Iran

US says the decisions follow Iran’s commitment to allow international nuclear inspections.

Qatar’s PM Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani told Al Jazeera that safeguards have been put in place to prevent US-Iran negotiations from regional escalation, including tensions in Lebanon and the Strait of Hormuz, stressing diplomacy and respect for agreements.

The Iran soccer team left a note in its SoFi Stadium locker room thanking Los Angeles area fans for their hospitality.

The Iranians made history with two draws in Inglewood, marking the first time the team has avoided a loss through its first two World Cup games. While the matches drew protests against the Iranian regime, including some booing both times the national anthem was played before kickoffs, the crowds heavily favored and cheered loudly for the Iranian team.

Iran will close group play against Egypt at Seattle’s Lumen Field on Friday night.

Before leaving Sunday, the Iranian soccer federation and forward Ramin Rezaeian shared pictures of the team’s note of appreciation.

“Thank you, Los Angeles, for your hospitality,” the note read. “And thank you to every Iranian who gave their heart, voice, and soul for Iran throughout these 180 minutes.

“May peace, respect and friendship prevail among all nations.”

Iran has complained about U.S. government restrictions that forced them to spend limited time in the Los Angeles area before and after its matches, quickly returning to its base camp in Tijuana. But the complaints don’t extend to those who they crossed paths with while practicing briefly in Carson, spending two nights in a Manhattan Beach hotel and playing two big games at SoFi Stadium.

“From ancient Persia of thousands of years ago to the civilized Iran of today, the spirit of Iran remains alive and steadfast,” the note read. “We came to Los Angeles with pride, competed with honor, and leave with dignity.”

The disruption caused by the Iran war and the temporary closure of the Strait of Hormuz has prompted countries around the world to reconsider their energy security strategies. Governments that suffered economic damage from supply shortages and soaring prices are now looking to build larger strategic oil and gas reserves, potentially creating demand for hundreds of millions of additional barrels over the coming years.

Hormuz Crisis Exposed Energy Vulnerabilities

The near-total closure of the Strait of Hormuz disrupted around one-fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas supplies for more than three months, sending shockwaves through energy markets.

Brent crude prices surged to nearly $120 a barrel as import-dependent economies faced rising fuel costs, supply uncertainty and growing inflationary pressures.

Emergency Reserves Helped Stabilize Markets

One of the key factors preventing a deeper energy crisis was the release of strategic petroleum reserves.

All 32 members of the International Energy Agency agreed to a record release of 400 million barrels from emergency stockpiles, helping offset supply disruptions and ease pressure on global markets.

The coordinated action highlighted the importance of maintaining large emergency reserves during major geopolitical crises.

China’s Stockpile Strategy Pays Off

China emerged from the crisis in a stronger position than many other major importers due to its massive strategic petroleum reserve.

The country has spent years building what is believed to be the world’s largest emergency oil stockpile, estimated at more than one billion barrels.

During the conflict, China significantly reduced crude imports, allowing it to avoid buying large volumes of oil at elevated prices and limiting the economic impact of the disruption.

Import-Dependent Economies Face Greater Pressure

Countries with limited strategic reserves faced much greater challenges.

Several Asian economies relied on emergency measures such as:

• Fuel subsidies
• Consumption restrictions
• Reduced working hours
• Energy-saving programs

The experience exposed vulnerabilities among countries heavily dependent on Middle Eastern energy supplies without substantial emergency stockpiles.

India Eyes Larger Strategic Reserves

India is among the countries most likely to expand its emergency storage capacity.

As the world’s third-largest oil importer and one of the fastest-growing energy consumers, India currently holds reserves covering only a small fraction of its import needs.

Meeting International Energy Agency standards would require hundreds of millions of additional barrels of storage capacity.

Recent plans under consideration suggest New Delhi is moving toward expanding its strategic petroleum reserve network.

Pakistan Also Reviewing Energy Security

Pakistan, which relied heavily on Middle Eastern oil and LNG imports before the conflict, is also examining ways to increase domestic storage capacity.

The Hormuz disruption underscored the risks facing countries that lack sufficient reserves to absorb prolonged supply interruptions.

Australia Moves to Address Reserve Gap

Australia, long criticized for failing to meet International Energy Agency stockpile requirements, has announced plans to significantly increase fuel reserves.

The move reflects a broader recognition that energy security has become a national security issue amid growing geopolitical uncertainty.

Europe Considers Additional Gas Storage

Europe already maintains extensive gas storage infrastructure to manage winter demand.

However, the war has renewed concerns about dependence on imported LNG, particularly as the region increasingly relies on overseas suppliers.

Additional government-controlled gas storage facilities may become part of future energy security planning.

Gulf Producers Seek Overseas Storage

The lessons of the Hormuz disruption are also influencing major energy exporters.

National oil companies in the Gulf are exploring opportunities to expand storage capacity outside the region to maintain export flexibility during future crises.

Additional overseas storage could help producers continue serving customers even if regional shipping routes face disruptions.

Oil Market Impact

The expansion of strategic reserves worldwide could create substantial new demand for crude oil and refined products.

At the same time, emergency reserves that were depleted during the conflict will need to be replenished.

Together, reserve rebuilding and new storage programs could generate demand for roughly one billion barrels over the coming years, providing support for global oil prices even if overall supply growth remains strong.

What It Means for Global Energy Security

The Hormuz crisis has reinforced a lesson many governments learned during previous energy shocks: supply security can be just as important as supply availability.

Countries are increasingly viewing strategic reserves not as emergency assets to be used rarely, but as a core component of economic and national security planning. The crisis has also demonstrated how large stockpiles can provide governments with flexibility to reduce imports during periods of market stress and extreme prices.

Analysis

The most significant consequence of the Iran war may not be the temporary spike in oil prices but the long-term shift in how countries manage energy security. The conflict exposed a clear divide between nations with large strategic reserves and those forced to absorb the full impact of supply disruptions. China emerged as a model for energy resilience, while countries such as India and Pakistan were reminded of their vulnerability to geopolitical shocks.

If governments follow through on plans to expand storage capacity, the global oil market could gain a major new source of structural demand. Reserve construction and replenishment may help absorb future supply surpluses and provide a floor for prices, particularly during periods of weak economic growth.

At the same time, larger strategic stockpiles could make future oil shocks less severe. Countries with substantial reserves are better positioned to reduce imports during crises, dampening demand spikes and limiting extreme price volatility. In the longer term, the world could emerge from the Hormuz crisis with a more resilient energy system, but one in which strategic stockpiles play a much larger role in shaping oil demand, trade flows and government policy.

With information from Reuters.

The move, expected under the MoU, comes as Vice President JD Vance says there’s a ‘good foundation’ for a final deal.

The United States has partially lifted sanctions on Iranian oil exports following “encouraging” talks over ending their conflict.

The US Treasury issued a 60-day sanctions waiver on Monday, paving the way for the production, delivery and sale of Iranian oil to the US. The move came amid positive reports from mediators and the US vice president regarding talks in Switzerland between Washington and Tehran aimed at establishing a full peace deal.

The waiver is a condition included in the 60-day memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed by Tehran and Washington on June 17.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that the US-Iran talks have been “productive” and that several of the MoU’s stipulations are moving ahead.

“Iran has committed to free and open transit in the Strait of Hormuz and to permit International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors into their country,” he wrote on social media. “As part of the framework, Treasury has issued a temporary 60-day general licence authorising the production, delivery and sale of Iranian oil.”

The licence lasts through August 21 and covers crude oil, petrochemical products, or petroleum products of Iranian origin. It permits Iranian oil to be imported into the US but does not authorise transactions involving US-sanctioned North Korea or Cuba, or Russian-occupied Ukraine.

There was no immediate response from Iranian government officials.

Oil prices continued their recent decline upon news of the waiver, with Brent crude dropping over 3.5 percent to $77.7 per barrel.

‘Good foundation’

Bessent’s announcement came as US Vice President JD Vance voiced optimism over the Tehran-Washington discussions in the Swiss resort of Burgenstock.

“We laid a very good foundation for a successful final deal,” he told reporters and shrugged off yesterday’s online tit-for-tat between President Donald Trump and top negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf.

“Social media threats that they would walk out” did not come to fruition,” Vance noted. “There was a little bit of threatening, there was a little bit of whining, but at the end of the day the talks continued and we made great progress.”

Mediators at the talks said that Washington and Tehran had made “encouraging progress” at the first round, according to Reuters.

The vice president did not give a firm timeline for when nuclear inspections may start, but said conversations with the IAEA could happen as soon as Monday.

The US has said that the need to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon was a key driver of its attacks, and demands that Tehran reopen its nuclear facilities to international oversight.

Iran has persistently rejected accusations that it seeks to develop a nuclear arsenal, insisting that its nuclear programme is purely for civilian purposes.

A busier waterway

Shortly before the waiver announcement, the Strait of Hormuz was reported to be seeing an increase in oil and gas tanker traffic, just two days after Iran said it would close the waterway again because of Israeli attacks on Lebanon.

Four Qatari-operated LNG tankers headed into the Gulf and through the strait on Monday, while two supertankers – which can carry up to four million barrels of crude oil – entered. One indicated its destination as the Iraqi port of Basra, according to ship tracking data.

Two smaller crude oil tankers, laden with just under two million barrels, sailed out of the waterway and into the Gulf of Oman on Monday, according to MarineTraffic.

“While daily transits remain below the 125 crossings prior to the Iran hostilities, the trend is positive,” said the shipping firm Clarksons.

The US has maintained that the strait was never closed for the second time and tracked 55 merchant ships loaded with more than 17 million barrels of oil on Saturday.

US Vice President JD Vance has touted significant progress in talks with Iran over its nuclear programme and Israel’s war on Lebanon, while refusing to commit to an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory. He said Trump is trying to bring ‘permanent peace’ to a region that’s been ‘a basket case for a long time’.

The first round of talks between high-level officials from Iran and the United States in Switzerland has ended, mediators say, with the two sides agreeing on a roadmap towards a final deal to end their more than 100-day war.

Iran and the US agreed to set up communication lines to keep the vital Strait of Hormuz open and end fighting in Lebanon at the marathon talks that ended on Monday, according to mediators.

The teams, led by US Vice President JD Vance and Iranian parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, opened talks on Sunday as part of a two-month negotiating period set out under a preliminary deal agreed last week.

Mediators Pakistan and Qatar said the negotiators reached agreement on a “roadmap towards reaching a final deal within 60 days” with technical talks to continue for the rest of the week at the Swiss resort of Burgenstock.

“Encouraging progress has been made, including the creation of a mechanism for further technical talks,” they said, detailing a contact channel set up to “avoid incidents and miscommunication” over the Strait of Hormuz.

A “deconfliction cell” between the parties and authorities in Lebanon has also been agreed to prevent fighting from erupting there again, they said.

Al Jazeera’s Osama Bin Javaid, reporting from Lucerne, Switzerland, said mediators hailed the constructive engagement, adding that the working groups formed by the negotiators are to begin work immediately.

“A lot of work still remains to be done, and it is not yet clear how these groups will be formulated, in which capacity they will work or what format any future meeting will take,” he said.

Tehran essentially had blocked the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation against the joint attacks by Israel and the US on February 28 that touched off the war.

Lebanon was pitched into the conflict as Iran-aligned Hezbollah attacked Israel in response to the US-Israeli attacks on Iran, prompting Israel to launch a wide-scale bombing campaign and ground invasion of southern Lebanon.

After a series of false starts, Washington and Tehran last week finally signed a memorandum of understanding aimed at ending the war, which included a provision to end fighting in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah.

But there have been repeated clashes and Israeli attacks in Lebanon since, which prompted Iran to say days after it had reopened the Strait of Hormuz that it would again close the waterway, through which about a fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas supplies transited before the war.

“Tireless Pakistani and Qatari mediation has delivered major progress to end Lebanon War,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi wrote on X after the talks in Switzerland.

“Oil and petrochem exports are waived, blockade lifted, some frozen assets released, and major reconstruction & development plan launched for Iran. 1st real test: Lebanon deconfliction cell,” he wrote.

Al Jazeera’s Resul Serdar Atas, reporting from Tehran, said Iran achieved most of what it wanted in the talks in Switzerland because it had conditions for starting the technical talks.

“They were saying that the memorandum of understanding – particularly Articles 1, 10 and 11 – had to be initiated and implemented for the technical talks to move forward,” he said, referring to the sections on ending fighting on all fronts, including Lebanon; waiving US sanctions on Iranian energy exports; and releasing frozen Iranian assets.

“So now that they have decided that technical talks in Switzerland are going to continue throughout the whole week, we see that there is progress,” he added.

Trump’s threats

The roadmap was agreed after a shaky start to the negotiations. Iran’s delegation walked out in response to US President Donald Trump’s threats on Sunday to attack Iran over its support for Hezbollah.

“Iran must immediately stop their highly paid PROXIES in Lebanon from causing trouble,” Trump wrote on social media, apparently referring to Hezbollah. “If they don’t, we’ll hit Iran very hard again, just like we did last week, only harder!!!”

Iran hit back with a warning of its own.

“They would do better to be careful with their statements; our armed forces are ready to respond to them in a different manner. No matter what they say, we are the ones who act,” Iran’s chief negotiator, Ghalibaf, said.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, meanwhile, said Israeli troops would remain in southern Lebanon “as long as necessary” and promised that he would “not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons”.

By Sunday evening, there had been no reports of Israeli attacks or continued fighting as some residents of southern Lebanon cautiously returned to their homes.

The fighting between Israel and Hezbollah has repeatedly threatened to derail peace efforts.

On Friday, planned US-Iranian talks were postponed after Israel launched deadly attacks in Lebanon following the deaths of four of its soldiers in combat.

Israel’s military chief visited troops on Sunday in southern Lebanon, where he said Hezbollah was in a “very difficult position”.

“Hezbollah has suffered a severe and significant blow, and we are committed to remaining prepared to continue operating and prevent its rebuilding,” Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir said.

The overall death toll from the fighting in Lebanon has surpassed 4,100 since it escalated on March 2, the Ministry of Public Health said.

‘Historic meeting’

Vance had earlier hailed “a historic meeting” in Switzerland.

Even as Trump was threatening Iran, Vance told reporters the US president had “asked us to turn over a new leaf to transform our relationship with the people of Iran”.

Flanked by US negotiators Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, Vance added: “The question before us now is how much more can we accomplish together?

“Can we turn over a new leaf? Can we change relations in the Middle East permanently?

“Or do we go back to doing things the old way, which is not our preference, but it’s certainly very much something that can happen.”

Lebanon aside, there has been no indication that Iran’s support for armed groups across the region, which has long drawn the ire of the US and Israel, would be addressed in the negotiations.

Speaking on Sunday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian stressed that Tehran would not relinquish its right to enrich uranium although he repeated Iran’s denial that it seeks nuclear weapons.

“We can also state in writing that we have no intention of building a bomb,” he said.

Thomas Warrick, a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, says the 60-day US-Iran talks face hurdles with regards to nuclear issues and sanctions, and will require time, willingness, and patience to achieve lasting results.

The first round of US-Iran talks has ended with both sides agreeing on a roadmap towards a final deal to be reached ‘within 60 days’. Iran said the negotiations resulted in waivers for oil exports and the release of some frozen assets. The parties have also agreed to a ‘de-confliction cell’ to monitor the ceasefire in Lebanon.

Ship tracking data shows sharp fall in transits as US and Iranian officials hold talks to save fragile peace framework.

Shipping in the Strait of Hormuz has plunged following Iran’s announcement that it has closed the waterway once again over Israel’s strikes on Lebanon, according to ship tracking data.

A total of 12 vessels crossed the strait on Sunday, down from 35 transits the previous day, an analysis by maritime intelligence company Windward showed on Sunday.

Five of eight vessels entering the strait had their Automatic Identification Systems turned off, according to Windward.

“The current traffic profile: dark, sanctioned, Iranian-linked, resembling the late-blockade baseline more than a functioning open strait,” Windward said in a post on X.

Maritime traffic in the strait had been showing signs of recovery since US President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Wednesday signed a memorandum of understanding on ending the US-Israel war on Iran.

Twenty-five vessels transited the strait on Thursday, the highest number since mid-April, according to data from maritime intelligence provider Kpler.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on Saturday declared the waterway shut, citing Israeli “crimes” in Lebanon and the failure of the US to maintain a ceasefire in the country.

US Central Command (CENTCOM) on Saturday denied that Iran had closed the strait, which normally carries about one-fifth of global oil and liquified natural gas supplies, saying that safe passage through the waterway remained “intact”, with 55 merchant ships transiting that day.

The cause of the discrepancy between the transit figures provided by CENTCOM and commercial ship tracking providers is unclear.

US and Iranian negotiators on Sunday held make-or-break talks in Switzerland as the conflict in Lebanon threatened to derail efforts to turn their 60-day ceasefire extension into a permanent peace deal.

In a briefing to Iranian media after the talks, Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said the sides had discussed the safe passage of ships through the strait, and “a mechanism was set up, which is important”.

Despite renewed tensions between Washington and Tehran and signs of slowing traffic in the strait, oil prices moved lower on Monday morning in Asia.

Brent crude, the primary international benchmark, was down about 0.9 percent as of 01:30 GMT, at just below $80 a barrel.

Asia’s major stock markets opened higher, with key indices in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan making substantial gains.

Tokyo’s Nikkei 225 and Seoul’s Kospi were up 1.8 percent and 1.5 percent, respectively, while the Taiex in Taipei surged 2.6 percent.

Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index bucked the rally, dipping 0.7 percent.

How it started: A dream. A French machine-gun officer in the trenches during the First World War. A man named Jules Rimet, who believed an international soccer tournament would bring the nations together with the goal of peace.

How it’s going: The world’s biggest party. A 48-nation celebration of the world’s most beloved sport. Expected to generate about $8.9 billion, it’s become such a big deal that it’s being hosted by three countries — one of which, yes, launched a war on a competing nation in the months before the tournament.

The United States’ war with Iran, costly in all the profound ways that war is, also laid the groundwork for an uneven — and possibly precedent-setting — playing field.

At this World Cup, Team Melli has been subjected to shifting travel restrictions and uncertainty unlike the other 47 teams, spending the tournament commuting between Southern California and its base in Tijuana.

And still, after Sunday’s 0-0 draw against Belgium, the world’s No. 10-ranked team, Team Melli is in position to not only get out of its group at the World Cup for the first time, but to win Group G.

Iran’s treatment only makes its performance more impressive — while bringing into question the future of a tournament that purports to be apolitical. And conjuring up concerns about how the Olympics will operate when L.A. is supposed to open its arms to the world two years from now.

Will we be laying down blanket bans again? Will it be easier to ditch diplomacy than to deal hospitably with a global audience for a global event?

Russia and Qatar were capable of implementing systems that relaxed visa requirements to accommodate every team and its fans in the previous two World Cups. Why couldn’t the United States?

Instead, the U.S. State Department suspended visa issuance for nationals from not only Iran, but also from participating countries Haiti, Senegal and Ivory Coast. Iraq’s striker, Aymen Hussein, was held and questioned for nearly seven hours at Chicago’s O’Hare airport.

And the U.S. has allowed members of Iran’s team — discounting the 15 administration officials who reportedly were denied entry — to enter the country only within 24 hours of a match and leave the same day.

And those arbitrary restrictions — they’re OK 24 hours before a match, but not 48? — have put Team Melli at a competitive disadvantage.

“I think that united us even more,” said winger Alireza Jahanbakhsh, who spoke eloquently in English postmatch, a gracious statesman in Adidas sneakers. “That’s one of the things that I think we showed today — we showed a great team character. And part of it comes from the situation we are in.”

Through an interpreter, coach Amir Ghalenoei broadened the scope of what Iran has been facing in its runup to the World Cup.

“We were in a state of war for six months, we didn’t have a league and I remember once during a FIFA qualifying day, we traveled 40 hours by land to another country to play,” Ghalenoei said. “Everybody knows about the visa issues. Everyone knows about our coming to America. A part of the team was in competition conditions and part of them had their domestic league suspended because of the war … and many of the teams that were supposed to play us, canceled.

“I think we entered the World Cup in the worst possible conditions. This is the part I wanted the whole world to know … but the players who entered the World Cup under these conditions are truly commendable.”

It’s been a spirited rebuttal to what’s felt like a counterattack on the inherent values of the World Cup. A reminder that governments and governing bodies can get it wrong, but the beautiful game stays undefeated.

FIFA president Gianni Infantino, left, and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio pose for a photo before a World Cup game between the U.S. and Paraguay at SoFi Stadium on June 12.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

But what about FIFA?

What about the all-powerful governing body that runs the sport, whose motto is “Football Unites the World”?

The world’s foremost party planning committee, with the cachet to override branded venue names with generic, location-based names — Los Angeles Stadium instead of SoFi Stadium — on Google and Apple maps?

What has FIFA done to flex its muscle to maintain the integrity of the world’s beautiful game?

Not much.

There have been niceties and brownnosing, but no sanctions or threats thereof. Not even a hint of repercussions for diminishing the integrity of the event.

No fines, like what FIFA imposed on six national football associations in response to racist incidents involving supporters during the qualifiers for the World Cup.

No bans, like what FIFA leveled in 1988, when it ousted Mexico from all FIFA competitions for using four overage players in the Under-20 World Cup, or in 2006, when Myanmar was banned from qualifying after refusing to play Iran in an Asian qualifying match for the 2002 World Cup.

Peace talks are ongoing between the United States and Iran, but Iran’s footballing ambassadors haven’t been free to move or to prepare as they wish ahead of its matches against Belgium, and before that, their 2-2 draw against New Zealand.

Apparently, though, Iran will get greater control over travel arrangements before its now hugely consequential final group-stage match is in Seattle against Egypt on June 26, or so Ghalenoei believed when he addressed reporters Saturday.

“What my problem is, why didn’t they let ‌us come ⁠earlier for the first two games as well?” Ghalenoei asked. “If they’ve managed to do this now, why didn’t they do that for our first game and for this game?”

Good questions.

Questions no one should be asking at the World Cup.

Iranian fans in Tehran watched their team secure a 0-0 draw against Belgium at the World Cup in Los Angeles, keeping hope alive for an unprecedented chance at the second round. Iran competes under strict US travel restrictions, which forced them to fly back to Mexico within hours of the draw, rather than remaining overnight for recovery.

WASHINGTON — The question hangs in the halls at the Capitol: Was it worth it?

Congress, which never authorized the war against Iran yet never fully objected to it, now must grapple with the consequences of President Trump’s nearly four-month conflict: the lives lost, the billions spent and the national security fallout that has reordered the political dynamics in the Middle East.

Ask senators what they think about the deal Trump struck to end the war, and they do not search too far for words.

“Pathetic. Failure. Inevitable conclusion of a combination of never making the case to the American people, flawed strategic vision, lack of grasp of the regional dynamics,” said Delaware Sen. Chris Coons, a Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

“How many ways, can I say, bad, bad, bad?”

Many Republicans too have been critical. Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said it’s hard to see what leverage the U.S. gained to force Iran to a better negotiation.

“You want to be able to give the benefit of the doubt,” she said. But, she said, “I think we’re in a place where there is a deal that has been signed, but it doesn’t appear to me that it puts us in that much of a different position than prior to the beginning of the war.”

Others in the GOP remain supportive of Trump’s efforts. Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, a past chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said that because of the president’s actions, “We are safer today.”

“You can criticize — oh, he didn’t totally win,” Johnson said. “Well, that was always going to be very difficult.”

As Trump moves on to the next phase, it is left to the Congress to pick up the pieces: explaining the war to voters back home, restocking the military arsenal that has run low from bombing runs and trying to ensure the fragile ceasefire holds as the United States seeks to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions and work toward an uneasy peace.

More money for the Pentagon

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth made the rounds on Capitol Hill last week as lawmakers consider Pentagon funding as part of the Republican majority’s next big budget package.

The White House has asked for a remarkable $1.5 trillion for the Defense Department this year, on top of the extra money the GOP delivered as part of the Trump’s tax cuts package last year.

Republicans are considering a sizable, $350-billion-plus increase in Defense spending on par with the White House’s budget request that the GOP could pass on its own, through the reconciliation process that allows Senate majority rule over potential objections from Democrats.

Senators, meanwhile, are seeking to set some guardrails on Hegseth with a provision to block a portion of his travel fund until the Pentagon delivers various reports. One such report is on an investigation into the strike on an elementary school in Iran that killed more than 165 people on the first day of the war, most of them children.

Officials have acknowledged that they believe the U.S. was responsible for the strike and say it was based on faulty intelligence.

What’s next in Iran?

Lawmakers are still processing what just happened after Trump swiftly signed a memorandum of understanding with Iran and opened a window of 60-day talks toward ending Tehran’s nuclear program, which got underway Sunday in Switzerland.

“I understand the president’s trying to find a peaceful solution to this,” said Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), who serves on the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence committees. “I commend him for that. But we’ve got a lot of questions.”

Senators are particularly concerned about the tentative deal’s provision for a potential $300-billion fund for the “reconstruction and economic development” of Iran.

To many skeptical Republicans, that money sounds similar to the “planeloads of cash” narrative they used against the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal, which offered a slim fraction of that amount, some $1.7 billion overall. To this day, Trump tells an exaggerated story of how that payment to Iran, for U.S. military equipment it never received, was made.

“The only concerns I have are the money and the conditions,” said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.).

“If we send a trainload, a shipload, it’s gonna age as well as that,” he said, referring to the Obama-era issue.

What was gained and lost

Over and again Congress tried and failed to exert its authority under the war powers act to halt the U.S. military action in Iran.

The House ultimately passed a war powers resolution that sought to force an end to the war after a small number of Republicans joined the Democratic measure last month. The Senate has voted nine times, including last week, but failed to reach the majority needed.

At the same time, Congress did not affirmatively authorize the war with a use-of-force resolution, as has been done in certain other conflicts, including the Iraq war.

“I’m glad that the conflict has finally ended and hope the ceasefire holds,” Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement.

But she said the country must be clear-eyed about what has come about. Not one of the president’s objectives has been achieved, she said, and Iran won significant concessions.

“The American people are paying the price with higher costs in every aspect of life and tens of billions in tax dollars spent,” she said.

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.

Iran’s terrible, horrible, no good, very bad World Cup got a lot better Sunday.

By playing Belgium to a scoreless draw before another packed house at SoFi Stadium, Iran is in position to win its group with a victory over Egypt on Friday and advance to the knockout stage for the first time.

That would be a just reward for a team that is unbeaten two games into what has been a trying tournament off the field.

Before it even left Iran, the team was forced to move its training camp from Tucson to Tijuana, and more than a dozen members of its delegation were told they would be barred from entering the U.S. The players had their movements in the U.S. severely limited, heard their national anthem jeered twice and generally have been unwelcome as the first qualifiers to play a World Cup game in a country with which they are at war.

And if all that wasn’t bad enough, on Sunday, Iran had a brilliant first-half goal, one that seemingly had given it its first lead of the tournament, erased on a video replay that confirmed the narrowest of offside violations.

The disallowed goal, one of the best any team has scored in this World Cup, came on a set piece in the 25th minute. Iranian captain Ehsan Hajsafi took the free kick from about 35 yards, but instead of going to the goal, he pushed the ball through the Belgium wall to Mehdi Taremi, who took a clean first touch, then put a left-footed ball between Belgian keeper Thibaut Courtois and the left post.

Iranian soccer fans hold a pre-revolutionary Iranian flag following the team’s scoreless draw with Belgium in the World Cup at SoFi Stadium on Sunday.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

The play caught Belgium completely by surprise, and for one of the few times in this tournament, Iran had reason to cheer. But the celebration was short-lived when referee Dario Herrera took the goal away after a lengthy video review determined Taremi to be offside.

That was the best thing that went right for Belgium in a first half it dominated, only to come up empty. It had an 11-2 edge in shots, completed six times as many passes and controlled the ball for more than 36 of the first 45 minutes. But it couldn’t get the ball past Iranian keeper Alireza Beiranvand.

If the World Cup has been trying for Iran, it’s been frustrating for Belgium, which needed an own goal from Egypt’s Mohamed Hany to escape with a draw in its opener. And a smothering Iranian defense that frequently packed seven players in the box added to that frustration Sunday.

Belgium forward Romelu Lukaku, left, and Iran defender Shojae Khalilzadeh battle for the ball in the second half of a World Cup match at SoFi Stadium on Sunday.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

That allowed Iran to get the first dangerous chance of the second half — and it also came off a set piece — with Taremi banging a clean volley on target from the center of the box. But Courtois stood his ground and made the save.

The game took a turn in the 62nd minute when Belgium’s Nathan Ngoy mishit a weak backpass, sending Taremi on a breakaway with only Courtois to beat. When Ngoy reached out and grabbed the Iranian by the shirt, pulling him to the ground, he drew a red card, leaving Belgium to play the final half-hour down a man.

Iran clearly deserved a better fate after absorbing wave after wave of a withering Belgium attack without breaking. It also was quicker and far more creative on offense, though it had nothing to show for that.

For Belgium, still looking for its first goal of the tournament, the result was another strain on an aging golden generation of players. If they don’t beat New Zealand in their final group-stage game Friday, they’ll leave the World Cup after the first round for a second straight time.

Nathan Ngoy sent off for hauling down Mehdi Taremi, whose first-half strike was called offside, in a close Group G match.

Belgium were held to a scoreless draw by Iran in a frustrating encounter that saw the Red Devils reduced to 10 men and facing the possibility of group-stage elimination for a second consecutive World Cup.

A star-studded, though ageing, lineup, including Kevin De Bruyne and Romelu Lukaku, was fortunate to leave Los Angeles with a point on Sunday.

Belgium controlled possession yet ceded the game’s best chances to a resolute Iranian defence.

Iran’s Mehdi Taremi had the ball in the net from a well-worked first-half free kick that was overturned for offside by VAR, while Nathan Ngoy was sent off after the break for hauling down the striker following a badly mishit back-pass.

The result means all three games in Group G so far have ended in draws. Stuck on two points, Belgium at least have the comfort of playing the tournament’s lowest-ranked team, New Zealand, in their final group game.

Iran will also need at least a point against Egypt next Friday. Having been frustrated by visa issues while travelling from their base camp in Mexico to play games in the United States, Team Melli will hope to focus on the football as travel restrictions are reportedly easing for their crucial trip to Seattle.

For the second Iran game running, protesters from Los Angeles’s large Iranian-American community gathered at the stadium to chant against the country’s current regime.

Inside the stadium, Iran’s anthem again drew a chorus of boos and whistles, a reception at odds with the response to the players themselves, who were loudly cheered throughout the game.

Having switched to a back five, Iran sat deep in the first half, allowing Belgium to dominate possession and play hundreds of passes around their penalty area without creating any clear-cut opportunities.

Target man Lukaku, back in the starting lineup after making an impact from the bench in Belgium’s 1-1 draw with Egypt, managed a solitary headed effort in the 36th minute, which sailed over the bar.

Iran had the first half’s two best chances, entirely against the run of play. Hossein Kanani’s low shot after a long throw was well saved by an outstretched Thibaut Courtois.

And Iran’s star striker Taremi had the ball in the net midway through the half after a cleverly worked free kick, but it was ruled offside.

The former Inter Milan man spun away from Belgium’s wall, swivelled and buried the ball, before VAR overruled the effort, to the dismay of a vocally pro-Iran crowd.

After the break, Belgium continued to huff and puff, while Taremi again nearly scored at the other end. Courtois did well to save after Kanani had flicked on a long throw to the Iran forward.

Belgium coach Rudi Garcia made a triple substitution around the hour mark, and his side immediately came close – Maxim De Cuyper’s point-blank effort from De Bruyne’s cut-back was well saved.

Substitute Hans Vanaken blasted a shot from a rebound well over the bar moments later, as the Red Devils finally began to knock on Iran’s door in earnest.

But disaster struck for Belgium as Ngoy was sent off. The centre-back had badly under-hit a pass back to Courtois and raised his arm into Taremi as the striker raced through on goal.

The game settled into a nervous, scrappy stalemate, though De Cuyper again came close with a low effort from just outside the box.

In an exclusive interview, Professor and political analyst Mahjoub Zweiri breaks down what intentions behind US-Iran talks will result in.

June 21 (UPI) — U.S. Vice President JD Vance said the United States is looking “to transform our relationship” with Iran but warned Sunday’s renewed talks in Switzerland wouldn’t bring about an immediate resolution to the war.

Vance was joined by President Donald Trump‘s go-to negotiators in the peace talks — Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner — in the gathering at the Bürgenstock lakeside resort, CNN reported. Pakistani and Qatari mediators were also in attendance, The New York Times reported.

“Never before has the Iranian and American leadership met at such a high level,” Vance told reporters ahead of the talks.

“What the president has asked us to do is turn over a new leaf to transform our relationship with the people of Iran, and to extend an outstretched hand that says to the people of Iran that if your leadership is willing to give up being a driver of regional instability, if they are willing to give up nuclear weapons ambitions for the long term, then the United States is willing to fundamentally transform our relationship with that country,” he said.

“We’ve already made great progress over just the last few hours, and I expect that we will make additional progress in the hours to come.”

Sunday’s gathering in Switzerland is the latest in a series of negotiations between the two countries — and mediators — to attempt to bring an end to a war that began with U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran on Feb. 28.

Trump signed a peace agreement with Iran on Wednesday while he was in France for the G7 Summit. The 14-point pact included the immediate cessation of fighting by all sides — including in Lebanon — plans to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and an easing of financial restrictions on Iran.

Iran, however, said it closed the strait again Saturday, accusing Israel of launching a fresh round of strikes on Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militant group in Lebanon. The strikes killed at least 22 people.

Though the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah has been central to a peace agreement between the United States and Iran, neither of the parties were involved in Sunday’s talks in Switzerland.

WASHINGTON — Blunt-spoken Donald T. Regan testified today that he repeatedly urged President Reagan to break off arms sales to Iran, once telling him, “We’ve been snookered again.”

And when it became known late last year that money from those sales had been diverted to the Nicaraguan contras , Regan said, he pushed for making a clean breast of the story despite the opposition of former National Security Adviser John M. Poindexter and the doubts of the late CIA Director William J. Casey.

Regan, who was fired in February as Reagan’s chief of staff after being blamed by the Tower Commission for allowing “chaos” to descend on the White House, was the next-to-last public witness in the long congressional Iran-contra hearings. He is to be followed by Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger on Friday.

Kept in the Dark

Regan said he never knew that Lt. Col. Oliver L. North, a member of the National Security Council staff, was conducting covert operations, including the transfer of Iranian arms sales profits to the contras.

Asked his reaction when he learned last November, he replied in a single word–”horror.”

Recounting his version of the arms-sales history, Regan said that on Dec. 7, 1985, at a meeting with the President, Secretary of State George P. Shultz and Weinberger, he had said “we weren’t getting anywhere” with Iran despite the arms sales and had recommended: “Why bother, cut your losses, get out of it.”

Enter McFarlane

Instead, he said, the President sent former National Security Adviser Robert C. McFarlane to London to talk with Iranian representatives to see whether the attempt at better relations could be salvaged. He said McFarlane returned “quite disgusted with the sleazy type of characters that he had met there.”

Yet, when the matter of arms shipments came up again the following month, Regan endorsed further shipments. “It seemed again a worthwhile effort,” he testified.

One thousand TOW missiles then were shipped to Iran from the United States, but the hostages were not released.

Then, said Regan, he told the President that “I thought we ought to break it off, that we’d been snookered again. And how many times do we put up with this rug-merchant type of stuff? Or words to that effect.”

Seemed to Understand

Regan said the President seemed to share his view.

“Did he instruct anyone to terminate their activities?” asked Terry A. Smiljanich, the associate Senate committee counsel.

“No,” Regan said.

“There was a pause then, and I sort of lost track of what was going on.” He said the budget then occupied his time.

Among Regan’s disclosures and quips:

–Iran was running a “bait-and-switch” operation, with hostages the bait and Reagan the victim.

–He is certain that Reagan did not know of the diversion of arms-sales proceeds until Meese told the President last Nov. 24, the day before Meese announced discovery of the fund diversion on television.

“This guy was an actor and he was nominated at one point for an Academy Award,” Regan said of the President. “But I’d give him an Academy Award if he knew anything about this” and hid that knowledge so skillfully.

–He said he doubted Reagan would have approved of the fund diversion if he had known about it.

–”It didn’t occur to me that men of that caliber (Poindexter and North) would be destroying documents or . . . clean up the record.”

Iranian armed forces say they’ve closed the Strait of Hormuz after Israeli attacks on Lebanon – just days after an agreement with the US reopen it.

Disruption to the crucial waterway has had a huge economic impact worldwide.

So, what happens next?

Presenter: Tom McRae

Guests:

Ian Ralby — Senior Fellow at the Center for Maritime Strategy and Associate Fellow with the International Law Programme at Chatham House

Mehran Kamrava — Professor of Government at Georgetown University in Qatar and Head of the Iranian Studies Unit at the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies

Stavros Karamperidis — Associate Professor in Maritime Economics and Head of the Maritime Transport Research Group at the University of Plymouth

The Chinese strategy employs research and intelligence institutions working to foster closer ties between Iranian national security institutions and the Egyptian military, aiming to undermine the American presence in the Middle East. Prominent among these institutions are the Middle East Studies Institute at Shanghai International Studies University, the China Institute of International Studies, and the Center for West Asian and African Studies. These Chinese research centers, which shape China’s relations with countries in the region and the Gulf, include the Middle East Studies Institute at Shanghai International Studies University (SISU), which directs studies related to security and defense issues and facilitates direct dialogue between think tanks in Iran and research centers in Egypt. Another example is the China Institute of International Studies (CIIS), which reports directly to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and works to engineer diplomatic plans that align Egypt’s strategic interests with the objectives of Tehran and resistance movements in the region. Chinese think tanks and intelligence agencies also rely on a number of People’s Liberation Army-backed space intelligence companies, such as MizarVision and EarthEye. These Chinese companies have provided high-resolution satellite imagery and intelligence data to support operations targeting US bases in the Gulf and the Middle East. These Chinese entities coordinate and plan operations through various mechanisms and initiatives officially launched by China, most notably the Global Security Initiative (GSI). Beijing also uses forums, such as the China-Arab Cooperation Forum, to pressure Middle Eastern and Gulf countries to withdraw foreign forces and end US hegemony in the Gulf and the Middle East. This is framed as ending direct interference in the internal affairs of countries in the region. Beijing is also seeking to establish permanent overseas bases, most prominently the Djibouti naval base in East Africa, to support its regional alliances and ensure the continuity of global supply lines for Chinese interests and investments within the framework of the Belt and Road Initiative.

The relationship between Chinese military and intelligence think tanks and the Egyptian army is highlighted by their shared goal of countering American hegemony and expelling US military bases from the Gulf and the Middle East. China is strengthening its strategic cooperation with the Egyptian army as part of the Djibouti-UAE-Egypt axis, with Beijing relying on Cairo as a key launching pad to secure maritime navigation and reduce American military influence. Beijing is utilizing its strategic institutions and think tanks to provide technological and logistical support to the Egyptian army, aiming to create a regional power capable of maintaining strategic balance in the region against American hegemony and interventions. This escalating security and strategic relationship between the Egyptian and Chinese armies rests on several key pillars, most notably intelligence and military partnership. China aims to train the Egyptian military elite through Egyptian military academies and coordinate threat assessments and mutual monitoring of the military movements of the United States and its allies in the Gulf and the wider region. With the implementation of several joint exercises between the two sides, the Chinese vision crystallized in the (Civilization Eagles maneuvers), which brought together the air forces of China and Egypt. This paves the way for the transfer of military technology and the integration of Chinese systems with Egyptian defenses independent of the West, along with the localization of Chinese military industries in the heart of Cairo. China is negotiating with the Egyptian Ministry of Defense to develop local manufacturing capabilities and transfer defense technology. There are also reports of integrating Chinese systems into Egyptian systems to reduce Egypt’s dependence on American-supplied weaponry. Beijing seeks to create a counterweight to American hegemony in the Middle East and the Gulf. China sees Egypt’s refusal to host any American military bases as a cornerstone of its strategy, relying on the Egyptian and Emirati armies to guarantee regional security as an alternative to the traditional American presence in the Gulf and the Middle East.

Chinese research, military, and intelligence think tanks are working to engineer an asymmetric strategic partnership to end American hegemony in the Middle East and the Gulf. Chinese think tanks, military research centers, and intelligence agencies are operating according to a clear strategic vision aimed at building asymmetrical partnerships in the Middle East and the Arabian Gulf to reduce American influence and establish a multipolar world order. Beijing provides Tehran with technical and intelligence support to deter Washington, while simultaneously seeking to strengthen military cooperation with Egypt as a pivotal regional power. This strategy aims to diminish American influence and secure China’s vital economic interests. The Chinese strategy in the region rests on several pillars, most notably its strategy toward Iran and its technical and intelligence support for the country. China has secretly supplied Iran with advanced satellite technology from its BeiDou satellite system, bypassing Western and American GPS systems, as well as sophisticated air defense systems. This has significantly enhanced the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s ability to monitor and target American military bases in the region and the Gulf.

The objectives of Chinese think tanks, political, strategic, military, and intelligence research centers become apparent here, as they attempt to plan a path to link Iran to China’s Belt and Road Initiative and transform Iranian military pressure into a tool for destabilizing the US bases deployed in the region and the Gulf. The convergence between China and the Egyptian military is highlighted through the comprehensive strategic partnership between the two countries. Beijing is inclined to strengthen military cooperation with Egypt, capitalizing on its political stability and its geographic location controlling vital maritime trade routes, and to transfer advanced Chinese military technology to Egypt. Beijing has revealed its desire to be a major supplier of equipment to the Egyptian army, such as the J-10 aircraft. This aims to increase Egypt’s strategic maneuvering room and reduce the dominance of Western weaponry.

The stability achieved by the Egyptian leadership is a fundamental pillar supporting the comprehensive strategic partnership, as Beijing seeks to secure its economic and military interests with a stable and influential regional power. Therefore, China is investing in the Belt and Road Initiative, for which the Suez Canal is a vital artery in the Middle East. Cooperation extends to the exchange and transfer of military technology, joint military manufacturing, advanced air defense systems, and the evaluation of potential acquisitions of modern Chinese fighter jets. Furthermore, joint air exercises have been conducted, with the Egyptian Armed Forces carrying out their first-ever joint air exercise, dubbed Eagles of Civilization with China, involving multi-role fighter aircraft from both countries, underscoring the deepening defense partnership between them.

In this context, China relies on the Egyptian military within the framework of its strategic and African axis to counter American influence. For China, Egypt represents its strategic gateway to the African continent and a cornerstone in its maneuvers against the US Africa Command (USAFRICOM). In addition to joint military exercises, China and Egypt have conducted joint air force drills, a clear indication of an unprecedented military rapprochement that has drawn close American scrutiny. With China’s move to transfer technology and arms deals to Cairo, it is positioning itself to support the Egyptian army with advanced air defense systems, such as the HQ-9B. This enhances Egypt’s air deterrence capabilities and forms part of strategic military deals aimed at reducing dependence on the United States and its Western allies. On the other hand, China relies on Iran as a deterrent and direct driver, exerting pressure on American bases in the region. Iran represents the spearhead of China’s brinkmanship policy against American military bases in the Gulf, Iraq, and Syria, with Tehran threatening to strike them should any regional conflict erupt. In conjunction with the economic and diplomatic alliance between Beijing and Tehran, China uses emerging alliances, such as the BRICS group and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), to establish Iran’s political foothold. It sometimes resorts to mediation policies as a tool to reduce the likelihood of a direct confrontation with Iran, which could harm its commercial interests, such as China’s sponsorship of Pakistani mediation efforts between Iran and the United States to stop the war against Iran and allow the Strait of Hormuz to be opened to global trade and navigation.

China’s major objectives in the Middle East lie in a strategy of attrition against the United States. China uses Iranian actions as a clever pressure tactic to test and deplete American military technology without direct involvement in wars of attrition, while simultaneously attempting to create a new regional order. Here, Chinese intelligence agencies coordinate networks of overlapping interests to push countries toward understandings that transcend the American security umbrella, paving the way for the future withdrawal of foreign military bases. The pillars of China’s strategy for alternative hegemony are based on asymmetric partnerships. Beijing focuses on presenting itself as a reliable economic and technological partner without political conditions or interference in internal affairs, unlike the American model based on conditionality and direct military alliances. With China’s emphasis on the economy as a gateway to security, it utilizes the Belt and Road Initiative and its massive investments in infrastructure and ports, such as the Khalifa Port in the UAE and the Port of Duqm in Oman, to solidify its strategic presence and transform economic dependence into long-term geopolitical influence. With Beijing’s use of security diplomacy and mediation, Chinese decision-making centers have adopted a common security approach and offered political mediation, such as sponsoring the Saudi-Iranian agreement, to solidify Beijing’s role as an international peacemaker and portray the United States as a destabilizing force through the militarization of the region. This is coupled with China’s technological and intelligence penetration of the region and the Gulf, where Chinese partnerships focus on transferring 5G technologies, artificial intelligence, and space cooperation with Gulf states. This grants Beijing intelligence-gathering capabilities and allows it to connect the region’s vital systems to the Chinese technological infrastructure. Chinese think tanks and intelligence agencies are planning to cautiously fill the void, as China avoids direct military confrontation with Washington in the region and prefers to capitalize on the Gulf states’ desire to diversify their partnerships and hedge against the gradual decline of American interest in the Middle East.

Accordingly, we analyze that China’s military strategy in the Middle East and Africa relies on building defense partnerships with diverse objectives. It utilizes the Egyptian army as a pivotal regional power to bolster its influence and counterbalance the American presence through advanced training cooperation while simultaneously leveraging its relationship with Iran to exert pressure on American bases, particularly in the Gulf, and secure its oil interests all within a comprehensive policy aimed at dismantling American hegemony in the region.

On June 14, the United States and Iran agreed to a framework to end their war. The Strait of Hormuz is to reopen, the bombing of Lebanon is to end and – most importantly – the killing is to stop. After more than 100 days of war that killed thousands, including Iran’s most senior leaders, and pushed the world economy to the brink, even a fragile truce feels like first light.

Let us welcome it, but also let us understand it. To grasp why this war happened, and the string of wars before it, we must name their common cause. That cause is “Greater Israel” – not the country of Israel but an idea of it – a terrible one. The idea of “Greater Israel” has been the cause of wars in Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Iran.

It holds that Israel should stretch over all of historic Palestine – from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea – and to parts of neighbouring countries as well.  According to United States Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, a fundamentalist Protestant whose geopolitical compass is set by biblical texts from 500 BC, “Greater Israel” stretches from the Nile to the Euphrates. Last summer, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu professed to be “very” attached to a vision of “Greater Israel” that, he said, takes in the Palestinian territories and neighbouring Arab lands.

This absurd and dangerous doctrine has two parents. The first are secular hardliners like Netanyahu who say that Israel must control all the land from the river to the sea to be safe, and damn the eight million Palestinians in the way.

The second is the Jewish supremacist creed of Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir that God gave the land to the Jews alone: There is, in Smotrich’s words, “no such thing as a Palestinian”. Asked recently how Israel should answer its collapsing global standing, Smotrich vowed Israel would not relinquish military control of the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanese or Syrian territory: “We won’t commit suicide to make them happy.”

“Greater Israel” is paranoia, megalomania and religious zeal braided into a single programme. The doctrine should have been repudiated on its first airing decades ago. Instead, it has driven Israel’s foreign and military doctrine for three decades – and has survived until today because Netanyahu has taken the US for a ride.

He has done it with two American constituencies: Jewish Zionists who love Israel and will forgive it anything and Christian Zionists who love the prophecy of the End Times and the Second Coming of Christ more than they love any living Palestinian or, for that matter, any living Israeli.

Delusion has led on to delusion, and the road has run from one war to the next.  We are 30 years into this fiasco now.

The war on Iran was simply the latest “Greater Israel” fantasy. The government of 90 million people was to be toppled in a single, glorious day. Of course, it did not happen. Israeli and American bombs killed Iran’s leaders on February 28, but that did not deliver the promised collapse. It resulted instead in thousands of dead, a choked Strait of Hormuz and a global oil shock.

We have seen this film before. The Israel-US plan to bring down President Bashar al-Assad in Syria was also meant to be quick, one or two years at the most. Instead came a dozen years of carnage, fed by a covert war armed and financed by the CIA with Israel’s ardent backing. The result was an ancient country reduced to rubble. The promised one-day victories always become decade-long graveyards.

US President Donald Trump has been battered by joining the “Greater Israel” delusion, and he knows it. The new agreement with Iran is his escape valve, a way out of a fatuous war that was never his to win.

That is precisely why Israel’s “Greater Israel” politicians are trying to strangle the new agreement in the cradle, for peace with Iran is a defeat for “Greater Israel”. Even after the deal was sealed, Israel has continued to bomb Lebanon, killing 47 people in a single day on Friday and another 32 on Saturday hours after a Lebanon-Israel ceasefire took effect.

Here is the deeper truth: “Greater Israel” is not saving Israel. It is killing it. The friction now visible between Trump and Netanyahu is only the surface. Beneath it lies the collapse of Israel’s standing throughout the world. According to a recent Pew opinion survey, the world now holds an overwhelmingly unfavourable view of Israel. In the US, Israel’s indispensable patron, six in 10 adults view it unfavourably.

A state that makes itself hated by the world, and by its only protector, is not pursuing security. It is threatening its own survival to feed a delusion.

So the way to peace in West Asia is to stop “Greater Israel”. End the war on Iran, stop the genocide in Gaza and halt the strangulation of the West Bank. Most importantly, do the thing the doctrine forbids, which is to create the State of Palestine as the 194th United Nations member state alongside the State of Israel on the 1967 lines with genuine security for both countries and a regional framework to guarantee it, which should include Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon and Syria.

The Iran ceasefire makes the case in miniature: It was won not on the battlefield but through mediation. It became possible when Washington decided it wanted peace more than it wanted “Greater Israel’s” war.

Israel can survive, but not as “Greater Israel”, a disastrous idea that has marched it and the US from one war to the next.

The glimmer of hope today is real. Whether it becomes a true dawn depends on whether the US finally lets Palestine be born, and thereby lets Israel live. The Arab world and Iran need to keep insisting to the US that breaking with “Greater Israel” is the only path to lasting peace.

The views expressed in this article are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.

The chief of the White House World Cup task force says it’s “pretty amazing” Iran’s football team has been given visas for the tournament. Andrew Giuliani defended the US’s treatment of the team, which has been forced to base itself in Mexico and fly in and out for matches.