Iran

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.”

When Iran qualified for the FIFA World Cup last March, the men’s national team didn’t expect their participation to hinge on visas being granted by hosts, the United States, only at the last moment – if at all.

Nor did Iranian fans eager to support Team Melli expect to be banned from entry by the US. President Donald Trump signed an executive order last June halting visa issuance to a handful of countries, including Iran, which the US designated a “state sponsor of terrorism”.

Perhaps most unanticipated for Iranians was that the host nation of the largest sporting event in the world would launch a war on their country just months before the tournament began.

For Amir Ghalenoei’s side, the joint US-Israel war was more than a wrench thrown into World Cup preparation plans; it was tangible and personal, as thousands across the country were killed by missile attacks.

It was the US bombing Azadi Stadium, home to several local matches and where the national team trained. It was the men’s team holding tiny backpacks in remembrance of the students massacred in a US strike on a school in Minab the day the war began.

After months of politically charged rigmarole between the US and Iran – which led to them switching basecamps to Mexico instead – the men’s national football team will find themselves playing in the shadow of war. That too, if the US grants them visas in time.

For Iranian football fans, travelling to the US was “almost impossible” even without the visa challenges or the war. There are no direct means of transport between the countries, which do not have formal diplomatic relations.

“Aside from the visa issue, you have to take two- or three-way routes from Tehran to get to the US,” said Ali, a fan who did not want to share his full name for safety reasons.

“Returning from the US to Iran is a big challenge in itself, with the possibility of being arrested by the [Iranian] government,” he added. The war has increased scrutiny of antinational sentiment within Iran, resulting in executions of people arrested on accusations of spying for Israel or the US.

Political repercussions extend to the sport sphere, too. Iran’s top footballer Sardar Azmoun was expelled from the national team in March for a perceived act of disloyalty to the government, when he posted a picture on social media of a ⁠meeting with Dubai ruler Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum. Relations between the UAE and Iran have been tense during the war, with Iran hitting the Emirates repeatedly and accusing it of allowing the US to use its territory for attacks on Iran.

The US war on Iran, now nearing its 100th day, has also deterred fans globally from attending the World Cup.

“Football is called the Beautiful Game for a reason, for its ability to unite people,” South African football fan Byron Pillay told Al Jazeera.

“But it’s hard to believe in that magic with the politics and war rhetoric off the field of play, specially when one of the tournament hosts is central to that.”

Compatriot Riaz Hamed echoed those reservations. “With the stance of America in particular, regarding the treatment of fans and immigrants in the country, I don’t believe it to be entirely safe to attend.”

Fears have been stoked by reports from organisations such as Human Rights Watch, which said an asylum seeker who attended the Club World Cup final last year in New Jersey with his children was arrested by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) department and deported to his country of origin.

Khayran Noor, an international sports lawyer based in Kenya, emphasised that sport cannot be separated from wider geopolitical dimensions.

“If participation can be shaped by geopolitical realities outside the game itself, does that ultimately undermine the inclusive ideals these tournaments claim to represent?” Noor said in an interview with Al Jazeera.

“Football is global, but global mobility is not; the World Cup sits directly at the intersection of that contradiction.”

Mounting visa rejections have also spooked fans from attempting to attend the World Cup.

The US has launched a FIFA Priority Appointment Scheduling System (PASS), which expedites visa interviews for fans who have bought tickets through FIFA. But it does not guarantee a visa.

Last month, a group of nearly 150 Ghana football fans saw their visa applications rejected.

Godwin Nii Armah, 32, scrapped his travel plans for the World Cup for personal reasons, but knew he might have shared the same fate as those compatriots. He also admitted that travelling to Toronto, Boston and Philadelphia to support the Black Stars would have been a costly logistical headache in addition to international flights and visa fees.

Ghana nationals have to pay a $185 fee with their US visa application and 100 Canadian dollars ($71) for the Canadian visa. Add the two, and the amount is comparable to the monthly per capita income in Ghana.

Noor questioned whether future FIFA host agreements should include obligations relating to accessibility and mobility before hosting rights are awarded.

“If teams and fans from particular parts of the world face structural barriers before they can even attend, then the broader spirit of inclusion that these tournaments seek to embody risks being undermined.”

She acknowledged that while states understandably retain sovereign responsibilities regarding border control and national security, global sporting events often require exceptional frameworks.

Fans from 27 of the 48 nations headed to the World Cup need a US visa to apply, costing anywhere between $185 to $435 – amounts that represent wages that an average person in many countries in the Global South would earn over several months.

Canada is marginally more visa-friendly, while Mexico remains the most accessible World Cup host nation.

That was why South Africa chose to send a small supporters group to Pachuca, Mexico, where South Africa have set up basecamp and play two group stage matches.

Sahil Ebrahim is among the “lucky few” in that delegation. After decades of supporting Bafana Bafana from a TV screen in Cape Town, Ebrahim attended the Qatar 2022 World Cup.

Now the 40-year-old is on his way to his second World Cup, where he will witness the tournament opener live in Mexico City, when South Africa play the hosts on June 11.

Contrary to the South African football team, who faced a 24-hour delay in their departure over a visa bungle by the federation, Ebrahim said the Department of Sport did an “excellent job” expediting their visas with the Mexican embassy.

The process, however, paled in comparison with the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, where Hayya cards centrally aligned all visa, ticket and transport details for each fan, Ebrahim acknowledged.

While South Africa’s friendly against Jamaica on Friday, June 5, is closed to the public, Ebrahim and the supporters’ group will watch an exhibition game on Sunday where the Bafana legends of 2010 will take on their Mexican counterparts. South Africa had hosted the World Cup in 2010, a first for an African nation.

“Ultimately, major sporting events succeed not only because people watch them, but because people participate in them,” Noor said.

“The question is not who can watch the World Cup – the question is who can truly participate in it.”

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’s supreme court annuls a government ban on the International Committee of the Red Cross visiting Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails.

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.

Iran is heading to the World Cup while the country is at war with a host nation, a situation that is unique in the tournament’s history.

The United States-Israel war on Iran began on February 28, and there has been an uneasy ceasefire in place since April 8, but the uncertainty – and occasional flare-up in hostilities – means an end to the conflict is far from certain.

For the Iranian players and staff, the situation has thrown their World Cup preparations into chaos – all of their matches are scheduled to be played in the US.

The Iran team has spent more than two weeks in Turkiye, mostly practising at the coastal resort Antalya, and some travelled to the capital, Ankara, to submit visa applications at the US embassy.

The team’s participation in the event in the US, Canada and Mexico has long been in doubt and, with the visa situation still up in the air, nothing can yet be fully guaranteed.

“Well, to be honest, it’s not easy,” said Saeid Ezatolahi, a 29-year-old midfielder who also played for Iran in the 2018 and 2022 World Cups.

“This is going to be my third World Cup. So for me and some of the other players, it might be easier to manage these kinds of things,” he told The Associated Press news agency in English on the sidelines of a training session on Wednesday.

“But at the end … it is going to be difficult for us because, at the same time, we are following the news in our country and the political things, of course, can affect the mind of the players and the people.”

The team is set to travel to Mexico this weekend after receiving visas from the Mexican embassy in Ankara. The team said Thursday that the process of obtaining entry permits had been finalised for all members of the squad.

Problems with visa processing meant Iran’s World Cup training base was moved from Tucson, Arizona, to Tijuana, on Mexico’s border with California.

Iran will play its first two games near Los Angeles, which has a large Iranian community, many of whom oppose the current government.

“So for sure, we are expecting to have a lot of fans during our games at the stadium,” Ezatolahi said. “And this is going to be a lot of pressure for us because the expectation is going to be high. I just wish we can make them proud and show them that Iranians, they are prepared for every hard job in the world,” he said.

Mohammad Ghorbani, 24, is going to his first World Cup for Iran.

“It’s true that we are facing special circumstances right now, but we are football players, and we have to play, practise, and prepare ourselves for the competitions we have ahead,” the Abu Dhabi-based player said in Farsi.

“On the other hand, we know that our people have been going through a lot of difficulties throughout the war, and we are going there for them, to get the best results for their joy and the joy of the people of our country.”

The US and Israel killed Iran’s supreme leader and other top officials in their initial attacks. Iran responded with strikes targeting Israel, US forces and the Gulf Arab states. It also has maintained a chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow mouth of the Gulf, imperilling global energy supplies.

Despite the nominal ceasefire, Iran and the US have yet to negotiate a permanent end to the war, and attacks continue in the region.

Iran is in Group G with New Zealand, Belgium and Egypt and Iran’s team is not required to enter the US until June 14, one day before its first match against New Zealand at the Los Angeles Rams’ stadium in Inglewood.

Iran returns to Inglewood to face Belgium on June 21 and completes Group G in Seattle, against Egypt on June 26.

“I’m really proud to be part of my national team,” said Ezatolahi, whose career has taken him to play for clubs in Spain, Russia, England, Belgium, Denmark, Qatar and now Dubai in the United Arab Emirates.

“We need to clear up our minds and be fresh because our target and our duty is to fight for our people, to represent our country and to show how good we are,” he said.

Ghorbani agreed, saying the team wants to bring joy to Iranians.

“The best message I can give right now is that the Iranian team is showing what it means to be a team,” he said. “We are showing that we are one team under one flag that can bring joy to our whole country, and to show the power of Iranian players and Iranian people to the world.”

The FIFA World Cup begins on June 11. You can follow the action on Al Jazeera’s dedicated World Cup 2026 page with all the latest news, match build-up and live text commentary and keep up to date with group standings, real-time match results and schedules.

Oil shipments passing through the Strait of Hormuz have quietly increased in recent weeks, but traders say the movement reflects a fragmented and opaque energy market rather than a full recovery in global supply flows.

More than four months into the ongoing conflict involving Iran, tanker traffic remains heavily disrupted, with shipping patterns increasingly shaped by risk, secrecy and shifting political arrangements.

Tanker Traffic Shows Limited but Rising Movement

Shipping data suggests that only a small number of tankers are currently crossing the Strait of Hormuz compared with pre conflict levels.

Monitoring firms including LSEG and Kpler estimate that an average of just a few vessels per day are now passing through the strait, far below normal volumes.

Despite this, analysis of oil stored on tankers in the Gulf indicates that outflows have gradually increased, suggesting more crude is leaving the region than official shipping visibility shows.

Hidden Shipping Patterns and “Dark” Tankers

A growing share of tankers are reportedly turning off tracking systems during transit through the strait, a practice known as going dark.

This involves disabling Automatic Identification System signals, making it harder to track vessel movements in real time.

According to shipping analytics firms such as Vortexa, a large majority of outbound tankers recently used this method, reflecting rising caution among operators.

This has made it significantly harder for markets to accurately assess global supply flows and has increased uncertainty in oil pricing.

Oil Stored on Tankers Shows Gradual Decline

One key indicator of market movement is the volume of oil stored on ships inside the Gulf, often referred to as oil on water.

Estimates from Kpler suggest that volumes have fallen from a peak of around 184 million barrels in March to roughly 148 million barrels more recently.

This decline indicates that more oil is gradually leaving the region, even if it is not fully visible through standard tracking systems.

Analysts estimate that outflows have increased over recent weeks, suggesting a slow and uneven recovery in shipping activity.

Security Risks Continue to Disrupt Shipping

The ongoing conflict involving Iran has significantly disrupted maritime trade through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important oil transit routes.

Limited access to the strait has forced producers to reduce output in some cases, while storage constraints have added pressure to supply chains across the Gulf.

Some shipping routes are reportedly being managed through informal arrangements or alternative corridors, while others rely on higher risk transit strategies to avoid detection or confrontation.

Recovery Remains Uncertain

Despite signs of increased movement, analysts warn that the situation is far from a return to normal.

A sustained recovery in oil flows would require consistent shipping access, stable security conditions and sufficient tanker availability to support exports.

Many shipowners remain reluctant to operate in the region due to elevated insurance costs and the risk of vessels being stranded or targeted.

Long Term Structural Change Possible

Industry observers warn that even if diplomatic progress leads to a formal reopening of the strait, the global oil market may not return to previous conditions.

There is growing discussion that Iran could attempt to impose tolls or control systems on shipping through the waterway, which would fundamentally alter global energy logistics.

Such a scenario could force Gulf producers to seek alternative export routes or invest in new infrastructure to reduce dependence on the strait.

Analysis: Market Stability Replaced by Managed Uncertainty

The situation in the Strait of Hormuz highlights a shift from predictable global energy flows to a more fragmented and opaque system.

While oil continues to move out of the Gulf, the lack of transparency in shipping routes is creating uncertainty for traders and pricing benchmarks.

The increased use of stealth navigation and alternative transit arrangements reflects a market adapting to geopolitical risk rather than resolving it.

As long as tensions persist, energy markets are likely to remain volatile, with supply visibility as important as supply itself in determining global prices.

Conclusion

Oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz are slowly increasing, but hidden tanker movements and ongoing conflict mean the global energy market remains deeply uncertain. Without stable political conditions and transparent shipping routes, a full recovery in oil flows is unlikely in the near term, keeping traders cautious and markets volatile.

With information from Reuters.

This is the moment the Republican-led US House of Representatives passed a resolution to reign in President Donald Trump’s ability to keep attacking Iran, unless Congress declares war or approves the use of military force. But it’s unlikely to become law as Trump can veto it even if it passes the Senate.

June 3 (UPI) — The U.S. House of Representatives voted 215-208 on Wednesdayto pass a measure directing President Donald Trump to remove U.S. troops from the conflict with Iran unless Congress votes to allow the conflict. Four Republicans joined Democrats in voting for the measure.

The measure is largely symbolic, as both chambers of Congress must pass it — and then Trump is sure to veto it. Still, this marks the first time the House has come together to pass this symbol of disapproval for the war.

Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky.; Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa.; Tom Barrett, R-Mich.; and Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, joined the Democrats in the vote. Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine, who had voted against previous measures, also joined his party on the vote.

This follows a similar measure passed by the Senate in May, in which four Republicans (Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana) joined most Democrats (barring Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania) to pass. It was unclear Wednesday when the Senate might vote to pass this House version, CBS News reported.

Even if both chambers pass the measure, Trump can still veto it, and each chamber would need two-thirds support to override that.

The 1973 War Powers Act gives the U.S. president 48 hours to notify Congress in writing if deploying U.S. forces without a congressional declaration of war. U.S. forces attacked Iran on Feb. 28, with Trump notifyingCongress on March 2.

The act further gives the president 60 days to act unilaterally in the defense of the United States without a declaration of war from Congress. May 1 marked the end of that 60 days counted from March 2, but the administration and some congressional Republicans are arguing that the count stopped with the cease-fire reached on April 7. Both United States and Iranian forces have attacked each other since then.

Republicans opposing the measure have said that it undermines Trump and U.S. negotiators. The president has gone back and forth on the status of the negotiations, telling CNBC on Monday that peace talks were starting “to get very boring” and that he didn’t care if they were over.

The House also passed a measure Wednesday that could bring forward a measure that could provide aid for Ukraine. That sets up a vote Thursday, NBC News reported.

WASHINGTON — The House approved a war powers resolution Wednesday that would halt the U.S. military action against Iran, defying President Trump as a handful of Republicans joined with Democrats to end the three-month-long war that has reordered politics at home and abroad.

House Speaker Mike Johnson had tried to prevent an outcome that would show the mounting opposition to the war, abruptly shutting down floor action two weeks ago when the war powers resolution was on the verge of approval. But displeasure has only grown as the conflict drags on and as Trump struggles to negotiate a quick resolution.

The roll call Wednesday was 215-208, and cheers erupted in the House chamber.

“This reckless and costly war of choice needs to end today,” House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York said earlier in the week.

“All we need are a handful of Republicans to join us and we can end this reckless and costly war of choice — a war that has cost the American taxpayer over $100 billion — that’s extraordinary — and left our country in a weaker position relative to Iran.”

Opposition to war grows

It’s the fourth time the House has tried to curb the U.S. war against Iran, and the first time the House was able to pass the measure. The Senate advanced its own war powers resolution last month when a handful of GOP senators broke ranks with the Republican president in a rare show of political pushback from his party.

Each time Democrats have pushed forward the war powers resolution, the vote tallies have inched higher as political unease with the U.S. war swells. Trump had campaigned for the White House on a promise to end U.S. entanglements abroad and focus more on domestic issues, but the war has shifted attention back to the Middle East.

Johnson insisted Trump is “laser focused” on the domestic front, particularly ahead of the midterm elections that will determine control of Congress.

The speaker said he spent three hours at the White House with the president this week as Trump is calling on allies to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz for commerce, especially the flow of oil.

Since the U.S. joined Israel in launching the Feb. 28 strikes on Iran, Americans have seen gas prices spike at the pumps, adding to inflationary pressure on consumer spending.

Iran has been able to interrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital channel for a large segment of the world’s oil, natural gas and related products such as fertilizer.

“We’re working on that final piece,” said Johnson, R-La. “The entire world has an interest in the Strait of Hormuz being reopen for commerce. That what he’s working on.”

While a ceasefire in the conflict was declared in April, it remains uneasy and uncertain. Talks for a more durable end to the fighting have dragged, increasingly complicated by Israel’s broadening war with Iran-backed Hezbollah militants in Lebanon. Meanwhile, military strikes between the U.S and Iran continue to flare.

Congress exerts its war powers authority

The war powers resolution from the House would not immediately stop the war, but it would provide a symbolic if not legal step against further military action.

If approved, it would then go to the Senate, where four Republican senators last month joined Democrats in advancing a similar measure to curtail the U.S. campaign against Iran. The Senate has yet to take a final vote to approve or reject its own war powers resolution.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned Wednesday testifying at a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing that the Iranians would think that the administration’s “hands are going to be tied” if Congress approved a war powers resolution. He said they would think ”we won’t be able to do anything to them, so why make a deal?”

It’s not the only action Congress is taking in the national security arena as Democrats, in the minority, work to peel off Republican support for measures beyond the war against Iran.

The House is also voting Wednesday on another Democratic-led effort that would authorize U.S. support for Ukraine’s military operations as it battles Russia and to help reconstruct the war-torn country. The House this week is also expected to consider a war powers resolution to block U.S. action in Lebanon.

While Congress has the authority under the Constitution to declare war, the president also has power as the commander in chief to engage in military action, creating a legal dispute over which branch of government has ultimate say in matters of war and peace.

Under the war powers act, the White House has a 60-day window to seek approval from Congress for military action. The administration, however, has indicated that because a ceasefire has been declared in the current conflict in Iran, the hostilities have ceased.

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.

Kuwait’s defence ministry has labelled an attack on the country’s international airport as ‘heinous Iranian aggression’. One person was killed and dozens were injured after Iranian drones struck a terminal on Wednesday, causing ‘significant material damage’.

BEIRUT — President Trump acknowledged criticizing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as “crazy” in a phone call that involved expletives, saying he was “a little bit perturbed” that Israel’s fighting with Hezbollah militants in Lebanon was holding back peace talks with Iran.

But even as the president conceded the tensions in an interview released Wednesday, he insisted that his relationship with Netanyahu was solid and that they connected, in part, because they are both “wartime” leaders.

“We’ve worked very well together. I like Bibi a lot. And I work very well with him,” Trump told the New York Post’s “Pod Force One.”

In an interview on the American business-news channel CNBC, Netanyahu responded that he and Trump sometimes have “tactical disagreements” but have “common goals” and “agree on the main things.”

“He respects me. I respect him. We always find a way to work out our differences,” the prime minister said.

The president’s comments about the Monday call offered a sign of the growing pressure he faces to resolve the Iran war as higher energy prices and economic uncertainty threaten Republican prospects in the midterm elections and hamper global commerce.

Talks have dragged on for weeks as mediators seek to extend a fragile ceasefire into a more enduring truce. The negotiations are further strained by Israel’s broadening war with the Iranian-backed militia group in Lebanon. The conflicts have become increasingly intertwined as Iran insists that any potential truce in the war there must also quell the fighting in Lebanon.

Trump does not commit to timeline for ending Iran war

Trump remained noncommittal about a timeline for settling the Iran conflict, saying the Strait of Hormuz might stay blocked through the Labor Day holiday on Sept. 7. He has insisted that Iran stop any efforts that could lead to a nuclear weapon and that the strait be reopened for shipments of oil and natural gas.

“I don’t know. I mean, I think it could be [closed through Labor Day], but I think it’s unlikely. I think that we’ll have it. I think this will resolve itself fairly quickly,” Trump said.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, who succeeded his late father, is “involved” in peace talks, Trump added.

“They have a lot of respect for him,” the president said in the interview.

Trump said that Khamenei is not doing well due to wounds sustained in an airstrike, but “they say he’s giving approval because that’s the way it has been for a long, long time.” Khamenei’s father was killed in an airstrike when the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran at the end of February.

Meanwhile in the Persian Gulf region, Kuwait briefly shut its main airport Wednesday after Iranian drones hit a passenger terminal building, killing one person and wounding dozens. It was the latest in the back-and-forth attacks by Tehran and Washington that have tested the ceasefire.

The strike again brought home the risks to residents and travelers in Gulf countries that had considered themselves relative safe havens before the war, now in its fourth month.

Path to a lasting ceasefire in Lebanon is obscured by new strikes

The path toward a lasting ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah remained unclear as hostilities continued in Lebanon.

An Israeli strike Wednesday hit a car on a busy highway just south of Beirut, hours before the second day of talks between Lebanon and Israel in Washington were set to take place.

The strike in Khaldeh came without warning, and it was not immediately clear if the person targeted was killed.

Israel and Lebanon on Monday reached a U.S.-brokered agreement in which Israel would not strike Beirut’s southern suburbs and Hezbollah would end its attacks on northern Israel.

The agreement was made hours after Israel announced that it was going to launch strikes across the sprawling urban neighborhoods near the Lebanese capital in what would have been the most intense strikes since a nominal ceasefire went into effect on April 17.

The State Department said progress was made during the first day of talks on Tuesday. Lebanon hopes to widen the scope of the ceasefire so it becomes comprehensive across the country. Israel wants to disarm Hezbollah immediately before the Israeli military ends its operations in Lebanon and withdraws its troops from dozens of villages and towns.

Not long after the strike on Khaldeh, the Israeli military said it intercepted what it called a hostile aircraft coming from southern Lebanon, but it did not immediately blame Hezbollah. Hezbollah has not claimed a cross-border attack since the agreement.

Israeli military warning rattles coastal city

Israeli strikes over southern Lebanon continued, especially in and around the battered cities of Tyre and Nabatiyeh. Two overnight strikes near Tyre, a coastal city, killed four Syrians and two Palestinians.

Israel warned the Christian neighborhoods in Tyre that Hezbollah members were among them. Many Lebanese Shiite Muslims fled to those areas in recent days because they were spared from the aerial bombardment along the Mediterranean coast.

After the warning, the Lebanese army deployed to the Christian district of Tyre in an effort to prevent Israeli attacks there and to show that Hezbollah has no armed presence in the area.

Israel launched an invasion of southern Lebanon days after the latest war was sparked on March 2, when Iran-backed Hezbollah fired rockets toward northern Israel in solidarity with Iran. Israeli troops have pushed deeper into Lebanon over the past week, as Hezbollah continues to claim rocket and drone attacks.

The latest round of fighting between Israel and Hezbollah has killed 3,468 people in Lebanon and displaced 1.2 million people. According to Netanyahu’s office, at least 27 Israeli soldiers and a defense contractor have been killed in or near southern Lebanon. Two civilians have also been killed in northern Israel.

Strike on village kills most of a family

Many residents of southern Lebanon remained in villages near the hostilities or returned to areas where strikes occurred after evacuation warnings.

The Al-Abdallah family returned to their home in Marwanieyh, which they left because they thought the village was unsafe following earlier strikes. A day later, two rockets hit the home, bringing down the three-story building and killing six family members, said the brother of Hassan Al-Abdallah, who was killed.

Ahmed Al-Abdallah, 13, was thrown away from the building by the force of the blasts and was the only member of his family to survive. His uncle, Eissa Al-Abdallah, said the boy has two broken legs and shrapnel wounds all over his body.

“What good is talking now? They are gone, and nothing will bring them back,” the uncle told the Associated Press in a phone call Tuesday. “This land costs blood.”

Chehayeb, Boak and El Deeb write for the Associated Press. Boak reported from Washington.

Tehran, Iran – Iran is facing more energy constraints as its summer season begins, with the widespread use of air conditioning and other needs during hotter months contributing to an imbalance between supply and consumption.

For decades, successive Iranian governments have kept utility bills well below supply costs for households and offices through a mix of implicit oil-and-gas subsidies, administered tariffs, state-controlled pricing, and sometimes direct financial support.

The negative impacts of the war with Israel and the United States on the economy mean the government has fewer tools at its disposal to deal with an energy crisis this summer.

Despite having the world’s third-largest proven crude oil reserves, Iran will have to import fuel again as demand outpaces refinery output.

President Masoud Pezeshkian has repeatedly urged households and offices to take practical steps to limit energy consumption. Last week, he removed his jacket during a government meeting to demonstrate how Iranians can avoid turning down their air conditioning thermostats in their offices.

Even though energy costs for households are much lower than in other parts of the world, corruption, mismanagement, sanctions, chronic inflation and currency devaluation have eroded the benefits Iranians usually feel from subsidised energy prices.

In November 2019, the government announced a tiered gasoline price scheme that would see huge increases for some consumers. This sparked nationwide protests, and since then, the government has been wary about similar price hikes.

While inflation has galloped on, continued subsidies have kept fuel artificially low.

The administration’s attempts to tackle the subsidies burden due to a mounting budget crunch have resulted in only limited increases in petrol through a complex three-tiered pricing system.

This is applied via a government-issued fuel card, giving most users of Iranian-made vehicles access to 60 litres (15.85 US gallons) per month of subsidised petrol at 15,000 rials (0.8 cents) and another 100 litres (26.42 gallons) at 1.6 cents.

Iranians going over this amount then must use an “emergency card” issued at petrol stations, permitting them to an additional 30 litres (7.9 gallons) of fuel a day at 50,000 rials (about 2.9 cents) per litre.

After a new cap was imposed during the war to limit fuel consumption, each card allows only 30 litres of fuel a day. Petrol stations are issued their own “emergency card” for uses beyond this limit.

Due to supply constraints, staff at petrol stations have now reportedly been instructed to limit the use of these cards to 10 to 15 litres (up to 4 gallons) or asked not to issue any new cards at all to customers.

The Iranian government is running similar schemes for natural gas, electricity and urban water, with fears of social unrest making them averse to any sudden price hikes.

There appears to be little the government can do to bridge the divide between lower energy production and growing demand for subsidised fuel, illustrated by the perpetual queues at petrol stations since the start of the war.

“Reforming and increasing the price of energy is currently not feasible and logical due to the current economic conditions and social concerns,” Esmail Saghab Esfahani, a vice president of the state-linked Organization for Energy Optimization and Strategic Management, said earlier this week.

There have been some changes to pricing structures, but this is impacting small businesses that are already struggling with the dire economic conditions in Iran.

One 35-year-old owner of a welding workshop near Tehran, who asked to remain anonymous, told Al Jazeera that a surge in his monthly energy bill from 40 million rials ($23) per month in the previous Persian calendar year to three times that today.

“I went to the electricity company, and they only kept saying the tariffs have gone up,” he said.

“I had a similar message from a friend who is paying much more now for roughly the same usage as before, so it looks like we’re to pay for the cost of war.”

Authorities say that any complaints about escalating bills will be reviewed. They also have a system where normal household energy consumption is kept artificially low, but excessive users can be billed as much as 45 times the normal prices.

Despite having the second-largest proven natural gas reserves in the world, Iran still suffers from perpetual supply shortages during its winter and summer, when consumption is at its highest.

The situation has worsened during the war, with strikes on Iranian energy facilities seeing Iran’s gasoline production capacity drop marginally from 115 million litres (30.37 million gallons) per day to 110 million litres (29.06 million gallons). Meanwhile, consumption has jumped from 10 million litres (2.64 million litres) in 2025 to 140 million litres this year (36.98 million litres).

US President Donald Trump’s threats of more strikes on power plants have heightened fears of further blackouts and gas shortages this summer, meaning the energy crisis is likely to continue in the coming months.

Kuwait and Bahrain have condemned an Iranian missile and drone attack, which Tehran says targeted US military facilities in the Gulf. A strike hit Kuwait’s airport, causing at least one death, dozens of injuries and flight suspensions. Tehran says the strikes are retaliation for US attacks on Iran.

Published on 03/06/2026 – 11:31 GMT+2•Updated
11:36

The Spanish fashion giant behind Zara, Inditex, posted net income of €1.4 billion in the first quarter, up 5.4% year-on-year and ahead of market expectations.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Sales rose 5.8% to €8.7bn, or 8.8% at constant exchange rates, ahead of the roughly 8% analysts had anticipated.

Gross profit rose 6.9% to €5.4bn, helped by an improvement in profit margins, meaning the company kept a larger share of revenue as profit. EBITDA, a measure of underlying earnings, increased 7.3% to €2.6bn.

Inditex shares rose more than 5% on Wednesday after the company reported a strong start to the second quarter, with sales increasing 11.5% between 1 May and 1 June, reassuring investors that the Zara owner remains resilient despite signs of weakening consumer spending.

“Inditex continued its strong momentum with its latest results beating first quarter expectations, and also seen a strong start to the second quarter too, as sales grew more or less in line with the rate the company exited with in the previous quarter,” said Mamta Valechha, consumer discretionary analyst at Quilter Cheviot.

The revenue jump from one of the world’s largest listed clothing retailers points to solid consumer appetite heading into the summer, despite concerns that a more uncertain economic and geopolitical backdrop could weigh on spending in the months ahead.

Navigating geopolitical risks

The results come as businesses around the world face growing uncertainty over the global economy and concerns that consumers may cut back on spending.

Inditex said its wide-ranging supply chain and flexible transport network had helped it keep products flowing to stores around the world despite recent disruptions.

“Ultimately, Inditex continues to have a resilient business model that can withstand significant economic pressures and currency headwinds,” said Mamta Valechha, consumer discretionary analyst at Quilter Cheviot.

Valechha said strong customer demand and the company’s ability to source products close to its key markets had helped it keep collections up to date while limiting the need for discounts. Productivity improvements had also helped protect profitability.

Inditex also said that the current “geopolitical challenges” had an impact on the sales in the Middle East, a region that Barclays estimates accounts for about 5% of its revenue.

The company also warned that ongoing instability in the region could affect its performance in the months ahead.

Inditex faces a number of other challenges, including higher shipping costs and rising prices for raw materials such as cotton and polyester. Currency movements are also expected to weigh on results this year.

Inditex ended the quarter with 5,456 stores and a net cash position of €10.8bn.

The board has proposed a dividend of €1.75 per share for the last fiscal year, comprising an ordinary component of €1.20 and a bonus of €0.55, payable in two instalments in May and November 2026.

Despite the strong start to the year, Inditex left its outlook unchanged. It said it expects sales growth to continue into the second quarter, supported by strong demand for its spring and summer collections and ongoing improvements to its stores and operations.

However, the company said currency fluctuations are likely to reduce sales growth by around 1% over the full year. It also expects to invest about €2.3bn in the business during the current financial year.

Video shows a car accident occurring on a road in Kuwait City as missiles flew overhead. Kuwait’s military said they intercepted incoming drones and missiles after Iran targeted US installations in Kuwait and Bahrain.

The US military says it carried out ‘self-defence’ strikes on Iran’s Qeshm Island after Iran earlier launched missiles and drones at US bases in Kuwait and Bahrain. Despite the exchange, the US says the US-Iran ceasefire remains in effect.

US President Donald Trump reportedly lashed out at Israeli PM Netanyahu during a phone call over Israel’s threat to strike Beirut’s suburbs.

U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) Tuesday evening said “U.S. forces successfully defeated multiple Iranian ballistic missiles and drones” in attacks launched at allies Kuwait and Bahrain. Iran said the strikes were in response to U.S. attacks. This is yet another round of tit-for-tat strikes that have become something of regularity since the ceasefire deal was reached between the U.S. and Iran.

In a post on X, CENTCOM said “Iran launched several ballistic missiles toward regional neighbors; however, all failed to hit their intended targets. Two Iranian missiles fired at Kuwait fell short or broke apart enroute, and three missiles launched at Bahrain were immediately intercepted by U.S. and Bahrain air defense forces. Moments earlier, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) forces shot down three one-way attack drones launched by Iran toward civilian mariners that were rightfully transiting regional waters.”

Additional video showed what appears to be Patriot munitions fired to intercept Iranian missiles.

American forces “also conducted self-defense strikes on an Iranian military ground control station on Qeshm Island,” CENTCOM stated. “No U.S. personnel were harmed. CENTCOM forces remain vigilant and ready to defend against unwarranted Iranian aggression during the ongoing ceasefire.”

Kuwait officials say they came under ballistic missile attack, while explosions were reported in Bahrain.

“Kuwaiti air defenses are currently confronting hostile missile and drone attacks,” Kuwait’s Army stated on X. “The General Staff of the Army notes that if explosion sounds are heard, they are the result of air defense systems intercepting the hostile attacks. Everyone is requested to adhere to the security and safety instructions issued by the competent authorities.”

“The siren has been sounded,” Bahrain’s Interior Ministry stated on X. “Citizens and residents are urged to remain calm and head to the nearest safe place.”

Iran said it launched retaliation strikes.

“Following the hostile actions of the U.S. in the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, and Qeshm Island, American bases in Kuwait were hit,” the official Iranian IRIB news outlet claimed on X in a post that included video of what appears to be missiles landing.

IRIB posted another video it claimed showed an air defense munition exploding in a civilian area. TWZ cannot independently confirm any of these claims.

The Iranian news outlet also showed video of what it said were missiles flying over Bahrain.

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Tuesday that he is optimistic about the potential for a resumption in nuclear talks with Iran despite a shaky ceasefire in the war that is looking increasingly in doubt.

Rubio defended the Trump administration’s approach to Iran and other global hot spots in back-to-back hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a House Appropriations subcommittee. He was briefly disrupted by protesters at each session.

In his first public testimony since the Iran war began at the end of February, Rubio said the Iranians have agreed to negotiate on nuclear points that they had not been willing to address in the past but would not offer an assessment on what those talks might produce.

“They have agreed to negotiate aspects of their nuclear program that just a month ago, just a year ago, they were refusing to even mention,” Rubio told the Senate. He noted, however, that there was no guarantee “it will lead to a deal that’s acceptable” and that negotiations have been made difficult by the instability of Iran’s leadership.

Rubio’s optimism ran counter to pessimistic reports from two semiofficial Iranian news agencies that Iran has stopped communicating with mediators after Israel threatened to bomb Beirut as it fights the Hezbollah militant group. President Trump disputed that Iran has cut off communication with mediators, calling Iranian reports of a cessation in talks “false and erroneous.”

Democrats criticize Trump administration’s approach to Iran, and Rubio defends it

Rubio’s wide-ranging testimony was met with fierce objections from Democrats, including tough questions about the status of U.S. foreign assistance to respond to diseases such as the Ebola outbreak in Africa. Rubio insisted that the dismantlement of the U.S. Agency for International Development had not affected Washington’s ability to assist with global humanitarian responses.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) blasted Rubio and Trump for foreign aid cuts and overseas intervention. Van Hollen specifically took aim at the U.S. and Israeli decision to strike Iran, accusing the Republican president of entering the war on behalf of Israel.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “said he’s been waiting 40 years to do this,” Van Hollen said. “It turns out he finally found a president who was both stupid and reckless enough to join him. Let’s face it, Mr. Secretary, the Trump foreign policy has become a dumpster fire.”

Rubio’s testimony, which was taking place as Israel and Lebanon began a new round of political talks at the State Department with the situation between Israel and Hezbollah still uncertain, did not provide definitive answers on any of the main questions of the day.

He said Iran is not guaranteed a massive payout for reopening the Strait of Hormuz, the crucial waterway for global oil shipments, and would have to commit to further concessions on its nuclear program to get significant sanctions relief.

“The more they give, the more they would get,” he said, later adding, “They’re not going to get it as a signing bonus.”

Rubio also said there are indications that Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, is taking a bigger part in the discussions despite not being seen publicly since the war began.

“I think there are indications out there that he is increasingly engaging at some level, although all of his communications have been in writing and through intermediaries,” he said.

Democratic senator says drugs being on boats isn’t a targeting criterion for U.S. strikes

On other issues, Rubio dismissed questions about the legality of Pentagon strikes against dozens of alleged drug-smuggling vessels in the Caribbean Sea and the eastern Pacific Ocean, which have killed more than 200 people since early September.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) said the military’s targeting criteria for those strikes does not include drugs being present on the boat. He called it “odd” but said he could not share much more because the criteria are classified.

Rubio pushed back, saying every strike has a legal officer who makes a determination on whether a strike is legal. He also said the U.S. military has “walked away from strikes” multiple times because they did not meet the targeting criteria.

The Trump administration says the U.S. is at war with drug cartels, while many Democrats have questioned the legality and effectiveness of the strikes.

The Republican former senator faces a second congressional hearing Tuesday and a pair of others Wednesday about the State Department’s annual budget request, though questions have mostly focused on top foreign policy issues.

Rubio wades into Taiwan arms sales opposed by China

Rubio acknowledged that the Trump administration is holding up a new potential $14-billion arms sale to Taiwan but said it remained under consideration and would not be canceled. He noted that the U.S. recently sold arms to Taiwan in December worth $11 billion.

He said the deal is not under review because of pressure from China, although he said the Chinese bring up the issue in discussions with the United States. Trump also has described it as a great negotiating chip.

“They are constantly talking about Taiwan arms sales, but that in no way is what is holding up our decision-making or the White House’s decision-making,” Rubio said. “It is something the president will have to decide on the timing of when and how that is executed on.”

Protesters chant at Rubio about Cuba

Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, also was questioned about the Trump administration’s escalatory behavior toward Cuba, as Trump has hinted that the small island country could be the next U.S. target after operations in Iran are wrapped up.

He faced chants from protesters who urged him to “stop killing Cubans” when he entered the Senate briefing room. The protesters were quickly pulled from the room. Their chants also included “Let Cuba live!”

Rubio defended the administration’s approach to Cuba and said it would remain focused on changing the Cuban government’s policies.

“I really don’t believe this system is capable of reform unless new people take over or a new mindset takes hold,” he said.

Despite a series of meetings between U.S. and Cuban officials, Trump and Rubio have renewed threats against the island’s government, which take on greater weight following the administration’s announcement of criminal charges against former President Raúl Castro.

Over his congressional career and now as America’s top diplomat, Rubio has maintained that Cuba is a national security threat due to its ties to U.S. adversaries, and that Trump is intent on addressing it.

Amiri, Lee and Finley write for the Associated Press. Amiri reported from New York.

In January 2024, the publication Axios reported that the United States president at the time, Joe Biden, was “running out of patience” with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza had been raging for months by that point, and Biden was facing public backlash over US support for the conflict.

The assault would continue for the rest of Biden’s term and bleed into the first 10 months of Donald Trump‘s second presidency.

Since then, media outlets have continued to publish anonymous accounts of rifts and “frustrating” calls between Trump and the Israeli prime minister. But US support for its Middle East ally has never wavered.

Another anonymously sourced report about a furious, expletive-laden call between US and Israeli leaders came out this week, and it spread rapidly across international media.

Axios reported on Monday that Trump called Netanyahu “f***ing crazy” and berated him over Israel’s escalation in Lebanon.

Around the same time, an Israeli attack killed six people, including two children, in the southern Lebanese town of al-Marwaniyah.

Experts say that despite leaks of feuds and harsh words between US leaders and Netanyahu, policies are ultimately what matters, and they have changed very little.

Ryan Costello, the policy director at the National Iranian American Council Action (NIAC), said political observers have grown to “mock” reports of closed-door anger from US presidents against Netanyahu.

“What’s really important is what actually happens in practice,” Costello told Al Jazeera.

Two administrations, same reports

Though there are reports of Trump giving Netanyahu a dressing-down, Isabelle Hayslip, an advocacy manager at the US-based rights group DAWN, said that US policy remains aligned with Israeli interests.

“Single-source reporting of Trump as a strongman who picks up the phone and yells at Netanyahu for undermining US policy is contradicted by the actual policy outcomes where Netanyahu gets exactly what he wants,” Hayslip told Al Jazeera.

“Trump has no final say over Israeli actions. Like his predecessors, the president has proved completely unable to prioritise American interests, instead catering to Israel’s expansionist whims.”

The latest report comes as Trump faces increasing pressure from his Democratic rivals and segments of his base over his handling of the war on Iran, which he launched jointly with Netanyahu on February 28.

The conflict, which saw Iran close the Strait of Hormuz, has sent gasoline prices soaring in the US and fuelled inflation.

Critics have accused Trump of allowing Israel to drag the US into a war that does not advance Washington’s priorities.

With negotiations to end the war stagnating, Israel’s escalation in Lebanon and its threat to bomb Beirut risks derailing the fragile truce that came into effect in April.

Iranian officials have suggested that they cut off contact with the US over the Israeli attacks in Lebanon.

Before the Axios report, Trump announced he had spoken to Netanyahu and an unidentified Hezbollah representative, and both sides agreed that “all shooting will stop”.

But Netanyahu was quick to assert that the Israeli military “will continue to operate as planned in southern Lebanon”, where it is deepening its invasion and turning entire towns into rubble.

Advocates say Israeli atrocities in Lebanon and across the region could not have happened without US backing.

Since the start of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza in October 2023, the US has provided Israel with nearly $25bn in military aid, helped fend off retaliatory Iranian attacks against the country and vetoed several ceasefire resolutions at the United Nations Security Council.

Nonetheless, anonymous accounts that the US president is angry at Netanyahu have become a regular feature in the media.

Such reports are attributed to US officials, but it is unclear how leaks with a similar message on the same topic have continued across two administrations from different political parties.

‘Moderating the anger’

Publicly, aides of both Biden and Trump have largely refrained from criticising Israel.

Trump has regularly praised the Israeli prime minister, arguing on more than one occasion that Israel would have ceased to exist without Netanyahu’s leadership.

In December, the US president also called the Israeli prime minister a “hero” during a meeting in Florida.

“We’re with you, and we’ll continue to be with you,” Trump told Netanyahu.

Two weeks earlier, Axios reported that the White House had “scolded” Netanyahu over Israel’s ceasefire violations in Gaza.

“The White House message to Netanyahu was: ‘If you want to ruin your reputation and show that you don’t abide by agreements, be our guest, but we won’t allow you to ruin President Trump’s reputation after he brokered the deal in Gaza,” the publication quoted a US official as saying.

Few people know the exact content of high-level calls at the White House. Sometimes, top officials, including members of the National Security Council, sit in on conversations between the president and world leaders after briefings.

Negar Mortazavi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, a research nonprofit, said the leak about the tense call between Trump and Netanyahu may be aimed at making Trump look tough on Israel to quell outrage over the war.

“It could be sort of a way of moderating the anger or the blame at the US for continuing this unpopular, illegal, unnecessary war,” Mortazavi told Al Jazeera.

She added that the message it sends is, “Look, we’re very angry at Israel. We yell at them. We call them names.”

But Mortazavi stressed that policy is more important than rhetoric: “Does that change the facts on the ground?”

Information war

For his part, Costello argued that the leak was likely directed at Iran.

“I see this one primarily as a signal to the Iranians that Trump is serious, and he wants to insulate what’s happening in Lebanon and Israel’s attacks from the Iran negotiations,” Costello said.

“It remains to be seen the extent to which that excoriation has actually led to a change in Israel’s policies, and I think there is a strong incentive for continued defiance from Netanyahu.”

Axios, meanwhile, has defended its coverage.

“We stand by our reporting, which by the way noted ‘Trump and Netanyahu have had several tense calls in the past but have still coordinated closely on Iran and other issues,’” Jake Wilkins, a spokesperson for the publication, told Al Jazeera in an email.

Mortazavi warned that all sides of the war on Iran are trying to influence public perceptions of the conflict.

She pointed to recent reports that Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian had resigned, a rumour that was promptly denied by his office.

“This is a very hybrid war. It’s a war on the battlefield. It’s an intelligence war. It’s a war of narratives,” Mortazavi told Al Jazeera. “And then there’s also an information war, which includes disinformation, half-truths and strategic leaks.”

Introduction: