Israel-Iran conflict

America First was the slogan Donald Trump championed during his re-election campaign as he promised to put the interests of Americans above those of foreign governments, immigrants and large corporations. However, the United States president has made several policy decisions that have divided his electoral base. The two guests in this episode of The Stream voted for Trump in the 2024 election but now find themselves on the opposite side of several issues: economic policy, foreign military spending and the Jeffrey Epstein files.

Presenter: Stefanie Dekker

Guests:
Ethan Levins – Social media journalist
Erol Morkoc – Spokesman, Republicans Overseas UK

The United Nations says new US sanctions against members of the International Criminal Court will undermine justice. In announcing the measures, Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the ICC a ‘national security threat’ for its efforts to arrest Israeli leaders over alleged war crimes in Gaza.

On July 27, two brigades from the mostly Shia Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF) stormed the Iraqi Ministry of Agriculture, clashing with police.

While the incident could be seen as a power struggle for position, it also indicates a certain degree of daring on the part of the brigades, which ended up killing a police officer.

The brigades were called in by Ayad Kadhim Ali after he was dismissed as the head of the ministry’s office in Baghdad’s Karkh district, according to Mehmet Alaca, an expert on Iraq’s Shia militias. Ali is affiliated with Kataib Hezbollah, as are the brigades that attacked the ministry, analysts told Al Jazeera.

The incident is seen as a litmus test of whether the Iraqi state can hold PMF factions accountable for breaking the law.

Iraq’s government argues that passing a new legislation – which would fully integrate the PMF into the state – would help them do so. Proponents of the bill argue it would incentivise the PMF to act within the confines of the law, but detractors fear it would give legal cover to militias, which are already too strong.

The PMF

The PMF, also known as al-Hashd al-Shaabi, is an umbrella organisation of mostly Shia armed groups, some of whom have close ties to neighbouring Iran. A few of these groups first emerged during the Iraqi resistance to US occupation.

Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq, for instance, split from Jaish al-Mahdi, formerly the dominant arm of the Shia rebellion, in 2007. The group received Iranian support to become a major powerbroker in Iraq and later intervened in Syria’s civil war to support then-President Bashar al-Assad as he tried to crush a popular rebellion.

Kataib Imam Ali is another, albeit smaller, group in the PMF that reportedly received training from the Lebanese group Hezbollah in Iran and also dispatched fighters to Syria during the height of its war.

Like Kataib Imam Ali, most PMF factions were formed after Iraqi Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani issued a fatwa in 2014, urging all able-bodied men to join the state to defend Iraq from ISIL (ISIS).

At the time, ISIL controlled large swaths of territory across Syria and Iraq, equivalent to the size of England. ISIL even captured the Iraqi city of Mosul and declared a “caliphate” from there.

By 2016, Iraq’s parliament had passed a law that recognised the PMF as a component of the state’s national security.

But the law lacks clarity around command and control and budgetary oversight, and it has failed to prevent some groups from taking unilateral action to attack United States assets and soldiers stationed in the country.

In 2024, for instance, the PMF was awarded a budget of $3.4bn, which exceeded the total budget of Lebanon.

While the figure is small relative to the $21.1bn allocated to Iraq’s Ministry of Defence that same year, it is a sizeable amount that the state allocated to a body that it did not even have an accurate membership list for.

Each registered PMF faction submits a list of names to be paid, and these lists are then reviewed by the Ministry of Finance. However, PMF leaders often intervene to push payments through unchallenged, according to a 2021 report by the Chatham House think tank.

Estimates suggested there are 238,000 PMF fighters.

Receiving a share of the state budget has helped the PMF in its quest to brand itself as a legitimate entity in Iraq.

“From the beginning, the PMF was adamant that it was part of the state and not a militia,” said Renad Mansour, an expert on Iraq with Chatham House.

Over the past 10 years, PMF factions have created political wings, run in parliamentary elections and gained access to lucrative state money after securing important administrative positions in key ministries.

Yet as they accrued power, some used their arms against the state to safeguard their patronage networks and influence over key ministries.

In 2021, PMF groups linked to Iran launched a drone at the home of then-Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi, reportedly an attempt to upend the government after losing many parliamentary seats and thus access to state money in the recent elections, said Alaca, the expert on Iraqi Shia militias.

The new law

The Iraqi government drafted the new law in March. It would give all PMF factions official, stable employment and bring them under the control of Prime Minister Mohamed Shia al-Sudani as commander-in-chief

Proponents of the draft law mainly include a bloc of five Shia parties known as the Coordination Framework.

“The argument pushed by those advocating for the law is that by offering an institutional safe haven for armed factions under a reformed PMF, it would incentivise those to comply with the national chain of command – thereby diminishing their appetite to take action outside the state,” explained Inna Rudolf, an expert on the PMF and a senior research fellow at the Centre for Statecraft & National Security at King’s College London.

Most importantly to the PMF, the law offers it much-needed legal cover at a time when the US and Israel are threatening to target groups they consider Iranian proxies.

It would grant PMF members full access to intelligence, which some argue is a risky proposition because the intelligence could be passed to Iran.

Analysts have said, however, that many PMF factions would be more concerned about their power base and assets than about following Iranian interests.

During the 12-day Israel-Iran war in June, PMF groups did not attack US assets or personnel, likely out of fear of giving Israel a pretext to attack their command structure and resources as Israel did against Hezbollah, according to a report by the Royal United Services Institute.

“I would say that the stronger and more embedded PMF groups are the ones who have been practising restraint and telling the smaller [pro-Iran] factions not to get involved in the regional conflict [between Iran and Israel],” Mansour said.

The follow-up on the Ministry of Agriculture incident will test the willingness of PMF commanders to cooperate with the state to hold their own members accountable, as well as the state’s seriousness in holding PMF members accountable, according to Rudolf.

She said al-Sudani has shown “strong will” by referring all those involved in the raid to the judiciary and calling for the formation of a review committee to investigate “negligence in leadership and control duties” within the PMF.

“Sudani’s administration wants to demonstrate power over the PMF and [to prove] that everyone affiliated with it not only has the same privileges as members of the security forces but has to abide by the same code of conduct,” Rudolf told Al Jazeera.

Pressures against the new law

Not everybody in Iraq supports the PMF’s integration, said Zeidon al-Kinani, an expert on Iraq and adjunct instructor at Georgetown University in Qatar.

He said many PMF factions harmed and even killed hundreds of young protesters who were demonstrating against what they considered a corrupt political elite in 2019.

As a result, civil society is wary of seeing all PMF factions given the same privileges as Iraq’s army and police and would prefer the government absorb only those that do not have close ties with Iran, al-Kinani said.

US officials are also pressuring Iraq not to pass the law with Secretary of State Marco Rubio reportedly telling al-Sudani the law would “institutionalise Iranian influence and armed terrorist groups undermining Iraq’s sovereignty”.

Former and current Iraqi officials argued that the state cannot disband the PMF and any attempt to do so could trigger sectarian violence.

Al-Kinani warned that the US could trigger a conflict by making unreasonable demands without supporting Iraq to carry them out.

“When it comes to Iraq, the US makes drastic demands [without] supporting the Iraqi government or civil society to ensure their protection from any repercussions,” he told Al Jazeera.

This week’s visit to Lebanon of senior Iranian politician Ali Larijani, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, is seen as an attempt to smooth any feathers ruffled by rhetoric from Tehran about Hezbollah’s disarmament.

In early August, the Lebanese government, under pressure from the United States, announced that it would seek to disarm Hezbollah, long considered a principal ally of Tehran, by the end of the year.

The group reacted angrily to the call to disarm with its secretary-general, Naim Qassem, denouncing the idea on Friday and saying the Lebanese government “does not have the right to question the resistance’s legitimacy”.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said in an interview last week: “We support any decision the group makes, but we do not intervene.”

“This is not the first time they’ve tried to strip Hezbollah of its weapons,” he said. “The reason is clear: The power of resistance has proven itself in the field.”

His comments were received angrily in Beirut. Foreign Minister Youssef Rajji – who is from the anti-Hezbollah, right-wing Lebanese Forces party – said Araghchi’s statement is “firmly rejected and condemned”.

“Such statements undermine Lebanon’s sovereignty, unity and stability and constitute an unacceptable interference in its internal matters and sovereign decisions,” Rajji said.

Hezbollah and Iran have emerged bruised from separate conflicts with Israel in November and June, respectively. Now, Beirut’s instruction for Hezbollah to disarm risks further undermining the relevance of the group at a critical time, analysts said.

Who decides?

Many analysts believe the decision on whether to retain or relinquish its arms may not be Hezbollah’s alone.

”Hezbollah does not have complete freedom of action in this regard,” HA Hellyer of the Royal United Services Institute told Al Jazeera, referencing the group’s close ties with Iran.

“But it doesn’t act simply as a proxy for Tehran and is in the midst of a rather challenging period of its existence, especially given the surrounding geopolitics of the region,” he said of the regional upheavals since Israel began its war on Gaza in October 2023 and launched subsequent assaults on Lebanon and Syria.

Those assaults inflicted significant damage on Lebanon, principally in the southern Beirut suburbs and southern Lebanon, where Hezbollah’s support base is located.

Lebanon was already locked into an economic crisis before Israel’s war, and the World Bank estimated in May that it would now need $11bn to rebuild. The central government would be responsible for distributing that money, giving it some influence over Hezbollah.

“Tehran will be very opposed to Hezbollah disarming,” Hellyer said. “But if Hezbollah decides it needs to, to preserve its political position, Tehran can’t veto.”

He also suggested that Tehran may see some of its allied groups in Iraq, which Larijani visited before Beirut, more favourably now, especially since the fall of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad in December severed its land supply routes to Lebanon.

“Hezbollah is, of course, very important to Iran, but I think the Iraqi militia groups are becoming more so, particularly after the loss of Assad,” Hellyer said.

A threat and a provocation

Hezbollah has long been considered the most powerful nonstate armed actor in the Middle East, a valuable ally for Iran and a nemesis for Israel.

“Hezbollah has always been a threat and a provocation, depending on where you’re standing,“ said Nicholas Blanford, a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and an authority on Hezbollah.

“It’s still both, though to a much lesser degree,” he added, noting the damage the group sustained from Israel’s attacks and the assassinations of its leadership in the build-up to and during Israel’s war on Lebanon in October and November.

“It’s clear that Iran wants Hezbollah to remain as it is and, as far as we can tell, is helping it reorganise its ranks.

“It’s also clear from their statements that Hezbollah has no intention of giving up its arms. Even relatively moderate figures within the group are comparing doing so to suicide.”

In his speech on Friday, Qassem’s rejection was unequivocal: “The resistance will not disarm so long as the aggression continues and the occupation persists.

“If necessary, we will fight a Karbala’i battle to confront this Israeli-American project, no matter the costs, and we are certain we will win,” he said, referencing the Battle of Karbala, venerated by Shia Muslims as a foundational battle against tyranny and oppression.

Qassem seemed to exclude the Lebanese military from his ire, warning the government: “Do not embroil the national army in this conflict. … It has a spotless record and does not want [this].”

Inside the tent

Larijani’s visit on Wednesday was seen as a potential opportunity for Beirut to open up new lines of communication with one of the region’s most significant actors, Tehran, and potentially determine what Iran might be willing to consider in return for Hezbollah’s future disarmament.

“It’s not possible for Lebanon to break relations between the Shia community and Iran, any more than it could the Sunni community and Saudi Arabia,” Michael Young of the Carnegie Middle East Center said.

“Iran is a major regional actor. It has a strong relationship with one of [the two] largest communities in the country,” he said of Lebanon’s large Shia community.

“You can’t cut ties. It doesn’t make sense. You want Iranians inside the tent, not outside.”

Given the precarity of Lebanon’s position, balanced between the US support it relies upon and the regional alliances it needs, Young suggested that Lebanese lawmakers nevertheless seek an opportunity to secure some sort of middle ground while accepting that some in Beirut may not be willing to countenance any negotiations with Iran.

“It’s important for the Lebanese to see if there are openings in the Iranian position,” Young continued, casting Larijani’s visit as a potential opportunity for the Lebanese government to influence Iran’s position on Hezbollah’s future.

“And this is something Larijani’s visit, if well exploited, could provide,” he said, “It’s important for the Lebanese to see if the Iranians propose anything in the future or if they show a willingness to compromise on behalf of Hezbollah.”

The security chief’s visit comes after Iran expressed opposition to a government plan to disarm Hezbollah.

Lebanon’s president has told a senior Iranian official that Beirut rejects any interference in its internal affairs and has criticised Tehran’s statements on plans to disarm Hezbollah as “unconstructive”.

Iran’s Supreme National Security Council chief Ali Larijani’s visit to Beirut on Wednesday comes a week after the Lebanese government ordered the army to devise plans by the end of 2025 to disarm the Iran-aligned Lebanese armed group.

Iran expressed opposition to the plan to disarm Hezbollah, which before a war with Israel last year was believed to be better armed than the Lebanese military.

“It is forbidden for anyone … to bear arms and to use foreign backing as leverage,” Aoun told Larijani, according to a statement from the Lebanese presidency posted on X.

Larijani responded to Aoun by stating that Iran does not interfere in Lebanese decision-making, and that foreign countries should not give orders to Lebanon.

“Any decision taken by the Lebanese government in consultation with the resistance is respected by us,” he said after separate talks with Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, whose Amal Movement is an ally of Hezbollah.

“Iran didn’t bring any plan to Lebanon, the US did. Those intervening in Lebanese affairs are those dictating plans and deadlines”, said Larijani.

He said Lebanon should not “mix its enemies with its friends – your enemy is Israel, your friend is the resistance”.

Larijani further added that Lebanon should appreciate Hezbollah, and its “value of resistance”.

Reporting from Beirut, Al Jazeera’s Zeina Khodr said Larijani appeared to have softened his language on the visit.

“Ali Larijani has been using more diplomatic language than … a few days ago [when] he was blunt that Iran opposes the Lebanese government’s decision to disarm Hezbollah.”

“He said that Iran’s policy is about friendly cooperation, not giving orders and timetables, so he was referring to the United States, the US envoy, which presented a plan to end tensions with Israel, and that plan involves disarming Hezbollah [on] a four-month timetable.”

A ‘state-by-state’ relationship

Dozens of Hezbollah supporters gathered along the airport road to welcome Larijani on Wednesday morning. He briefly stepped out of his car to greet them as they chanted slogans.

“If … the Lebanese people are suffering, we in Iran will also feel this pain and we will stand by the dear people of Lebanon in all circumstances,” Larijani told reporters shortly after landing in Beirut.

The Iranian official is also scheduled to meet Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, as well as Berri, who is close to Hezbollah.

Iran has suffered a series of blows in its long-running rivalry with Israel, including during 12 days of open war between the two countries in June.

Hezbollah, meanwhile, was weakened during the war with Israel, which ended in a November 2024 ceasefire that Israel continues to violate.

The new Lebanese government, backed by the United States, has moved to further restrain the group.

“What the new Lebanese leadership wants is a state-by-state relationship, not like in the past where …  the Iranians would be dealing with Hezbollah and not [with] the Lebanese state,” said Khodr.

Hezbollah has called the government’s disarmament decision a “grave sin”.

Khodr said the tensions have sparked concern about potential unrest in the country.

Hezbollah is part of Iran’s so-called “axis of resistance” – a network of aligned armed groups in the region, including Hamas in Gaza and Yemen’s Houthi rebels, who oppose Israel.

United Nations chief Antonio Guterres puts both countries ‘on notice’ over documented pattern of sexual violence.

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has put Israel and Russia “on notice” that their armed forces and security personnel could be listed among parties “credibly suspected” of committing sexual violence in conflict zones.

The warning on Tuesday resulted from “significant concerns regarding patterns of certain forms of sexual violence that have been consistently documented by the United Nations”, Guterres wrote in a report seen by the Reuters news agency.

In his annual report to the UN Security Council on conflict-related sexual violence, Guterres said that Israel and Russia could be listed next year among the parties “credibly suspected of committing or being responsible for patterns of rape or other forms of sexual violence”.

In his warning to Israel, Guterres said he was “gravely concerned about credible information of violations by Israeli armed and security forces” against Palestinians in several prisons, a detention centre and a military base.

“Cases documented by the United Nations indicate patterns of sexual violence such as genital violence, prolonged forced nudity and repeated strip searches conducted in an abusive and degrading manner,” Guterres wrote.

Because Israel has denied access to UN monitors, it has been “challenging to make a definitive determination” about patterns, trends and the systematic use of sexual violence by its forces, he said, urging Israel’s government “to take the necessary measures to ensure immediate cessation of all acts of sexual violence, and make and implement specific time-bound commitments.”

The UN chief said these should include investigations of credible allegations, clear orders and codes of conduct for military and security forces that prohibit sexual violence, and unimpeded access for UN monitors.

In March, UN-backed human rights experts accused Israel of “the systematic use of sexual, reproductive and other gender-based violence”.

The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel said it documented a range of violations perpetrated against Palestinian women, men, girls and boys, and accused Israeli forces of rape and sexual violence against Palestinian detainees.

Israel’s ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, dismissed the Secretary-General’s concerns as “baseless accusations” on Tuesday.

Danon, who circulated a letter he received from Guterres and his response to the UN chief, said the allegations “are steeped in biased publications”.

“The UN must focus on the shocking war crimes and sexual violence of Hamas and the release of all hostages,” the Israeli ambassador said.

Danon stressed that “Israel will not shy away from protecting its citizens and will continue to act in accordance with international law”.

In July 2024, the Israeli military said it had detained and was questioning nine soldiers over the alleged sexual abuse of a Palestinian detainee at the infamous Sde Teiman prison facility, which was set up to detain people arrested in Gaza.

Israeli media reported at the time that a Palestinian prisoner was taken to hospital after suffering severe injuries from what was an alleged gang rape by military guards at the prison.

In the case of Russia, Guterres wrote that he was “gravely concerned about credible information of violations by Russian armed and security forces and affiliated armed groups”, primarily against Ukrainian prisoners of war, in 50 official and 22 unofficial detention facilities in Ukraine and Russia.

“These cases comprised a significant number of documented incidents of genital violence, including electrocution, beatings and burns to the genitals, and forced stripping and prolonged nudity, used to humiliate and elicit confessions or information,” he said.

Russia’s mission to the UN in New York did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the report.

Guterres said that Russian authorities have not engaged with his special envoy on the matter.

The IAEA is yet to make a statement about the meeting, which will not include a visit to Iranian nuclear sites.

Iran’s talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will be “technical” and “complicated”, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has said, ahead of a visit by the United Nations nuclear watchdog for the first time since Tehran cut ties with it last month in the wake of the June conflict triggered by Israeli strikes.

Esmaeil Baghaei, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, told reporters on Monday that a meeting may be organised with Minister of Foreign Affairs Abbas Araghchi during the IAEA’s visit, “but it is a bit soon to predict what the talks will result since these are technical talks, complicated talks”.

The IAEA’s visit marks the first to Iran since President Masoud Pezeshkian ordered the country on July 3 to suspend its cooperation with the nuclear watchdog after an intensive 12-day war with Israel. The conflict also saw the United States launch massive strikes on Israel’s behalf against key Iranian nuclear sites.

Pezeshkian told Al Jazeera in an interview last month that his country is prepared for any future war Israel might wage against it, adding that he was not optimistic about the ceasefire between the countries. He confirmed that Tehran is committed to continuing its nuclear programme for peaceful purposes.

He added that Israel’s strikes, which assassinated leading military figures and nuclear scientists, damaged nuclear facilities and killed hundreds of civilians, had sought to “eliminate” Iran’s hierarchy, but “completely failed to do so”.

Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi told Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency on Monday that Massimo Aparo, the IAEA’s deputy director general and head of safeguards, had left Iran. Aparo met with an Iranian delegation, which included officials from the Foreign Ministry and the IAEA, to discuss “the method of interaction between the agency and Iran”.

Gharibabadi said they decided to continue consultations in the future, without providing further details.

The IAEA did not immediately issue a statement about Aparo’s visit, which will not include any planned access to Iranian nuclear sites.

Relations between the IAEA and Iran deteriorated after the watchdog’s board said on June 12 that Iran had breached its non-proliferation obligations, a day before Israel’s air strikes over Iran, which sparked the conflict.

Baghaei, meanwhile, criticised the IAEA’s lack of response to the Israeli strikes.

“Peaceful facilities of a country that was under 24-hour monitoring were the target of strikes, and the agency refrained from showing a wise and rational reaction and did not condemn it as it was required,” he said.

Araghchi had previously said that cooperation with the agency, which will now require approval by Iran’s highest security body, the Supreme National Security Council, would be about redefining how both sides cooperate. The decision will likely further limit inspectors’ ability to track Tehran’s programme that had been enriching uranium to near weapons-grade levels.

Iran has had limited IAEA inspections in the past, in negotiations with the West, and it is unclear how soon talks between Tehran and Washington for a deal over its nuclear programme will resume, if at all.

US intelligence agencies and the IAEA assessed that Iran last had an organised nuclear weapons programme in 2003. Although Tehran had been enriching uranium up to 60 percent, this is still some way from the weapons-grade levels of 90 percent.

For the past few years, governments across the world have paid close attention to conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East. There, it is said, we see the first glimpses of what warfare of the future will look like, not just in terms of weaponry, but also in terms of new technologies and tactics.

Most recently, the United States-Israeli attacks on Iran demonstrated not just new strategies of drone deployment and infiltration but also new vulnerabilities. During the 12-day conflict, Iran and vessels in the waters of the Gulf experienced repeated disruptions of GPS signal.

This clearly worried the Iranian authorities who, after the end of the war, began to look for alternatives.

“At times, disruptions are created on this [GPS] system by internal systems, and this very issue has pushed us toward alternative options like BeiDou,” Ehsan Chitsaz, deputy communications minister, told Iranian media in mid-July. He added that the government was developing a plan to switch transportation, agriculture and the internet from GPS to BeiDou.

Iran’s decision to explore adopting China’s navigation satellite system may appear at first glance to be merely a tactical manoeuvre. Yet, its implications are far more profound. This move is yet another indication of a major global realignment.

For decades, the West, and the US in particular, have dominated the world’s technological infrastructure from computer operating systems and the internet to telecommunications and satellite networks.

This has left much of the world dependent on an infrastructure it cannot match or challenge. This dependency can easily become vulnerability. Since 2013, whistleblowers and media investigations have revealed how various Western technologies and schemes have enabled illicit surveillance and data gathering on a global scale – something that has worried governments around the world.

Iran’s possible shift to BeiDou sends a clear message to other nations grappling with the delicate balance between technological convenience and strategic self-defence: The era of blind, naive dependence on US-controlled infrastructure is rapidly coming to an end. Nations can no longer afford to have their military capabilities and vital digital sovereignty tied to the satellite grid of a superpower they cannot trust.

This sentiment is one of the driving forces behind the creation of national or regional satellite navigation systems, from Europe’s Galileo to Russia’s GLONASS, each vying for a share of the global positioning market and offering a perceived guarantee of sovereign control.

GPS was not the only vulnerability Iran encountered during the US-Israeli attacks. The Israeli army was able to assassinate a number of nuclear scientists and senior commanders in the Iranian security and military forces. The fact that Israel was able to obtain their exact locations raised fears that it was able to infiltrate telecommunications and trace people via their phones.

On June 17 as the conflict was still raging, the Iranian authorities urged the Iranian people to stop using the messaging app WhatsApp and delete it from their phones, saying it was gathering user information to send to Israel. Whether this appeal was linked to the assassinations of the senior officials is unclear, but Iranian mistrust of the app run by US-based corporation Meta is not without merit.

Cybersecurity experts have long been sceptical about the security of the app. Recently, media reports have revealed that the artificial intelligence software Israel uses to target Palestinians in Gaza is reportedly fed data from social media. Furthermore, shortly after the end of the attacks on Iran, the US House of Representatives moved to ban WhatsApp from official devices.

For Iran and other countries around the world, the implications are clear: Western platforms can no longer be trusted as mere conduits for communication; they are now seen as tools in a broader digital intelligence war.

Tehran has already been developing its own intranet system, the National Information Network, which gives more control over internet use to state authorities. Moving forward, Iran will likely expand this process and possibly try to emulate China’s Great Firewall.

By seeking to break with Western-dominated infrastructure, Tehran is definitively aligning itself with a growing sphere of influence that fundamentally challenges Western dominance. This partnership transcends simple transactional exchanges as China offers Iran tools essential for genuine digital and strategic independence.

The broader context for this is China’s colossal Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). While often framed as an infrastructure and trade project, BRI has always been about much more than roads and ports. It is an ambitious blueprint for building an alternative global order. Iran – strategically positioned and a key energy supplier – is becoming an increasingly important partner in this expansive vision.

What we are witnessing is the emergence of a new powerful tech bloc – one that inextricably unites digital infrastructure with a shared sense of political defiance. Countries weary of the West’s double standards, unilateral sanctions and overwhelming digital hegemony will increasingly find both comfort and significant leverage in Beijing’s expanding clout.

This accelerating shift heralds the dawn of a new “tech cold war”, a low-temperature confrontation in which nations will increasingly choose their critical infrastructure, from navigation and communications to data flows and financial payment systems, not primarily based on technological superiority or comprehensive global coverage but increasingly on political allegiance and perceived security.

As more and more countries follow suit, the Western technological advantage will begin to shrink in real time, resulting in redesigned international power dynamics.

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

Iranian diplomats are meeting their counterparts from Germany, the United Kingdom and France for renewed nuclear talks, amid warnings that the three European powers could trigger “snapback” United Nations sanctions outlined under a previous 2015 deal.

The meeting, which is under way in Turkiye’s Istanbul on Friday morning, is the first since Israel’s mid-June attack on Iran, which led to an intensive 12-day conflict, with the United States militarily intervening on Israel’s behalf and attacking key Iranian nuclear sites.

Israel’s offensive – which killed top commanders, nuclear scientists and hundreds of civilians, as residential areas were struck, as well – also derailed US-Iran nuclear talks that began in April.

Iran said on Friday that the meeting is an opportunity for the so-called E3 group of Germany, UK and France to correct their positions on Iran’s nuclear issue. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said in an interview with state news agency IRNA that Iran considers the talk of extending UN Security Council Resolution 2231 to be doubly “meaningless and baseless”.

The resolution, which cemented the 2015 deal Iran reached with world powers, under which it curbed enrichment in return for much-needed sanctions relief, is due to expire in October. It enshrines the big powers’ prerogative to restore UN sanctions.

Since then, the E3 have threatened to trigger the “snapback mechanism”, which would reinstate the sanctions on Iran by the end of August, under the moribund 2015 nuclear deal which US President Donald Trump unilaterally torpedoed in 2018 during his first term.

The option to trigger the snapback expires in October, and Tehran has warned of consequences should the E3 opt to activate it.

Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi, who is attending the talks Friday, alongside senior Iranian diplomat Majid Takht-Ravanchi, warned this week that triggering sanctions “is completely illegal”.

He also accused European powers of “halting their commitments” to the deal after the US withdrew from it.

“We have warned them of the risks, but we are still seeking common ground to manage the situation,” said Gharibabadi.

Warning from Tehran

Iranian diplomats have previously warned that Tehran could withdraw from the global nuclear non-proliferation treaty if UN sanctions are reimposed.

Restoring sanctions would deepen Iran’s international isolation and place further pressure on its already strained economy.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar has urged European powers to trigger the mechanism. Israel’s June 13 attack on Iran came two days before Tehran and Washington were scheduled to meet for a sixth round of nuclear negotiations.

On June 22, the US struck Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz.

Before the conflict, Washington and Tehran were divided over uranium enrichment, which Iran has described as a “non-negotiable” right for civilian purposes, while the US called it a “red line”.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says Iran is enriching uranium to 60 percent purity – far above the 3.67 percent cap under the 2015 deal, but well below the 90 percent needed for weapons-grade levels.

Tehran has said it is open to discussing the rate and level of enrichment, but not the right to enrich uranium.

A year after the US withdrawal from the nuclear deal, Iran reportedly began rolling back its commitments, which had placed restrictions on its nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief.

Israel and Western powers accuse Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons – a charge Tehran has consistently denied. Both US intelligence and the IAEA said they had seen no evidence of Iran pursuing a nuclear weapon in the build-up to the June conflict.

Enrichment is ‘stopped’

Iran insists it will not abandon its nuclear programme, which Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi called a source of “national pride”.

The full extent of the damage sustained in the US bombing remains unclear. Trump has claimed the sites were “completely destroyed”, but US media reports have cast doubt over the scale of destruction.

Araghchi has noted that enrichment is currently “stopped” due to “serious and severe” damage to nuclear sites caused by US and Israeli attacks.

In an interview with Al Jazeera that aired on Wednesday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said Iran is prepared for another war and reiterated that its nuclear programme will continue within the framework of international law, adding the country had no intention of pursuing nuclear weapons.

Since the 12-day conflict, Iran has suspended cooperation with the IAEA, accusing it of bias and of failing to condemn the attacks.

Inspectors have since left the country, but a technical team is expected to return in the coming weeks, after Iran said future cooperation would take a “new form”.

Israel has warned it may resume attacks if Iran rebuilds facilities or moves towards weapons capability. Iran has pledged a “harsh response” to any future attacks.

The E3 nations meeting marks the first since Israel targeted Iran’s key nuclear and military sites in a 12-day war last month.

Iran has reaffirmed its right to enrich uranium on the eve of a key meeting with European powers threatening to reimpose nuclear sanctions.

Friday’s meeting, set to take place in Istanbul, will bring Iranian officials together with officials from Britain, France and Germany – known as the E3 nations – and will include the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas.

It will be the first since Israel’s mid-June attack targeting key Iranian nuclear and military sites led to a 12-day war that ended in a ceasefire on June 24.

“Especially after the recent war, it is important for them [European countries] to understand that the Islamic Republic of Iran’s position remains unshakable, and that our uranium enrichment will continue,” the Tasnim news agency quoted Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi as saying on Thursday.

The United States joined its ally Israel in the offensive, striking three Iranian nuclear facilities overnight between June 21 and 22.

Israel launched its attack on Iran just two days before Tehran and Washington were set to resume negotiations on Iran’s nuclear programme.

Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said on Thursday that Tehran would be prepared to engage in further talks on its nuclear programme with the US if Washington takes meaningful steps to rebuild trust.

In a social media post, Gharibabadi also said that for talks to take place with the US, Tehran would seek “several key principles” to be upheld.

These include “rebuilding Iran’s trust – as Iran has absolutely no trust in the United States”, he said, adding there could be no room “for hidden agendas such as military action, though Iran remains fully prepared for any scenario”.

Britain, France and Germany – alongside China, Russia and the US – are parties to a 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, which placed major restrictions on its atomic activities in return for the gradual lifting of United Nations sanctions.

However, in 2018, the US unilaterally withdrew from the agreement during Donald Trump’s first term as president and reimposed its own sanctions.

Britain, France and Germany maintained their support for the 2015 accord and sought to continue trade with Iran.

But they have since accused Tehran of failing to uphold its commitments and are threatening to reimpose sanctions under a clause in the agreement that expires in October – something Iran is eager to avoid.

The IAEA, the UN’s nuclear watchdog, says Iran is the only non-nuclear-armed country currently enriching uranium to 60 percent – far beyond the 3.67 percent cap set by the 2015 accord. Ninety percent enrichment is required for a nuclear weapon.

Western powers, led by the US and backed by Israel, have long accused Tehran of secretly seeking nuclear weapons.

Iran has repeatedly denied this, insisting its nuclear programme is solely for civilian purposes such as energy production.

Tehran and Washington had held five rounds of nuclear talks starting in April, but a planned meeting on June 15 was cancelled after Israel launched its strikes on Iran.

Israel’s leadership views its 12-day war with Iran last month as a success – several Iranian military leaders were killed, Iran’s defensive military capabilities were weakened, and the United States was convinced to take part in a raid on the Iranian nuclear site at Fordow.

But while Israeli leaders were quick to claim victory, they emphasised that they were ready to attack again if necessary, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu saying he had “no intention of easing off the gas pedal”.

And Israel is already looking for the next opportunity to wage another devastating conflict aimed at bringing down the Islamic Republic in Iran, analysts told Al Jazeera.

However, to do so, it would require the ‘permission’ of the US, which may not be willing to give it.

Back in mid-June, a surprise Israeli attack led to the war, in which more than 1,000 Iranians and 29 Israelis were killed.

Israel justified the war by claiming that it was acting preemptively and in “self-defence” to take out Iran’s nuclear programme, which Tehran has long said is for civilian purposes.

Speaking to Al Jazeera earlier this week, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian expressed doubt over how long the current ceasefire will remain in place.

“We are fully prepared for any new Israeli military move, and our armed forces are ready to strike deep inside Israel again,” he said.

Cause for war

Despite Israel’s emphasis that it was targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities, it mainly assassinated high-ranking government and military officials, indicating a clear attempt to weaken and possibly bring down the regime.

Trita Parsi, an expert on Iran and the cofounder and executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, a left-wing US think tank, believes Netanyahu is looking for an opportunity to resume that mission.

“The reason the Israelis want to attack again … is because they want to make sure they turn Iran into the next Syria or Lebanon – countries Israel can attack anytime with impunity,” he told Al Jazeera.

Israel’s next opportunity to muster up a pretext for a war could come after European countries reimpose debilitating sanctions on Iran.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio is reported to have held a call with his counterparts from Germany, France and the United Kingdom earlier in July, in which they agreed that United Nations Security Council sanctions would be reimposed if a new nuclear deal was not agreed upon by the end of August.

The sanctions had been lifted when Iran and several Western countries agreed on a nuclear deal in 2015.

The US pulled out of that deal two years into President Donald Trump’s first term in 2018 and restored sanctions as part of a maximum pressure campaign. Now, European parties to the deal could do the same, and that could prompt Iran to walk out of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, warned Parsi.

“That would provide [Israel] with a political window to [attack again],” he told Al Jazeera.

Meir Javedanfar, Iran lecturer at Israel’s Reichman University, added that Israel would nevertheless have to muster up or present credible intelligence that suggests Iran is rebuilding or repairing its nuclear programme.

He warned that, “to launch such an attack, Israel would need the agreement of the United States and its President Trump”, permission he regarded as less likely in light of US concern over Israeli attacks on Syria.

Israeli operations

While Israeli strikes on Iran may not be imminent, a report in The New York Times on Wednesday suggests that it is carrying out covert operations responsible for sudden explosions and fires across the country.

The paper cited three informed officials and a European diplomat who attributed the apparently random fires and explosions at apartment complexes, oil refineries, near an airport and a shoe factory, to acts of sabotage likely carried out by Israel.

“I think Benjamin Netanyahu has found a formula where it is able to attack Iran with impunity despite pushback from Donald Trump,” said Negar Mortazavi, an expert on Iran with the Center for International Policy (CIP), a think tank based in Washington, DC.

Any ongoing covert operations are a result of Israel’s extensive infiltration of Iranian security and infrastructure that became apparent during the early stages of the June conflict, with individuals targeted through what was presumed to be teams of local intelligence operatives and drones launched against Iranian targets from within Iranian territory.

There was no evidence to suggest that Israel’s network within Iran had ended with the war, analyst and Iran expert Ori Goldberg said.

“Israel has built a robust [security] system within Iran and, like all such systems, its muscles need flexing occasionally,” he said from Tel Aviv. “Sometimes this isn’t for strategic reasons, so much as tactical ones. As soon as you have infrastructure or people in place within another country, you have a limited time to use them, so if that’s setting fires or setting detonations, it’s a way of keeping them active and letting Iran know they’re there.”

Likelihood of new war

Few could have predicted the complete absence of restraint with which Netanyahu, previously a figure considered to be somewhat averse to conflict, has attacked neighbouring states, Syria and Lebanon, as well as regional actors, such as Yemen and Iran, while maintaining his brutal assault upon Gaza.

But while a renewed offensive upon Israel’s historical bogeyman, Iran, might prove popular in the face of growing internal division over Israel’s war on Gaza, how well received it might be by his principal ally remains to be seen.

“Trump is a concern and Israel will want to keep on the right side of whatever line he’s drawn [on its actions],” Goldberg said. “But Iran is a consensus issue within Israel. People might argue about Gaza, but never Iran. If Netanyahu feels himself under threat, he’s going to want to crack the Iranian whip and unify people behind him.”

Iran, for its part, won’t be caught flat-footed a second time, say analysts.

Mortazavi told Al Jazeera that Iran is expecting Israel to continue its aggression, even as it still holds out hope to reach a deal on its nuclear programme through diplomacy.

“I think they know that a deal will reduce the chances of an Israeli attack,” she said.

Iranian state media describe the confrontation as ‘tense’, while US military says the encounter was ‘professional’.

Iran has said it warned a United States Navy destroyer to change course as it approached Iranian territorial waters in the Gulf of Oman, but the US has claimed the confrontation was “professional” and had “no impact” on its naval mission.

Iranian state media published video and images of Wednesday’s incident – the first direct encounter reported between Iranian and US forces since the 12-day war between Iran and Israel in June – taken from a helicopter dispatched to confront the USS Fitzgerald guided missile destroyer.

“US destroyer ‘Fitzgerald’ attempted to approach waters under Iran’s monitoring, in a provocative move”, Iranian state television said.

In video footage of the reported encounter, a helicopter is seen flying in close proximity to the warship and an Iranian crew member can be heard issuing what appeared to be a radio warning in English to the warship, ordering it to change course as it was approaching Iran’s territorial waters at about 10am local time (06:00 GMT).

Iranian state media have described the encounter as a tense exchange.

IRGC-affiliated Tasnim News on Wednesday released footage it claimed showed an Iranian navy helicopter forcing the USS Fitzgerald, a US guided missile destroyer, to alter its course. The report said the warship had approached waters under Iran’s supervision in the Sea of Oman. pic.twitter.com/gcfMQ23K6f

— Iran International English (@IranIntl_En) July 23, 2025

The US destroyer reportedly responded by threatening to target the Iranian aircraft if it did not leave. The vessel eventually departed the area upon continued warnings from the Iranian military.

US Central Command disputed the Iranian account of tension, calling the incident a “safe and professional interaction”.

Asked about the encounter, a US defence official, speaking on condition of anonymity with the Reuters news agency, also downplayed its seriousness.

“This interaction had no impact to USS Fitzgerald’s mission, and any reports claiming otherwise are falsehoods and attempts by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to spread misinformation,” the official said.

The official, who said the interaction took place entirely in international waters, identified the aircraft as an Iranian SH-3 “Sea King” helicopter.

The US military inserted itself into Israel’s war against Iran last month when it bombed Iranian nuclear sites. US President Donald Trump hailed the strikes as a “spectacular” success that “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear programme.

But media reports in the US, citing intelligence assessments, suggest the campaign was only partially successful, with just one of the three Iranian nuclear sites – the Fordow facility – reportedly destroyed.

In an interview broadcast on Wednesday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said Tehran was committed to continuing its nuclear programme for peaceful purposes, and that his country is prepared for any future war that Israel might wage against it.

He added that he was not optimistic about the ceasefire between the countries.

Tehran, Iran – The wave of Afghan refugees and migrants being sent back from Iran has not stopped, with more than 410,000 being pushed out since the end of the 12-day war with Israel on June 24.

More than 1.5 million Afghan refugees and migrants have been sent back in 2025, according to the United Nations’ International Organization for Migration (IOM), while the Red Cross says more than one million people more could be sent back by the end of the year.

Iran has been hosting Afghans for decades. While it has periodically expelled irregular arrivals, it has now taken its efforts to unprecedented levels after the war with Israel that killed more than 1,000 people in Iran, many of them civilians.

Iran has also been building a wall along its massive eastern borders with Afghanistan and Pakistan to stem the flow of irregular migration, and smuggled drugs and fuel.

The parliament is also planning for a national migration organisation that would take over its efforts to crack down on irregular migration.

‘I’m afraid’

“I feel like we’re being singled out because we’re easy targets and don’t have many options,” said Ahmad*, a 27-year-old undocumented Afghan migrant who came to Iran four years ago.

Like others, he had to work construction and manual labour jobs before managing to get hired as the custodian of an old residential building in the western part of the capital, Tehran.

At the current rate of Iran’s heavily devalued currency, he gets paid the equivalent of about $80 a month, which is wired to the bank card of an Iranian citizen because he cannot have an account in his name.

He has a small spot where he can sleep in the building and tries to send money to his family in Afghanistan whenever possible.

“I don’t really leave the building that much because I’m afraid I’ll be sent back. I don’t know how much longer I can live like this,” he told Al Jazeera.

Vahid Golikani, who heads the foreign nationals’ department of the governor’s office in Tehran, told state media last week that undocumented migrants must not be employed to protect local labour.

Daily returns, which include expulsions and voluntary returns, climbed steeply after the start of the war, with average daily returns exceeding 29,600 in the week starting July 10, said Mai Sato, UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran.

She was among four special rapporteurs who decried the mass returns on Thursday, adding their voice to rights organisations such as Amnesty International.

“Afghanistan remains unsafe under Taliban rule. These mass returns violate international law and put vulnerable people, especially women, children, and minorities, at severe risk of persecution and violence,” Sato said.

Alleged security risks

Authorities and state media have said undocumented immigrants may pose a security risk, alleging that some of them were paid by Israel to carry out tasks inside Iran.

While state television has aired confessions from a handful of unidentified imprisoned Afghans, but their numbers do not seem to match the scale of the expulsions.

The televised confessions featured men with covered eyes and blurred-out faces saying they had sent photographs and information online to anonymous handlers linked with Mossad.

Hundreds of Iranians have also been arrested on suspicion of working for Israel, and several Iranians have been executed over the past weeks as the government works to increase legal punishments for spying.

Mohammad Mannan Raeesi, a member of parliament from the ultraconservative city of Qom, said during a state television interview last week, “We don’t have a single migrant from Afghanistan among the Israeli spies.”

He pointed out that some Afghans have fought and died for Iran, and that attempts to expel irregular arrivals should avoid xenophobia.

Economic pressures

Before the latest wave of forced returns, Iranian authorities reported the official number of Afghan refugees and migrants at a whopping 6.1 million, with many speculating the real number was much higher.

Only about 780,000 have been given official refugee status by the government.

Supporting millions of refugees and migrants, regular and irregular, takes a toll on a government that spends billions annually on hidden subsidies on essentials like fuel, electricity and bread for everyone in the country.

Since 2021, there have been complaints among some Iranians about the economic impact of hosting millions who poured into Iran unchecked in the aftermath of the Taliban’s chaotic takeover of Afghanistan.

Amid increasing hostility towards the Afghan arrivals over the past years, local newspapers and social media have increasingly highlighted reports of crimes like theft and rape allegedly committed by Afghan migrants. However, no official statistics on such crimes have been released.

That has not stopped some Iranians, along with a large number of anonymous accounts online, from cheering on the mass returns, with popular hashtags in Farsi on X and other social media portraying the returns as a “national demand”.

Again, there are no reliable statistics or surveys that show what portion of the Iranian population backs the move, or under what conditions.

Some tearful migrants told Afghan media after being returned from Iran that security forces beat or humiliated them while putting them on buses to the border.

Others said they were abruptly deported with only the clothes on their back, and were unable to get their last paycheques, savings, or downpayments made for their rented homes.

Some of those with legal documentation have not been spared, as reports emerged in recent weeks of Afghan refugees and migrants being deported after having their documents shredded by police.

Government spokeswoman Fatemeh Mohajerani and Interior Minister Eskandar Momeni have separately said the government is only seeking undocumented migrants.

“In cases where legal residents have been deported, those instances have been investigated,” Momeni said last week, adding that over 70 percent of those returned came forward voluntarily after the government set a deadline to leave for early July.

‘I sense a lot of anger among the people’

For those Afghans who remain in Iran, a host of other restrictions make life difficult.

They are barred from entering dozens of Iranian cities. Their work permits may not be renewed every year, or the renewal fees could be hiked suddenly. They are unable to buy property, cars or even SIM cards for their mobile phones.

They are seldom given citizenship and face difficulties in getting their children into Iranian schools.

Zahra Aazim, a 22-year-old teacher and video editor of Afghan origin based in Tehran, said she did not truly feel the extent of the restrictions associated with living in Iran for Afghans until a few years ago.

Her family migrated to Iran about 45 years ago, shortly after Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution that brought the incumbent theocratic establishment to power.

“What really bugs me is the fact that I was born in Iran, and my family has been living here for over four decades, but I’m still unable to get something as basic as a driver’s licence.

“That’s not to mention fundamental documents like a national ID card or an Iran-issued birth certificate,” she told Al Jazeera.

By law, those documents are reserved for Iranian nationals. Afghan-origin people can apply if their mother is Iranian or if they are a woman married to an Iranian man.

Aazim said Iran’s rules have only gotten stricter over the years. But things took a sharp turn after the war, and she has received hundreds of threatening or insulting messages online since.

“I’ve been hearing from other Afghan-origin friends in Iran … that this is no longer a place where we can live,” she said.

“A friend called me with the same message after the war. I thought she meant she’s thinking about moving to another country or going back to Afghanistan. I never thought her last resort would be [taking her own life].”

Aazim also said her 23-year-old brother was taken by police from a Tehran cafe – and later released – on suspicion of espionage.

The incident, along with videos of violence against Afghans that are circulating on social media, has made her feel unsafe.

“I sense a lot of anger among the Iranian people, even in some of my Iranian friends. When you can’t lash out against those in power above, you start to look for people at lower levels to blame,” she said.

“I’m not saying don’t take any action if you have security concerns about Afghan migrants … I just wish they would treat us respectfully.

“Respect has nothing to do with nationality, ethnicity or geography.”

*Name has been changed for the individual’s protection.

Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs Abbas Araghchi has said that Tehran cannot give up on its uranium enrichment programme, which was severely damaged by waves of US and Israeli air strikes last month.

“It is now stopped because, yes, damages are serious and severe, but obviously, we cannot give up our enrichment because it is an achievement of our own scientists, and now, more than that, it is a question of national pride,” Araghchi told the US broadcaster Fox News in an interview aired on Monday.

Araghchi said at the beginning of the interview that Iran is “open to talks” with the United States, but that they would not be direct talks “for the time being”.

“If they [the US] are coming for a win-win solution, I am ready to engage with them,” he said.

“We are ready to do any confidence-building measure needed to prove that Iran’s nuclear programme is peaceful and would remain peaceful forever, and Iran would never go for nuclear weapons, and in return, we expect them to lift their sanctions,” the foreign minister added.

“So, my message to the United States is that let’s go for a negotiated solution for Iran’s nuclear programme.”

Araghchi’s comments were part of a 16-minute interview aired on Fox News, a broadcaster known to be closely watched by US President Donald Trump.

“There is a negotiated solution for our nuclear programme. We have done it once in the past. We are ready to do it once again,” Araghchi said.

Tehran and Washington had been holding talks on the nuclear programme earlier this year, seven years after Trump pulled the US out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which Tehran signed with several world powers in 2015. Under the pact, Iran opened the country’s nuclear sites to comprehensive international inspection in return for the lifting of sanctions.

Trump’s decision to pull the US out of the deal came after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Iran of pursuing a “secret nuclear programme“.

Iran has long maintained that its nuclear enrichment programme is strictly for civilian purposes.

The US and Iran engaged in talks as recently as May to reach a new deal, but those negotiations broke down when Israel launched surprise bombing raids across Iran on June 13, targeting military and nuclear sites.

More than 900 people were killed in Iran, and at least 28 people were killed in Israel before a ceasefire took hold on June 24.

The US also joined Israel in attacking Iranian nuclear facilities, with the Pentagon later claiming it had set back the country’s nuclear programme by one to two years.

Araghchi said on Monday that Iran’s Atomic Energy Organisation is still evaluating how the attacks had affected Iran’s enriched material, adding that they will “soon inform” the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of its findings.

He said any request for the IAEA to send inspectors would be “carefully considered”.

“We have not stopped our cooperation with the agency,” he claimed.

IAEA inspectors left Iran after Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian signed a law suspending cooperation with the IAEA earlier this month.

Tehran had sharply criticised the IAEA and its chief, Rafael Grossi, over a June 12 resolution passed by the IAEA board accusing Tehran of non-compliance with its nuclear obligations.

Iranian officials said the resolution was among the “excuses” that Israel used as a pretext to launch its attacks, which began on June 13 and lasted for 12 days.

Speaking to journalists earlier on Monday, Stephane Dujarric, the spokesperson for the United Nations secretary-general, said that the UN welcomed renewed “dialogue between the Europeans and the Iranians”, referring to talks set to take place between Iran, France, Germany and the United Kingdom in Turkiye on Friday.

The three European parties to the former JCPOA agreement have said that Tehran’s failure to resume negotiations would lead to international sanctions being reimposed on Iran.

Washington, DC – New media reports in the United States, citing intelligence assessments, have cast doubt over President Donald Trump’s assertion that Washington’s military strikes last month “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear programme.

The Washington Post and NBC News reported that US officials were saying that only one of the three Iranian nuclear sites – the Fordow facility – targeted by the US has been destroyed.

The Post’s report, released on Friday, also raised questions on whether the centrifuges used to enrich uranium at the deepest level of Fordow were destroyed or moved before the attack.

“We definitely can’t say it was obliterated,” an unidentified official told the newspaper, referring to Iran’s nuclear programme.

Trump has insisted that the US strikes were a “spectacular” success, lashing out at any reports questioning the level of damage they inflicted on Iran’s nuclear programme.

An initial US intelligence assessment, leaked to several media outlets after the attack last month, said the strikes failed to destroy key components of Iran’s nuclear programme and only delayed its work by months.

But the Pentagon said earlier in July that the attacks degraded the Iranian programme by one to two years.

While the strikes on Fordow – initially thought to be the most guarded facility, buried inside a mountain – initially took centre stage, the NBC News and Washington Post reports suggested that the facilities in Natanz and Isfahan also had deep tunnels.

‘Impenetrable’

The US military did not use enormous bunker-busting bombs against the Isfahan site and targeted surface infrastructure instead.

A congressional aide familiar with intelligence briefings told the Post that the Pentagon had assessed that the underground facilities at Isfahan were “pretty much impenetrable”.

The Pentagon responded to both reports by reiterating that all three sites were “completely and totally obliterated”.

Israel, which started the war by attacking Iran without direct provocation last month, has backed the US administration’s assessment, while threatening further strikes against Tehran if it resumes its nuclear programme.

For its part, Tehran has not provided details about the state of its nuclear sites.

Some Iranian officials have said that the facilities sustained significant damage from US and Israeli attacks. But Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei said after the war that Trump had “exaggerated” the impact of the strikes.

The location and state of Iran’s highly enriched uranium also remain unknown.

Iran’s nuclear agency and regulators in neighbouring states have said they did not detect a spike in radioactivity after the bombings, suggesting the strikes did not result in uranium contamination.

But Rafael Grossi, the head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, did not rule out that the uranium containers may have been damaged in the attacks.

“We don’t know where this material could be or if part of it could have been under the attack during those 12 days,” Grossi told CBS News last month.

According to Grossi, Iran could resume uranium enrichment in a “matter of months”.

The war

Israel launched a massive attack against Iran on June 13, killing several top military officials, as well as nuclear scientists.

The bombing campaign targeted military sites, civilian infrastructure and residential buildings across the country, killing hundreds of civilians.

Iran responded with barrages of missiles against Israel that left widespread destruction and claimed the lives of at least 29 people.

The US joined the Israeli campaign on June 22, striking the three nuclear sites. Iran retaliated with a missile attack against an air base housing US troops in Qatar.

Initially, Trump said the Iranian attack was thwarted, but after satellite images showed damage at the base, the Pentagon acknowledged that one of the missiles was not intercepted.

“One Iranian ballistic missile impacted Al Udeid Air Base June 23 while the remainder of the missiles were intercepted by US and Qatari air defence systems,” Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell told Al Jazeera in an email last week.

“The impact did minimal damage to equipment and structures on the base. There were no injuries.”

After a ceasefire was reached to end the 12-day war, both the US and Iran expressed willingness to engage in diplomacy to resolve the nuclear file. But talks have not materialised.

Iran and the US were periodically holding nuclear talks before Israel launched its war in June.

EU-Iran talks

During his first term in 2018, Trump withdrew the US from the 2015 multilateral nuclear agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

The agreement saw Iran scale back its nuclear programme in exchange for lifting international sanctions against its economy.

In recent days, European officials have suggested that they could impose “snap-back” sanctions against Iran as part of the deal that has long been violated by the US.

Tehran, which started enriching uranium beyond the limits set by the JCPOA after the US withdrawal, insists that Washington was the party that nixed the agreement, stressing that the deal acknowledges Iran’s enrichment rights.

I had a joint teleconference with E3 FMs & EU HR last night, in which I made the following points clear:

It was the US that withdrew from a two-year negotiated deal -coordinated by EU in 2015- not Iran; and it was US that left the negotiation table in June this year and chose a… pic.twitter.com/NFQdK2HZD4

— Seyed Abbas Araghchi (@araghchi) July 18, 2025

On Friday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said he held talks with the top diplomats of France, the United Kingdom and Germany – known as the E3 – as well as the European Union’s high representative.

Araghchi said Europeans should put aside “worn-out policies of threat and pressure”.

“It was the US that withdrew from a two-year negotiated deal – coordinated by EU in 2015 – not Iran; and it was US that left the negotiation table in June this year and chose a military option instead, not Iran,” the Iranian foreign minister said in a social media post.

“Any new round of talks is only possible when the other side is ready for a fair, balanced, and mutually beneficial nuclear deal.”

Tehran denies seeking a nuclear bomb. Israel, meanwhile, is widely believed to have an undeclared nuclear arsenal.

Ten years ago, Iran and world powers signed a historic nuclear deal, easing sanctions in return for limits on Tehran’s nuclear programme.

Since then, the United States pulled out, and just weeks ago, joined Israel in attacking Iran.

What’s the legacy of this deal and its collapse?

Presenter: James Bays

Guests:

Alan Eyre – Member of US nuclear deal team (2010-2015)

Abas Aslani – Senior research fellow, Center for Middle East Strategic Studies

Robert Kelley – Distinguished fellow, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute

More details emerge on June assassination attempt on President Masoud Pezeshkian and other officials by Israel.

Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian suffered minor injuries in an Israeli air strike on a meeting of the Supreme National Security Council in Tehran on June 15, a senior Iranian official said.

The assassination attempt targeted the heads of the three branches of government in an effort to overthrow it, said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

“This attempt will not pass without Israel paying a price,” he told Al Jazeera.

The strike was carried out shortly before noon during a meeting attended by the heads of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the government along with other senior officials.

The semiofficial Fars news agency also reported new details on the assassination attempt during Israel’s 12-day war with Iran, which was first announced by the Iranian president in an interview released on Monday.

The session was taking place in the lower level of a government facility in western Tehran when the attack started, Fars reported. The building’s entrances and exits were hit by six missiles to block escape routes and cut off air flow.

Electricity was severed following the explosions, but Iranian officials managed to escape through a pre-designated emergency hatch, including the president, who is said to have sustained minor leg injuries while evacuating.

The news agency said authorities launched an investigation into the possible presence of Israeli spies given the accuracy of the intelligence the “enemy” possessed.

‘They did try’

Last week, Pezeshkian said in an interview with US media figure Tucker Carlson that Israel attempted to assassinate him. “They did try, yes … but they failed,” he said.

“It was not the United States that was behind the attempt on my life. It was Israel. I was in a meeting… They tried to bombard the area in which we were holding that meeting.”

The comments come less than a month after Israel launched its unprecedented June 13 bombing campaign against Iran, killing top military commanders and nuclear scientists.

The Israeli attacks took place two days before Tehran and Washington were set to meet for a new round of nuclear talks, stalling negotiations aimed at reaching a deal over Iran’s atomic programme.

At least 1,060 people were killed in Iran during the conflict, according to Iran’s Foundation of Martyrs and Veterans Affairs.

The Israeli attacks drew waves of retaliatory drone and missile fire, killing 28 people in Israel, according to authorities.

Iran targeted Israeli military and intelligence headquarters with ballistic missiles and drones before the US brokered a ceasefire.

Israeli settlers have beaten to death a United States citizen in the occupied West Bank, the victim’s family members and rights groups have said.

Settlers attacked and killed Sayfollah Musallet – who was in his early 20s – in the town of Sinjil, north of Ramallah, on Friday, according to the Palestinian Health Ministry.

Musallet, also known as Saif al-Din Musalat, had travelled from his home in Florida to visit family in Palestine, his cousin Fatmah Muhammad said in a social media post.

Another Palestinian, identified by the Health Ministry as Mohammed Shalabi, was fatally shot by settlers during the attack.

Rights advocates have documented repeated instances where Israeli settlers in the West Bank ransack Palestinian neighbourhoods and towns, burning homes and vehicles in attacks sometimes described as pogroms.

The Israeli military often protects the settlers during their rampages and has shot Palestinians who show any resistance.

The United Nations and other prominent human rights organisations consider the Israeli settlements in the West Bank violations of international law, as part of a broader strategy to displace Palestinians.

While some Western countries like France and Australia have imposed sanctions on violent settlers, attacks have increased since the outbreak of Israel’s war in Gaza in October 2023.

When Donald Trump took office earlier this year, his administration revoked sanctions on settlers imposed by his predecessor, Joe Biden.

Israeli forces have killed at least nine US citizens since 2022, including veteran Al Jazeera reporter Shireen Abu Akleh.

But none of the incidents have resulted in criminal charges.

The US provides billions of dollars to Israel every year. Advocates have accused successive US administrations of failing to protect American citizens from Israeli violence in the Middle East.

On Friday, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) called on Washington to ensure accountability for the killing of Musallet.

“Every other murder of an American citizen has gone unpunished by the American government, which is why the Israeli government keeps wantonly killing American Palestinians and, of course, other Palestinians,” CAIR deputy director Edward Ahmed Mitchell said in a statement.

He then pointed out that Trump has repeatedly promised to prioritise American interests, as typified by his campaign slogan “America First”.

“If President Trump will not even put America first when Israel murders American citizens, then this is truly an Israel First administration,” Mitchell said.

The Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU) also called for action from the US administration, noting that settlers are “lynching Palestinians more frequently – with full support from Israel’s army and government”.

“The US government has a legal and moral obligation to stop Israel’s racist violence against Palestinians. Instead, it’s still backing and funding it,” the group said in a statement.

The US Department of State did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment about the killing of Musallet.

The Palestinian group Hamas condemned the murder of Musallet, describing it as “barbaric”, and called on Palestinians across the West Bank to rise up to “confront the settlers and their terrorist attacks”.

Israel said it was “investigating” what happened in Sinjil, claiming that the violence started when Palestinians threw rocks at an Israeli vehicle.

“Shortly thereafter, violent clashes developed in the area between Palestinians and Israeli civilians, which included the destruction of Palestinian property, arson, physical confrontations, and stone-throwing,” the Israeli military said in a statement.

Israeli investigations often lead to no charges or meaningful accountability for the abuses of Israeli officers and settlers.

As settler and military violence intensifies in the West Bank, Israel has killed at least  57,762 Palestinians in Gaza in a campaign that rights groups have described as a genocide.

Washington, DC – The United States government has acknowledged its use of Canary Mission — a shadowy pro-Israel website — to identify pro-Palestine students for deportation, sparking anger and concern by rights advocates.

Activists have long suspected that the administration of US President Donald Trump is gathering information from the Canary Mission website to target students and professors.

But on Wednesday, that suspicion was confirmed when a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official testified in a court case challenging Trump’s efforts to deport pro-Palestinian student protesters.

Peter Hatch, an agent with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), said the department had assembled a specialised group — dubbed a “tiger team” — to work on removing pro-Palestine college students from the country.

He indicated to the court that some tips about students were communicated verbally, before explaining that the team had also combed through the nearly 5,000 profiles Canary Mission had compiled of Israel’s critics.

“You mean someone said, ‘Here is a list that the Canary Mission has put together?’” Judge William Young asked Hatch, according to court transcripts.

The official answered with a simple “yes”.

Heba Gowayed, a sociology professor at the City University of New York (CUNY), said the government’s reliance on an online blacklist that posts personal information to harm and intimidate activists is “absurd and fascist”.

“Canary Mission is a doxxing website that specifically targets people for language that they deem to be pro-Palestinian and therefore, they’ve decided, is anti-Semitic. Its sole purpose is to target and harass people,” Gowayed told Al Jazeera.

“How do you use a hate group … to identify people for whether or not they have the right to be present in the country?”

The crackdown

As demonstrations opposing the Israeli atrocities in Gaza swept college campuses last year, Israel’s advocates portrayed the protest movement as anti-Semitic and a threat to the safety of Jewish students.

While activists pushed back against the accusations, saying that the protests were aimed at combatting human rights abuses against Palestinians, conservative leaders called to crush the demonstrations and penalise the participants.

Shortly after returning to the White House in January, Trump himself signed a series of executive orders that laid the groundwork for targeting non-citizens who took part in the student protests for deportation.

“It shall be the policy of the United States to combat anti-Semitism vigorously,” one of the orders read.

It called on government officials to create systems to “monitor for and report activities by alien students and staff”.

In March, Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil — a permanent resident married to a US citizen — became the first prominent victim of Trump’s campaign.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio invoked a seldom-used provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act to order Khalil’s removal, on the basis that the Columbia student’s presence has “adverse” effects on American foreign policy.

After Khalil, many other students were detained by immigration authorities. Some left the country voluntarily to avoid imprisonment. Others, like Khalil, continue to fight their deportation.

Free speech advocates decried the campaign as a blatant violation of constitutionally protected freedoms.

But the Trump administration asserted that the issue is an immigration matter that falls under its mandate.

Before last year’s presidential elections, the Heritage Foundation, a prominent right-wing think tank, released a policy document titled Project Esther designed to dismantle the Palestine solidarity movement in the US.

Project Esther called for identifying students and professors critical of Israel who are in violation of their visas, and it cited Canary Mission extensively.

A ‘witch hunt’ against students

For years, Palestinian rights advocates have condemned Canary Mission for publishing identifying information about activists — their names, photos and employment histories — while keeping its own staff anonymous.

In its ongoing deportation campaign against student activists, the Trump administration has said that it is targeting students who engaged in violent conduct, promoted anti-Semitism and had ties to “terrorist” groups.

But none of the prominent students detained by ICE have been charged with a crime, and some only engaged in mild criticism of Israel.

For example, the only accusation against Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish scholar at Tufts University, is that she co-authored an op-ed asking her school to honour a student resolution calling for divestment from Israeli companies.

That column, published in the university’s student newspaper, landed Ozturk on the Canary Mission’s blacklist, which appears to have led to the Trump administration’s push to deport her.

Andrew Ross, a New York University professor of social and cultural analysis, said the US administration’s use of Canary Mission’s data shows that the government’s push is “sloppy” and biased.

He added that while Canary Mission appears well funded, its content is curated to paint its targets in a certain light.

“They’re looking for material and content that they can manipulate and spin and present as if the person being profiled is anti-Semitic basically,” said Ross, who has his own Canary Mission profile for criticising Israel.

The professor accused the Trump administration of “fundamental dishonesty”, describing the deportation campaign as a “witch hunt”.

How does Canary Mission work?

While Canary Mission does not appear to fabricate data, it portrays criticism of Israel as bigoted and dangerous.

Some profiles denounce individuals for actions as innocuous as sharing materials from Amnesty International condemning Israeli abuses.

The profiles seem to be optimised for internet searches. So, even if the accusations lack merit, targeted individuals often report that their Canary Mission profiles sit at the top of online searches for their names.

Advocates say the tactic can have a detrimental impact on careers, mental health and safety.

“It has caused people to lose jobs. It has caused people all kinds of adverse effects,” Gowayed said.

For his part, Ross said he has received hate mail because of Canary Mission. He worries the website can be especially harmful for marginalised groups.

“Those, as we are seeing, who don’t have full citizenship status are particularly vulnerable at this point in time. But it could be anyone,” he said.

The website was founded in 2015, and it has been expanding since. Nevertheless, barring a few media leaks over the years, the operators and funders of Canary Mission remain anonymous.

In 2018, Haaretz reported that Israeli authorities have relied on the website to detain people and bar them from entering the country.

That same year, the outlet The Forward found that Canary Mission is linked to an Israel-based non-profit called Megamot Shalom. Since then, media reports have revealed the names of a few wealthy American donors who have made contributions to the website through a network of Jewish charities.

‘Silencing dissent’

On Thursday, Palestine Legal, an advocacy group, accused the Trump administration of racism for relying on the website.

“Under Trump, ICE has now publicly admitted they are abducting pro-Palestinian student activists based on an anonymously-run blacklist site,” Palestine Legal said in a social media post.

“Both the mass deportation machine, and these horrific blacklists, clearly run on racism.”

J Street, a group that describes itself as pro-Israel and pro-peace, also decried the government’s use of the website.

“Canary Mission is feeding the Trump Administration’s agenda, weaponizing antisemitism to surveil and attempt to deport student activists,” it said. “This isn’t about protecting Jews — it’s about silencing dissent.”

The State Department did not respond to Al Jazeera’s query on the government’s use of Canary Mission. Instead, a department spokesperson referred to a statement by Secretary of State Rubio from May.

“The bottom line is, if you’re coming here to stir up trouble on our campuses, we will deny you a visa. And if you have a visa, and we find you, we will revoke it,” it said.

DHS did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

But the Trump administration may also be using more extreme sources than Canary Mission to deport students.

At Wednesday’s court hearing, Hatch was asked about other sources the government is using. He replied that there was one other website he could not recall.

The court asked Hatch if it might be Betar, a far-right, Islamophobic group with links to the violent Kahanist movement in Israel.

According to transcripts, Hatch replied, “That sounds right.”

Gowayed, the City University of New York professor, called the government’s approach an “egregious overstep and distortion of any kind of notion of justice or legality”.

But she added: “What is more troubling to me is they don’t know which hate group they used.”

Washington, DC – The White House says Donald Trump’s “utmost priority” in the Middle East is to end the war in Gaza.

But as the United States president hosts Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu this week, the two leaders have heaped praise on each other. Meanwhile, Israel continues its assault on the Palestinian territory, where more than 57,575 people have been killed.

Analysts say that, if Trump is truly seeking a lasting ceasefire in Gaza, he must leverage his country’s military aid to Israel to pressure Netanyahu to agree to a deal.

Brian Finucane, a senior adviser with the International Crisis Group nonprofit, drew a parallel between Trump’s mixed messaging and that of his predecessor Joe Biden. Both men, he said, called for a ceasefire but showed unwillingness to press Israel to end the fighting.

“It’s like deja vu with the Biden administration, where you would hear similar pronouncements from the White House,” said Finucane.

“If a ceasefire is indeed the ‘utmost priority’ of the White House, it has the leverage to bring it about.”

The US provides Israel with billions of dollars in military assistance each year, on top of offering it diplomatic backing at international forums like the United Nations.

While US officials expressed optimism about reaching a 60-day truce this week that could lead to a permanent ceasefire, Netanyahu told reporters in Washington, DC, that Israel still has to “still to finish the job in Gaza” and eliminate the armed group Hamas.

Finucane, a former State Department lawyer, described Netanyahu’s comments as “maximalist rhetoric” and “bluster”, stressing that Trump can push Israel to stop the war.

He said Trump can use the “threat of suspension of military support” to achieve the ceasefire, “which very much would be in the interest of the United States and the interest of the president himself in terms of scoring a diplomatic win”.

Trump and Netanyahu ‘in lockstep’

Netanyahu arrived in Washington, DC, on Monday and took a victory lap with Trump to celebrate their joint attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities during a 12-day war last month.

From the start, the Israeli prime minister appeared to play to Trump’s ego. As he sat down to a White House dinner on Monday night, Netanyahu announced he had nominated the US president for a Nobel Peace Prize.

The two leaders met again on Tuesday, with Trump saying that their talks would be all about Gaza and the truce proposal.

A day later, Netanyahu said he and Trump are “in lockstep” over Gaza.

“President Trump wants a deal, but not at any price,” the Israeli prime minister said. “I want a deal, but not at any price. Israel has security requirements and other requirements, and we’re working together to try to achieve it.”

But Annelle Sheline, a research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said that Israel is the party standing in the way of a ceasefire. She noted that Hamas has already demanded a lasting end to the war, which is what the Trump administration says it is seeking.

“While we know Trump has said he wants a ceasefire, thus far we’ve not seen Trump being willing to use America’s extensive leverage to actually get there,” Sheline told Al Jazeera.

Far from stopping the flow of arms to Israel, the Trump administration has taken pride in resuming the transfer of heavy bombs — the only weapons that Biden temporarily withheld during the war on Gaza.

Dire situation in Gaza

While truce talks are ongoing, the horrors of Israel’s war on Gaza — which UN experts and rights groups have described as a genocide — are intensifying.

Hospitals are running out of fuel. Cases of preventable diseases are on the rise. Hunger is rampant. And hundreds of people have been killed by Israeli fire over the past weeks while trying to receive food at US-backed, privately run aid distribution sites.

Nancy Okail, the president of the Center for International Policy, said Trump appears to be interested in a Gaza ceasefire in part to boost his own image as a peacemaker and to win a Nobel Peace Prize.

During the presidential campaign, Trump promised to bring peace to the world, seizing on Americans’ weariness of war after the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But so far, he has failed to end the wars in Ukraine and Gaza. And he oversaw the outbreak of war between Israel and Iran, even ordering the US’s participation in it.

The US president took credit for a Gaza truce that came into effect in January, only to let it unravel as he supported Israel’s decision to resume the war in March.

Okail said the atrocities in Gaza cannot be stopped with just verbal calls for a ceasefire.

“If it is not accompanied by action — as in the suspension of aid or suspension of arms to Israel — Netanyahu doesn’t have any reason to actually go forward seriously with the peace negotiations,” she told Al Jazeera.

Netanyahu pushes displacement

Even if a 60-day truce is reached, rights advocates are concerned that Israel not only may return to war afterwards, but it might also use the time to drive Palestinians out of Gaza and further entrench its occupation.

Hamas said on Wednesday that it agreed to release 10 Israeli captives as part of the proposed deal, but the remaining sticking points are about the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and guarantees for a permanent ceasefire.

Before Netanyahu arrived in Washington, DC, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz revealed a plan to create a concentration camp for Palestinians in southern Gaza, according to the newspaper Haaretz.

The publication quoted Katz as saying that Israel would implement an “emigration plan” to remove Palestinians from Gaza, which rights groups say would amount to ethnic cleansing, a crime against humanity.

The idea of depopulating Gaza is not new. Far-right Israeli ministers have been publicly championing it since the start of the war.

But the international community started taking the idea seriously when Trump floated it in February, as part of his desire to turn Gaza into the “Riviera of the Middle East”.

Netanyahu brought it up again during his visit, saying that Palestinians in Gaza should be free to leave the territory if they choose.

‘Involuntary transfer’

While the Trump administration has not re-endorsed the ethnic cleansing scheme in Gaza this week, the White House still suggested that Palestinians cannot remain in Gaza.

“This has become an uninhabitable place for human beings, and the president has a big heart,” Trump’s spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters.

“He wants this to be a prosperous, safe part of the region where people and families can thrive.”​​

Rights advocates have stressed that people under bombardment and with no access to basic necessities cannot have a “free” choice to stay or leave a place.

Sheline said the international fears that Trump and Netanyahu are working to ethnically cleanse Gaza and displace its Palestinian residents elsewhere are warranted.

“There was a lot of discussion of the idea that, maybe because the US helped Israel with its war on Iran, that would be the leverage used for a ceasefire in Gaza,” she said.

“But instead, it sort of seems to be something like: If Netanyahu agrees to a ceasefire, then the US will facilitate this involuntary transfer of Palestinians out of Gaza.”

For her part, Okail likened pushing people to leave Gaza under the threat of bombardment and starvation to shoving Palestinians out of the enclave at gunpoint.

“If expanding the occupation and ethnic cleansing is their approach to ceasefire, it means they want to kill any ceasefire attempt, not negotiate one,” she told Al Jazeera.