guard

Security guard Pascal Duvier, most recently infamous for allegedly scolding 11-year-old Ada Law at a hotel in São Paulo, is clearing the air.

Duvier issued a statement on Instagram on Wednesday night following four days of back-and-forth social media claims from soccer star Jorginho, his wife, Catherine Harding (singer-songwriter Cat Cavelli), and pop star Chappell Roan, who denied involvement in an incident that left Ada (the biological daughter of Jude Law and Harding) in tears ahead of her birthday celebration.

As a result of the controversy, speculation around Roan’s treatment of her fans has flooded social media for days. The “Hot to Go!” hitmaker has been vocal in the past about setting boundaries with fans and paparazzi, as well as her complicated relationship with fame.

Duvier, who insists he was not working for Roan at the time of the incident, began his statement saying that he does not normally address online rumors, “but the accusations currently circulating are false and constitute defamation.”

“I take full responsibility for the interactions on March 21st,” he wrote. “I was at the hotel on behalf of another individual, and I was not part of the personal security team of Chappell Roan.

“The actions I took were not on behalf of Chappell Roan, her personal security team, her management, or any other individuals. I made a judgment call based on information we obtained from the hotel, events I had witnessed in the days prior and the heightened overall security risk of our location. My sole interaction with the mother was calm and with good intentions, and the outcome of the encounter is regretful.”

Roan headlined Lollapalooza Brazil over the weekend, and Jorginho was in attendance along with his wife and stepchild. While there, the footballer said the 11-year-old (whom he did not name) thought she spotted the pop star at their São Paulo hotel.

The girl passed by Roan’s table “to confirm it was her, smiled, and went back to sit with her mum. She didn’t say anything, didn’t ask for anything,” he wrote.

Jorginho alleged that, after the girl sat down, a “large security guard” interrupted their breakfast to scold them. The guard allegedly told Harding “she shouldn’t allow [her] daughter to ‘disrespect’ or ‘harass’ other people.”

The girl was “extremely shaken and cried a lot,” said Jorginho, a player for the Brazilian club Flamengo whose legal name is Jorge Luiz Frello Filho.

On Sunday, Roan responded on Instagram, seemingly baffled by the swirling controversy. She insisted the guard was not her personal security and that no one had approached her.

“I did not ask the security guard to go up and talk to this mother and child. … They did not come up to me. They weren’t doing anything.

“I do not hate people who are fans of my music. I do not hate children.”

Three days ago Harding also responded to the brouhaha, posting her own video on Instagram in an attempt to bring some clarity following Roan’s statement. “So 100% this security guard was not a security guard of the hotel, that’s what I can say,” she said. “He looks after artists.

“So I don’t know if it was her personal security guard, but he was with her. So that is all I know. Did she send him to do it? Again, I don’t know.”

Duvier, a “protection specialist” and martial artist, according to his Instagram bio, worked for Kim Kardashian in 2016.

Times Deputy Editor Amy Hubbard contributed to this report.

Former Chelsea and Arsenal player Jorginho may be best known as a defensive midfielder – but he has gone viral on social media for his attack on pop singer Chappell Roan, alleging her security guard reduced his 11-year-old daughter to tears.

The 34-year-old Italy international, who has dual Brazilian citizenship and now plays for Flamengo in Rio de Janeiro, claimed in a post on Instagram, external that his family suffered the “very upsetting situation” over breakfast at a hotel in Sao Paulo, Brazil.

The former Premier League midfielder said his daughter was a big Chappell Roan fan and had made a sign to take to the Lollapalooza music festival in Sao Paulo, which the singer was headlining.

He says his daughter recognised the star while eating at a nearby table and walked past her, smiled, then went back to her seat without saying anything or asking anything of the Pink Pony Club singer.

“What happened next was completely disproportionate,” he wrote.

“A large security guard came over to their table while they were still having breakfast and began speaking in an extremely aggressive manner to both my wife [Catherine Harding] and my daughter, saying that she shouldn’t allow my daughter to ‘disrespect’ or ‘harass’ other people.”

He added: “He even said he would file a complaint against them with the hotel, while my 11-year-old daughter was sitting there in tears. My daughter was extremely shaken and cried a lot.”

Chappell Roan has not responded to his claims.

Jorginho said he understood well the pressures of public exposure after playing 57 times for Italy – helping them win the European title in 2021 by beating England at Wembley.

He has also played for elite clubs across Europe and Brazil – winning the Champions League and Europa League with Chelsea and silverware in Italy with Napoli.

But he added: “I understand very well what respect and boundaries are. What happened there was not that. It was just a child admiring someone.

“It’s sad to see this kind of treatment coming from those who should understand the importance of fans. At the end of the day, they are the ones who build all of this.

“I sincerely hope this serves as a moment of reflection. No-one should have to go through this, especially not a child.”

Jorginho finished his impassioned post with a direct message to Chappell Roan, written in capital letters: “WITHOUT YOUR FANS, YOU WOULD BE NOTHING. AND TO THE FANS, SHE DOES NOT DESERVE YOUR AFFECTION.”

The “unexpected beef”, as described by some commentators, led to a flood of responses on social media in support of Jorginho and his family – some serious, some tongue-in-cheek.

Rio de Janeiro’s mayor, Eduardo Cavaliere, wrote that he intended to ban Chappell Roan from performing in his city, adding that Jorginho’s daughter would be invited as a guest of honour to the city’s Todo Mundo music festival in May.

Others cited her previous comments about fans’ “creepy” and “stalker-like-behaviour”, external.

Some also poked fun at the Grammy Award winner for lacking the credentials to play in the Premier League.

WASHINGTON — President Trump expressed frustration Monday that U.S. allies were not enthusiastic about sending warships to protect merchant vessels passing through the Strait of Hormuz, a sign of Washington’s growing isolation as it tries to stabilize one of the world’s most critical shipping lanes amid its war against Iran.

Trump declined to name the “numerous countries” he said had agreed to help reopen the oil route, which has come under the threat of retaliation from Iran, but was annoyed that most longtime allies were hesitant about joining his international police force. He said they should be “jumping to help us.”

“Some countries that we have helped for many, many years, we’ve protected them from horrible outside sources and they weren’t that enthusiastic — and the level of enthusiasm, it matters to me,” Trump said at the White House.

For Trump, securing allies’ help is as much a domestic economic need as it is international diplomacy. Since the hostilities against Iran began on Feb. 28, Tehran has retaliated by targeting regional oil facilities and at least 20 vessels operating in and around the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf of Oman.

The result has been “the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market,” according to the International Energy Agency, and it has led to international oil prices surging more than 30% to over $100 a barrel as the war entered its third week with no clear end in sight.

The diplomatic friction, meanwhile, reflects the limits of Trump’s influence at a moment when the global economy is absorbing one of the worst oil supply shocks in modern history, a dynamic that has prompted Trump to warn that countries refusing to help may find Washington a far less generous partner in turn.

Despite Trump‘s demands, several key allies have publicly rebuffed his calls for support.

French President Emmanuel Macron formally rejected the request, saying that France would maintain a “defensive and protective” posture focused on stability rather than escalation.

German Foreign Minister Boris Pistorius was blunter, saying, “This is not our war; we didn’t start it.”

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer also declined to commit, saying the U.K. “will not be drawn into the wider war.” Italy, Spain, Australia and Japan similarly declined, while South Korea and China have not publicly stated their intentions.

The rejections seems to have only sharpened Trump’s demands. At one point during an event Monday, the president turned to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and said he would share a list of nations that declined to help, suggesting Congress could have a role in any retaliatory measures against reluctant allies.

“Why are we protecting countries that don’t protect us?” Trump said.

Yet Trump also sent conflicting signals about how much allied help he actually needs. At one point he claimed the United States did not require assistance from other countries.

“We don’t need them, but it’s interesting — I am doing it, in some cases, not because we need them, but because I want to see how they react,” Trump said.

On the threat to merchant ships, Trump projected uncertainty. He said the possibility of mines was “enough to keep people” from transiting the waterway, but said that “we don’t even know” if Iran has placed any mines in the strait.

“They may have no mines,” he said. “We hit every one of their mine ships. Every one of them is gone — but it only takes one.”

Speaking aboard Air Force One on Sunday, Trump also sent mixed messages about the threats and the need for help. He said the United States was coordinating with roughly seven countries to deploy naval forces to “police the straits — before adding, in the same remarks, that “maybe we shouldn’t even be there at all.”

He suggested American forces should not be there because other nations depend more heavily on oil shipments through the oil route, an about-face that drew criticism from allies, who said it created confusion about Washington’s strategy in a conflict the United States had itself started.

“To keep the strait open, I have a very hard time believing that China and the other countries the president enlisted are really going to be escorting ships through the strait. That just really doesn’t add up to me,” Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said in an NBC “Meet the Press” interview Sunday.

“The bottom line is, we really don’t know how long this war is going to be,” he added.

Trump, however, is keeping the pressure on allied countries, making the future of the conflict more open-ended depending on their response.

Trump insisted Monday that “numerous countries have told me they are on their way,” but said he would “rather not say” who they are.

He then said the tepid responses from some U.S. allies had reinforced his skepticism about the value of the NATO alliance, echoing comments he made over the weekend when he warned that a failure to assist would be “very bad for the future of NATO” and that the U.S. would “remember” those who did not step up.

When asked if he was confident Macron will help with the reopening of the strait, Trump told reporters: “Yeah, I mean sure. … I think he’s gonna help. I mean I’ll let you know.”

Europe has nonetheless been drawn deeper into the conflict.

The U.K. initially refused to support U.S. military operations, but softened its position after Trump mocked Starmer as “no Winston Churchill” and called Britain a “once great ally.” France also said last week that it was preparing a separate “purely defensive” naval mission to escort commercial vessels through the strait once it was safe to do so.

Moving forward, it is unclear how the European Union and other nations around the world will respond to Trump’s pressure.

“Nobody wants to go actively in this war. And of course, everybody is concerned what will be the outcome,” Kaja Kallas, the European Union’s top diplomat, said Monday after a meeting of foreign ministers in Brussels. “This is not Europe’s war, but Europe’s interests are directly at stake.”

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has pledged allegiance to Mojtaba Khamenei, the country’s newly-elected supreme leader. While some Iranians have celebrated, many are dismayed the 56-year-old cleric, accused of human rights abuses, has ascended to the country’s highest office.

The assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in joint US-Israeli air attacks has caused one of the most significant blows to the country’s leadership since the 1979 Islamic revolution, triggering protests by his supporters.

Khamenei assumed Iran’s supreme leadership in 1989 after the death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who had led the Islamic revolution against the pro-United States Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

On Sunday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said seeking revenge for the killing of Khamenei and other senior Iranian officials is the country’s “duty and legitimate right”.

President Donald Trump has framed the operation as a “liberation” moment, predicting that the removal of the “head” will lead to the swift collapse of the body. However, in Iran, the reality suggests a far more complex situation.

Interviews with insiders, military experts and political sociologists suggest that the decapitation of Iran’s top leadership may not go the way the West envisions. Instead, it risks birthing a “garrison state” – a paranoid, militarised system fighting for its existence with no political red lines left to cross.

The limits of ‘decapitation’

The central premise of the US operation is that Iran is too brittle to survive the death of its supreme leader. In a phone interview with CBS News, Trump claimed he “knows exactly” who is calling the shots in Tehran, adding that “there are some good candidates” to replace the supreme leader. He did not elaborate on his claims.

However, military analysts warn against the assumption that air strikes alone can trigger “regime change”. Michael Mulroy, a former US deputy assistant secretary of defence, told Al Jazeera Arabic that without “boots on the ground” or a fully armed organic uprising, the state’s deep security apparatus can survive simply by maintaining cohesion.

“You cannot facilitate regime change through air strikes alone,” Mulroy said. “If anyone is left alive to speak, the regime is still there.”

This resilience is rooted in Iran’s dual military structure. The government is protected not just by a regular army (Artesh), but also by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) – a powerful parallel military force constitutionally tasked with protecting the velayat-e faqih system – the principle of the guardianship of the Islamic jurist.

Supporting them is the Basij, a vast paramilitary volunteer militia embedded in every neighbourhood, specifically trained to crush internal dissent and mobilise ideological loyalists.

That cohesion is already being tested.

Hossein Royvaran, a political analyst based in Tehran, confirmed that the strikes wiped out the country’s top security tier, including Khamenei’s adviser and secretary of the newly-formed Supreme Defence Council, Ali Shamkhani.

The secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, Ali Larijani, said the leadership transition will begin on Sunday.

“An interim leadership council will soon be formed. The president, the head of the judiciary and a jurist from the Guardian Council will assume responsibility until the election of the next leader,” said Larijani.

“This council will be established as soon as possible. We are working to form it as early as today,” he said in an interview broadcast by state TV.

The rapid formation of an interim leadership council – comprising the president, judiciary chief, and a Guardian Council religious leader – indicates that the system’s “survival protocols” have been activated.

According to Royvaran, the system is designed to be “institutional, not personal”, capable of functioning on “autopilot” even when the political leadership is severed.

But a Tehran-based analyst said direction of Iran is still unclear as officials try to ‘project stability’.

“Officials here are trying to project stability, emphasising that the situation is under control and that state institutions are functioning effectively,” Abas Aslani, senior research fellow at the Center for Middle East Strategic Studies, said.

“Today, [the US-Israeli] air strikes targeted security and military infrastructure in the capital [Tehran] and other cities. There are expectations that such strikes could continue – and possibly intensify – in the coming hours or days,” he told Al Jazeera.

“That prospect of escalation is not something many ordinary Iranians welcome. At the same time, Iranian officials are issuing strong warnings, suggesting they could respond with capabilities that have not previously been used against Israel or the United States.”

From theocracy to nationalist survival

Perhaps the most significant shift in the immediate aftermath is Iran’s pivot from religious legitimacy to survivalist nationalism.

Aware that the death of the supreme leader might sever the spiritual bond with parts of the population, surviving officials are reframing the war not as a defence of the clergy, but as a defence of Iran’s territorial integrity.

Larijani, a conservative heavyweight and key figure in the transition, issued a stark warning that Israel’s ultimate goal is the “partition” of Iran. By raising the spectre of Iran being broken into ethnic statelets, the leadership aims to rally secular Iranians and the opposition against a common external enemy.

This strategy complicates the US hope for a popular uprising.

Saleh al-Mutairi, a political sociologist, notes that the government’s declaration of 40 days of mourning creates a “funeral trap” for the opposition. The streets will likely be filled with millions of mourners, creating a human shield for the government and making it logistically and morally difficult for antigovernment protests to gain momentum in the short term.

The end of ‘strategic patience’

If Iran survives the initial shock, the nation that emerges will likely be fundamentally different: less calculated and probably more violent.

For years, Khamenei championed a doctrine of “strategic patience”, often absorbing blows to avoid all-out war.

Hassan Ahmadian, a professor at the University of Tehran, says the era died with the supreme leader.

“Iran learned a hard lesson from the June 2025 war: Restraint is interpreted as weakness,” Ahmadian told Al Jazeera Arabic. The new calculus in Tehran is likely to be a “scorched earth” policy.

“The decision has been made. If attacked, Iran will burn everything,” Ahmadian added, suggesting that the response will be broader and more painful than anything seen in previous escalations.”

This risks a scenario where field commanders, freed from the political caution of the clerical leadership, lash out with greater ferocity. The assassination has humiliated the security establishment, exposing what Liqaa Maki, a senior researcher at Al Jazeera Centre for Studies, calls a catastrophic intelligence failure.

“The believer is not bitten from the same hole twice, yet Iran has been bitten twice,” Maki said, referring to the pattern of US strikes. This “total exposure” is likely to drive the surviving leadership underground, turning Iran into a hyper-security state that views any internal dissent as foreign collaboration, he said.

While the “head” of Iran has been removed, the “body” – armed with one of the largest missile arsenals in the Middle East – remains, Maki said.