foreign minister, who is also the country’s prime minister, spoke by phone with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi about mediation efforts between Iran and the US, as well as the latest developments in Lebanon, according to a Qatari statement.

The US defence department has reportedly raised its assessment of the espionage threat posed by Israel to the highest category of “critical”, according to media reports citing American intelligence and defence officials.

The assessment, first published by NBC News on Friday and followed by The New York Times, comes at a time when Washington is pursuing diplomatic engagement with Iran, while its ally Israel is opposed to the talks aimed at ending the conflict now 100 days long on Sunday.

US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have publicly diverged in their approach to the war – Washington wants to extricate itself amid political pressure, while Israel is still pushing to topple the Iranian government.

This is not the first time Israel has been accused of espionage against the US – its closest ally and benefactor – with which it maintains extensive security and intelligence cooperation.

Here is what you need to know:

What did the Pentagon say?

According to NBC News and The New York Times (NYT), citing anonymous current and former US officials, the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) arm recently upgraded Israel’s counterintelligence threat level from “high” to “critical”, the most serious designation in its internal assessment system.

The warning was based on Israeli intelligence agencies intensifying efforts to collect information on US military personnel, government officials and policy discussions.

The news reports said the concern was focused on American officials involved in shaping Washington’s approach towards Iran, as the two foes continue to negotiate an end to the war that has sent global energy prices soaring.

“An intensified Israeli effort to learn about US positions in talks with Iran has crossed a line, according to some American officials,” the NYT said.

According to the news outlet, intelligence assessments pointed to increased Israeli surveillance efforts in recent weeks targeting US military and government figures.

They include Trump envoy and key negotiator Steve Witkoff; the Pentagon’s top policy official, Elbridge A Colby; and one of his deputies, Michael P DiMino IV, the NYT reported.

Witkoff was chief negotiator in the nuclear talks before Israel and the US launched the attack on Iran on 28 February.

The reports also referenced incidents in which US defence personnel working in Israel allegedly discovered software on their phones “to tap their communications had been surreptitiously installed on their phones”, the NYT added.

The newspaper said the DIA reports found Israeli spying on the US, which has occurred before, surged from late 2024 onwards, coinciding with US President Joe Biden’s administration stepping up pressure on Israel over its genocide in Gaza.

The reported increase in spying continued after Trump was elected to a second term in November 2024 and began shaping his administration’s policy towards Iran.

Tensions between Trump and Netanyahu have come to the surface in the past week, amid reports the US president called the Israeli prime minister “f****ing crazy”, due to Israel’s escalation in Lebanon. At least 3,500 people have been killed in Israeli attacks in Lebanon.

Trump has been pressing Israel to halt its attacks on Lebanon, but the bombardment in the south has continued, undermining a potential deal with Iran which insists both issues are inseparable.

While intelligence gathering between friendly nations is not unusual, some US officials reportedly believe recent Israeli activities have gone beyond what Washington traditionally considers acceptable among allies.

According to officials cited in the reports, US intelligence agencies have become increasingly concerned that Israel is seeking greater insight into US policy discussions and negotiating positions, specifically with Iran.

What has been the response from the Israeli and US governments?

Israel has denied the allegations.

According to NBC, the Israeli embassy in Washington said it was “completely false” that the country spies on US government officials or American institutions.

“Israel does not gather intelligence on American entities, let alone US government officials,” NBC quoted the spokesperson as saying.

A White House official also reportedly dismissed the NBC report, saying the “entire story is false and sourced to someone who doesn’t have any knowledge of what’s going on”.

Al Jazeera could not independently verify the media reports and the US and Israeli responses.

Has Israel previously spied on the US?

Yes. Israel has previously been involved in espionage cases targeting the US, although such incidents have not been spoken about much given their close ties.

The most famous example is the Jonathan Pollard affair. The civilian intelligence analyst working for the US Navy was arrested in 1985 after passing large quantities of classified information to Israel. He later pleaded guilty to espionage and served 30 years in prison before being released on parole in 2015.

The Pollard case remains one of the most significant espionage scandals in the history of US-Israeli relations and continues to shape perceptions within parts of the American intelligence community.

However, espionage between close allies is not uncommon, says academic Andreas Kreig.

“Israel has a particularly long track record of conducting intelligence operations inside the United States,” the professor at the Department of Security at King’s College London told Al Jazeera.

“Over decades, Israel has sought to penetrate US policymaking circles through both formal and informal networks, including intelligence and lobbying channels, in order to gain insight into American strategic thinking and decision-making,” he added.

Nevertheless, Washington has for years provided billions in military aid and weapons sales to Israel, including throughout the ongoing Israeli genocide in Gaza.

The US Congress is also currently debating a section of a new defence bill, which would integrate the two countries’ research and development for weaponry to an unprecedented degree. The US has also provided diplomatic cover to Israel at the UN and other international bodies.

Why has Israel allegedly ramped up its espionage activities in the US?

According to academic Kreig, Israel is “deeply concerned” about the trajectory of US negotiations with Iran.

“From the Israeli perspective, the recent conflict with Iran was effectively a joint US-Israeli war, yet the United States is now in a position to shape the diplomatic endgame,” he told Al Jazeera.

“The principal Israeli concern is that Washington could agree to a deal that establishes an enduring diplomatic framework, potentially lasting years or even decades, which would constrain Israeli freedom of military manoeuvre against Iran in the future. Israeli policymakers therefore have a strong incentive to stay ahead of US deliberations and understand negotiations in real time.”

Moreover, Kreig said Israeli intelligence gathering also serves a “strategic purpose”, which is to identify “opportunities to influence, derail, or undermine negotiations if Israeli leaders judge the process to be contrary to their security interests”.

“While Israel sees the United States as its indispensable patron and closest strategic partner, it has simultaneously treated the US as a legitimate intelligence target whenever interests diverge,” he added.

“What surprises many observers is the extent to which Israel, despite being heavily dependent on American military, diplomatic and financial support, has developed the capacity to penetrate multiple layers of US policymaking and cultivate influence across key institutions involved in American statecraft.”

According to analyst and Iran expert Negar Mortazavi, Israel’s reported espionage in the current context is not new and has past precedent. Israel’s opposition to US-Iran negotiations goes back to the time of US President Barack Obama when he signed a nuclear deal with Iran in 2015, which the US under Trump withdrew from in 2018.

“The Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu did not want any deals or serious negotiations or normalisation between Tehran and Washington, and he tried to stop it publicly and privately in any way he could,” she told Al Jazeera.

Moreover, Mortazavi said the ongoing war on Iran was “not going as planned or as promised”, and that Trump wants “to exit the war and he has to do it through diplomacy”.

“At this point it is very clear that US interests and Israeli interests are no longer overlapping, they’re divergent,” she added.

On Wednesday, Israel and Lebanon announced yet another ceasefire – after they had seemingly already agreed to a truce on April 16.

Iran and the United States have formally had a ceasefire in place since April 8. And Israel and Hamas, the Palestinian group, have had a ceasefire in Gaza since October 10, 2025.

Yet Israel’s attacks on Lebanon continue unchecked, with strikes on the Naqoura and Nabatieh districts of southern Lebanon on Friday, resulting in at least one death. Iran and the US have continued to trade periodic attacks that have picked up in intensity in recent days. The Iranian military has also fired missiles and drones at Gulf nations such as the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Bahrain, which it accuses of enabling US attacks on Iran during the ceasefire.

And in Gaza, Israel continues to carry out bombings, including one that killed nine people in a residential building this week, despite a supposed truce aimed at ending its genocidal war on the Palestinian territory.

So what does it mean for a ceasefire to be in place when fighting continues? What does international law say? And why do violations so rarely lead to consequences?

We speak to legal experts to understand:

What is a ceasefire?

Simply put, it’s a pause in fighting designed to create space for negotiations, explained Mark Kersten, assistant professor of criminal justice and criminology at the University of the Fraser Valley.

“A ceasefire is effectively a cessation of hostilities, but typically not understood to be a permanent one,” he told Al Jazeera.

It is also often fundamentally a political agreement rather than a strongly enforceable legal instrument, said Michael Lynk, an emeritus professor at Western University in Canada.

Unlike peace treaties, which often have guarantors responsible for oversight and enforcement, ceasefires can be breached with few immediate legal consequences, Lynk told Al Jazeera.

This is especially true in Gaza and Lebanon, where the United States has acted as the principal broker and overseer. While some countries have criticised Israeli strikes in Lebanon, Lynk says there has been little pressure on Washington for allowing repeated violations.

“A number of Global North countries have criticised the continuing Israeli attacks on Lebanon despite the ceasefire, but they have not called out the US for allowing Israel to repeatedly breach the ceasefires in Gaza and Lebanon.”

So are ceasefires legally binding – or not?

Yes, they are, argues Toby Cadman, a British international human rights lawyer and cofounder of Guernica 37 Chambers.

But, like Kersten and Lynk, Cadman said that ceasefires – which he described as the “temporary, military and diplomatic suspension of military operations” – are inherently fragile. Unlike peace treaties, ceasefires do not resolve the underlying conflict or end the legal state of war.

“It suspends the fighting; it does not end the state of armed conflict,” he said.

Where there is a broader peace agreement, such as in Gaza, the ceasefire too stands – at least in theory – on a stronger footing, said Lynk. The Gaza peace plan that accompanied the ceasefire was endorsed by the UN Security Council through Resolution 2803, which calls for the agreement to be implemented “in its entirety, in good faith and without delay”.

In theory, states could ask the Security Council to sanction parties violating the Gaza agreement. In practice, Lynk explained, the US veto on the body means that neither Israel, nor the US itself, can realistically be censured.

“This is why ceasefires and peace treaties are ultimately political documents because it requires political will to enforce them,” Lynk said.

Who decides when a ceasefire has been violated?

Palestinians have repeatedly pointed to the violation of the Gaza ceasefire by Israel. The US and Iran routinely accuse each other of breaching their truce. And Israel and Lebanon do the same when it comes to their ceasefire.

So who decides whether a ceasefire has been violated – and by whom?

The answer, according to Cadman, is that “there is no neutral arbiter empowered to determine, with binding effect, who has breached.”

Monitoring mechanisms do exist, but they are largely political bodies overseen by the same states that brokered and guaranteed the agreements. In the case of Gaza and Lebanon, that is the United States. But Washington occupies the unusual position of mediator, guarantor and Israel’s closest military and diplomatic ally.

That means allegations of violations are often filtered through political calculations rather than assessed by an independent legal authority, say experts.

What about international law?

For Kersten, Gaza and Lebanon expose a fundamental contradiction within the international legal system. On paper, international law has succeeded in establishing a broad consensus about the legality of what is taking place.

“The vast majority of the world recognises that what is happening in both contexts is not just wrong, but illegal – thanks to international law.”

Yet recognition has done little to halt the violence. “Little is being done to save lives and stop the carnage,” he said.

The result is a widening gap between legal findings and political action. Courts can investigate, collect evidence and issue rulings as the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice have both done against Israel, but that does not stop bombs from falling or guarantee compliance on the ground.

For Kersten and Lynk, the problem is not a lack of legal standards; it is the persistent failure of states to enforce them, particularly when powerful actors are involved.

“The lack of effective accountability is the hole in the heart of international law and our modern international political system,” Lynk said.

But Kersten said what was clear was that international humanitarian law, human rights law and international criminal law remain fully applicable during a ceasefire.

“Ceasefire provides no legal cover to commit atrocities against civilians.”

That means allegations of war crimes can still be investigated and prosecuted even while a ceasefire is in effect.

Is ‘self-defence’ a justification for attacks during a ceasefire?

Cadman highlights the legal argument most frequently used to justify continued strikes by Israel on Gaza and Lebanon, and by the US against Iran: self-defence.

These arguments rest on Article 51 of the UN Charter, which carves out the right for states to launch unilateral military action against other nations if they are acting in self-defence.

But Cadman said the interpretation of that clause is heavily contested.

“Article 51 answers an armed attack that has happened or is genuinely imminent; it is not a standing licence for preventive strikes.”

So why do countries feel they can get away with attacks during a ceasefire?

Asked by reporters on Wednesday how he defined a ceasefire, given the continuing – though sporadic – attacks that the US and Iran have exchanged in recent weeks, US President Donald Trump said: “It’s a different part of the world, you know. I’d say in that part of a ceasefire is when you’re shooting in a more moderate manner.”

Trump’s comments underscore what legal experts say is at the heart of the persisting violence in Gaza, Lebanon and the Gulf: The lack of any meaningful enforcement mechanism.

The Security Council is constrained by veto powers. The ICJ can issue binding orders but cannot enforce them. The ICC can issue arrest warrants, but depends on states to carry them out.

“The unifying theme is an enforcement deficit,” Cadman said.

Cadman argued that the problem is not that international law lacks rules. Rather, those rules are often applied selectively. “The law is not formally different for Israel or the US; its application is selective.”

EXPLAINER

Israel strikes Lebanon despite ceasefire, while Hezbollah rejects deal as death toll tops 3,500.

Israel has continued to carry out deadly strikes across Lebanon despite the announcement of a new US-brokered ceasefire agreement reached by Lebanese and Israeli officials in Washington, DC.

The violence has pushed the number of casualties higher, with Lebanon’s Ministry of Public Health reporting that at least 3,526 people have been killed and 10,733 wounded in Israeli attacks since March 2.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem has dismissed the ceasefire as a “farce”, warning that northern Israel will remain a target as long as Israeli forces continue bombing Lebanon, raising more doubts about the prospects for a lasting truce.

Here is what we know:

In Iran

• Iran adviser flags concerns over draft deal: Mohsen Rezaei, an adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, said the draft memorandum of understanding being negotiated to end the war still contains “ambiguities” that need to be clarified. Speaking to Iranian state television, Rezaei also accused US President Donald Trump of trying to pressure Tehran into accepting Washington’s terms while keeping Iran’s own conditions “in a vague state”.

War diplomacy

• Questions over US strategy: Reporting from Washington, DC, Al Jazeera’s Kimberly Halkett said the White House is facing growing questions over why a negotiated agreement with Iran is still needed after President Donald Trump repeatedly claimed US military action had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear programme. Halkett said critics are asking: “If these military objectives have been achieved, then is there still a need for talks?” She added that “with each passing week that this war drags on” and negotiations remaining stalled, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the administration to reconcile its claims of success with the continued push for diplomacy.
• Hezbollah rejects conditional ceasefire: Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem rejected the limited truce agreed to by Lebanese and Israeli representatives in the US, demanding a complete ceasefire and a full Israeli pullout from the country. Qassem also warned of more attacks on northern Israel, highlighting the difficulties in reaching a lasting peace. Both sides have blamed each other for breaking a previous ceasefire announced in April.

The Gulf

• Oman oil terminal disruption: Reuters reported that Oman has suspended crude oil loading operations at its key Mina al-Fahal terminal after an explosion near its single-buoy mooring (SBM) berths. Citing unnamed sources, the agency said the blast occurred between SBM 1 and SBM 2 and was allegedly caused by a drone attack.

In the US

• Trump says US does not need a deal to access Iran’s uranium: The US president said Washington could access Iran’s enriched uranium without reaching an agreement with Tehran, arguing the material is effectively “entombed”. Trump also said he does not plan to meet Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, but he suggested a meeting could be possible if a deal is eventually reached, adding that “if it happened … I’d be respectful”.

In Israel

• Ultra-Orthodox protest blocks major highway: Hundreds of ultra-Orthodox Israelis blocked Highway 1 in protest against the government’s enforcement of military conscription for religious students, according to Israel’s Channel 10. The demonstrations began after police stopped two ultra-Orthodox students and transferred one to military authorities. Large numbers of police and border guards were deployed to clear the highway and disperse protesters.

In Lebanon

• Hezbollah rejection raises fears of escalation: Reporting from Beirut, Al Jazeera’s Ali Hashem said Hezbollah remains the key actor on the Lebanese side when it comes to decisions about fighting and any potential halt to hostilities with Israel, “regardless of what the Lebanese government says”. Given Hezbollah’s rejection of the US-brokered ceasefire, Hashem warned that further escalation is likely from both Hezbollah and Israel. He noted that southern Lebanon and the western Bekaa Valley experienced significant Israeli air and ground attacks on Thursday, adding that Hezbollah’s position suggests “it is going to be a very difficult situation” in the days ahead.

Israel and the Lebanese government have agreed to implement a new US-mediated ceasefire, the Trump administration has said, despite Israel’s defence minister insisting the military will continue operations in Lebanon.

Furthermore, while Lebanese President Joseph Aoun said on Thursday that the ceasefire would come into force within 24 hours of approval by all concerned parties, Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem has dismissed the deal, labelling it a “surrender and defeat”.

The Trump administration announcement comes just weeks after a previous agreement to cease hostilities was supposedly reached on April 16. Since then, however, more than 600 people have been killed in Israeli strikes across Lebanon while Israel has expanded its military presence in the south of the country, now occupying about one-fifth of the country.

The renewed diplomatic push also comes as Washington pursues parallel shuttle negotiations with Iran. Tehran, a close ally of Hezbollah, has made a ceasefire in Lebanon a condition for any broader agreement to end the war with the US and has repeatedly called for Israel to withdraw from southern Lebanon.

Iran’s position was underlined when Quds Force commander Esmail Qaani said the baseline demand in Lebanon is for Israeli forces to withdraw to the positions they held before the start of the US-Israel war on Iran at the end of February – a demand that is not explicitly reflected in the agreement.

Iran and Hezbollah’s responses to the US announcement, coupled with Israel’s insistence that military operations will continue, have cast serious doubt on its viability. Critics of Israel’s war on Lebanon also point to the April truce, which they say has completely failed to halt Israeli attacks or Israel’s occupation of the south of the country.

What has been announced?

According to the Trump administration, Israel and Lebanon have agreed to implement a ceasefire contingent on a “complete cessation” of Hezbollah fire and the evacuation of its fighters from the area south of the Litani River.

The agreement also calls for the creation of “pilot zones” where Lebanese Armed Forces would take exclusive control “to the exclusion of all non-state actors”. The stated aim is to move towards a wider political and security agreement, including the dismantling of non-state armed groups and preventing their re-emergence.

But Hezbollah was not party to the talks and has already rejected the agreement. Lebanon was represented by government diplomats, even though the Lebanese army is not a party to this conflict.

According to the wording of the agreement, the parties are due to reconvene during the week of June 22 to continue diplomatic and security talks, with the US facilitating communications in the meantime. It remains unclear if that stage of the agreement will ever be reached.

What was agreed in April?

The April agreement used different language, saying Israel and Lebanon would implement a “cessation of hostilities” from April 16, and never actually used the word ceasefire.

It also included a clause allowing Israel to “take all necessary measures in self-defence, at any time, against planned, imminent or ongoing attacks”.

That clause does not appear in the new text, which could be interpreted as a small concession. That was until Israel Katz said Israel would continue its military operations in Lebanon regardless.

The latest agreement also repeats Israel’s longstanding demand that Hezbollah withdraw from south of the Litani River.

Meanwhile, there is one major glaring omission. While the text focuses heavily on Hezbollah’s withdrawal from parts of southern Lebanon, it does not mention Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon.

Lebanese journalist and analyst Souhayb Jawhar told Al Jazeera the agreement is defined as much by what it leaves out as by what it includes.

The text, he said, focuses on Hezbollah’s obligations and those of the Lebanese state: removing armed elements from south of the Litani and creating zones where the Lebanese army holds exclusive control.

“This point alone explains much of the scepticism within Hezbollah and its political environment,” Jawhar told Al Jazeera. “From the party’s perspective, any agreement should include a clear ceasefire, an Israeli withdrawal, and a framework for addressing outstanding issues, rather than becoming a document focused primarily on restructuring Lebanon’s internal security landscape.”

What else is different this time?

Other points of contention regarding the new agreement are the “pilot zones”, which appear to go beyond stopping the fighting and instead test a new security model in southern Lebanon – one that could eventually be expanded elsewhere, analysts say.

“This is why many observers see these zones as the beginning of a gradual transition from a security environment in which Hezbollah played the dominant role to one in which the Lebanese state and its armed forces become the sole security authority,” Jawhar said.

He added that the fate of the agreement may depend less on Lebanon-Israel talks than on the US-Iran track. If Washington and Tehran reach a wider understanding, the ceasefire in Lebanon will have a stronger chance of holding because both sides will have an interest in stabilising the Lebanese front.

“If those negotiations stall or collapse, Lebanon could quickly return to being one of the main arenas of pressure and confrontation between the two sides,” Jawhar added.

What is the situation in Lebanon now?

Southern Lebanon remained under heavy military pressure on Thursday, with Israeli strikes on Kafra and al-Mansouri in the southwest of the country. In the Bekaa Valley, one person was killed and four others wounded in an Israeli strike on Sohmor, according to Lebanon’s state-run National News Agency (NNA).

A separate strike hit Tell al-Aqareb, while further raids targeted Haddatha, Tibnin, Haris, and Harin. The NNA also reported more Israeli strikes across southern Lebanon as drones flew at low altitude over Beirut. In Maaroub, one person was killed and another wounded when Israeli forces targeted a motorcycle.

Israeli warplanes also struck towns and villages across the south, including Zawtar al-Sharqiya, Zawtar al-Gharbiya, Shoukin, Barachit, Srifa, Zibdin, Haris and Deir Zahrani. Jets and drones have also been flying over the south for much of the morning, including a drone seen at extremely low altitude over Tyre.

Lebanon’s Civil Defence authorities have warned people not to return south, citing the continued danger to civilian life in towns and villages across southern Lebanon.

More than 3,000 people have been killed, and more than one million have been forced from their homes since Israel renewed its assault on Lebanon in early March.