long

Health and environment advocacy groups in the United States are suing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw a key 2009 climate change ruling known as the “endangerment finding”.

That finding had established that greenhouse gases are a risk to public health and environmental safety, given that they are the primary drivers of climate change. It formed the legal basis for many regulatory policies aimed at curbing climate change.

When US President Donald Trump, who has called climate change a “hoax” and a “con job”, rescinded the declaration in February this year, the EPA supported the move, deeming it the “single largest deregulatory action in US history”.

The lawsuit, filed on Wednesday this week, alleges that the Trump administration’s decision will risk the health and welfare of US citizens.

“Repealing the Endangerment Finding endangers all of us. People everywhere will face more pollution, higher costs, and thousands of avoidable deaths,” Peter Zalzal, the associate vice president of clean air strategies at the Environmental Defense Fund, one of the plaintiffs, said in a statement.

Trump’s revocation of the endangerment finding is the latest in a series of steps he has taken to prioritise deregulation, boost fossil fuel production and reverse climate regulations.

But Trump is not the first US president to enact policy damaging to the environment. Here’s how decades of US policy have harmed the environment before he arrived in the White House

What is the ‘endangerment finding’?

The endangerment finding was established under the presidency of Democrat Barack Obama. It states that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare.

That ruling allowed the EPA under President Obama to move forward on policy aimed at limit the release of greenhouse gases in the US, Michael Kraft, professor emeritus of political science and public and environmental affairs at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, told Al Jazeera.

Under the endangerment finding, power plants were required to meet federal limits on carbon emissions or risk being shut down. This forced oil and gas companies to invest more to detect and fix methane leaks, curb flaring, and improve tailpipe and fuel‑economy standards to enable automobile companies to manufacture more efficient, lower‑emitting vehicles.

What does rescinding it mean?

“By allowing for increased pollution, these recent changes [by the Trump administration] will harm practically every single person on the planet,” Washington, DC-based policy researcher Brett Heinz told Al Jazeera.

“People living near fossil fuel facilities will be some of the most immediately affected, as they will be exposed to the new air and water pollution unleashed by deregulatory policies,” Heinz added.

Without the endangerment finding in place, the EPA has lost a key legal basis on which to limit greenhouse gas emissions, making it easier for coal plants, oil refineries and petrochemical complexes to run older, dirtier equipment for longer, expand without installing modern pollution controls, and emit more soot, smog‑forming gases and toxic chemicals into nearby communities.

Heinz explained that higher greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels in power plants, cars and industry as well as continued deforestation will also amplify the dangers posed by natural disasters. This is because increased warming exacerbates heatwaves, storms, floods and droughts, and raises sea levels – all of which turn existing natural hazards into more frequent and more destructive disasters.

“The only people who will benefit from these decisions are a small handful of wealthy fossil fuel executives and shareholders, who will see healthy profits while the world grows sick. These fossil fuel elites, many of whom contributed money to Trump’s presidential campaign, have now gotten a return on this investment,” Heinz said.

Experts say that Trump’s decision to entirely do away with environmental policy is unlike any president before him.

“The White House’s tidal wave of new pro-pollution policies is completely unprecedented. While past administrations have modified environmental rules, the second Trump administration is essentially trying to eliminate them entirely. So far, this has been the most radically anti-environmental presidency in American history,” Heinz said.

How have previous US presidents endangered the environment?

Trump is by no means the first US president to enact policy which is damaging to the environment, however.

Under Republican Theodore Roosevelt, who was president from 1901 to 1909, Congress passed the Reclamation (Newlands) Act of 1902, which treated land and rivers primarily as raw material for large infrastructure projects rather than as ecosystems in need of protection.

This was furthered by Democrat Harry Truman, who was president from 1945 to 1953 and pushed for rapid post‑war industrial and suburban expansion by commissioning the construction of interstate highways and promoting car‑centric development.

Under Republican Dwight Eisenhower, who was president from 1953 to 1961, the interstate highway system burgeoned, and the private car became a developmental priority in the US.

While Republican Richard Nixon, who was president from 1969 to 1974, signed key environmental laws, he also backed massive fossil‑fuel expansion. Under Nixon, the highly toxic herbicide, known as Agent Orange, was used by the US military during the Vietnam War.

Republican Ronald Reagan, who was president from 1981 to 1989, appointed people to the EPA and the Department of Interior who pushed for expanded oil, gas, coal and timber extraction on public lands.

To facilitate this, they favoured deregulation and industry interests, and rolled back existing environmental policy, slashing budgets for EPA enforcement of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, easing rules on toxic emissions and pesticides, and opening up more federal land – including wilderness and wildlife habitat – to oil, gas, mining and logging activities.

Republican George W Bush, who was president from 2001 to 2009, refused to ratify the 1997 UN-backed emissions reductions Kyoto Protocol and actively undermined global climate negotiations by formally withdrawing US support for Kyoto in 2001, appointing senior officials who questioned climate science, and pushing voluntary, industry-friendly approaches instead of binding emissions cuts.

While Obama, who was president from 2009 to 2017, introduced several landmark climate regulations, he also oversaw the fracking boom, making the US the world’s largest oil and gas producer, and locking in long-term fossil infrastructure.

Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, involves blasting water, sand and chemicals into shale rock to release oil and gas, a process believed to cause methane leaks, groundwater contamination, heavy water use and increased local air pollution.

Democrat Joe Biden, who was president from 2021 to 2024, approved large fossil projects such as the Willow project in Alaska. This involved oil development on federal land in the National Petroleum Reserve, projected to pump hundreds of millions of barrels of crude over several decades.

Figures released by the the US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) suggested that the project would release 239 million to 280 million tonnes of greenhouse gases over its lifetime. The project, approved in 2023 and ongoing, was projected to continue for 30 years.

Biden also backed LNG export growth by approving new and expanded export terminals and long‑term export licences, allowing companies to lock into multidecade contracts to ship US gas to Europe and Asia.

Is this a partisan issue?

No.

“The failure of US policymakers to aggressively tackle global warming is not so much a Democrat versus Republican matter,” Steinberg said.

“It’s neoliberalism, a form of corporate freedom, that is the heart of the problem. A bipartisan consensus on the need for economic growth has led to a general trend toward weakening environmental regulations,” he added.

The US once led the world in conservation by creating an extensive national park system in the 19th century, Ted Steinberg, a history professor at the US-based Case Western Reserve University, told Al Jazeera.

“That was then. US corporate interests, especially the fossil fuel industry, combined with the one-party political system, in which both Republicans and Democrats indenture themselves to the business class, have caused the United States to drag its feet on global warming,” Steinberg said.

What is the history of Washington’s impact on the environment?

The US has historically been the largest contributor to global warming, experts say.

“As in most countries, US environmental policy has been a response to the problems caused by industrialisation and urbanisation, starting in the mid-19th century and proceeding from there, happening at the local, state and national levels,” Chad Montrie, a history professor at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, told Al Jazeera.

“Much of that policy has been limited and inadequate, especially when corporations were able to exert their influence, but in some cases, it has been ahead of what other nations were doing,” Montrie, who specialises in environmental history, added.

There was a time when environmental policy was bipartisan. The EPA was, in fact, created by Republican President Richard Nixon in 1970.

“It wasn’t until the rise of pro-business politics in the 1980s that Republicans like President Reagan took a hard turn against environmental protections,” Heinz said.

“The Democratic Party continues to believe in environmental protection and climate-friendly policies to some degree, while the Republican Party has become one of the few political parties worldwide that completely denies the scientific facts around climate change.”

How does this affect the rest of the world?

“US policy often sets the standards for policy in other parts of the world, both because of its cultural influence and because of the control that the US has over global bodies like the International Monetary Fund,” Heinz said.

“Right now, the US is actively pushing dirty fossil fuels on the rest of the world and even threatening some of its allies for trying to negotiate new environmental agreements.”

Heinz explained that this pressure, coupled with soaring energy prices, seems to have convinced Europe to retreat from some of their climate goals. Household electricity prices jumped by about 20 percent across the European Union between 2021 and 2022, according to Eurostat data.

Heinz said that if the latest United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP negotiations are any indication, global climate ambition appears to be on the decline right now.

The latest conference concluded in November 2025 in Brazil with a draft proposal which did not include a roadmap for transitioning away from fossil fuels, nor did it mention the term “fossil fuels” at all. This drew rebuke from several countries attending the conference.

“So long as Donald Trump remains in office, the hope of future generations relies upon the nations of the world coming together and acting responsibly to preserve a healthy environment at a time when the United States has gone truly mad.”

Islamabad, Pakistan – The reverberations of a war in which US-Israel attacks have killed more than a thousand people in Iran, including the country’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei, and Iranian missiles and drones have fallen on Israel in retaliation, are being felt deeply in Pakistan.

Six Gulf countries have also come under Iranian missile and drone attacks, putting Pakistan in a tough position.

The country shares a 900-kilometre (559 miles) border with Iran in its southwest, and millions of its workers are residents in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf nations.

Since September last year, Islamabad has also reinforced its decades-long ties with Riyadh by signing a formal mutual defence agreement that commits each side to treat aggression against the other as aggression against both.

As Iranian drones and ballistic missiles continue to target Gulf states, the question being asked with increasing urgency in Pakistan is what Islamabad will do next if it finds itself pulled into the war.

Islamabad’s answer so far has been to work the phones furiously, engaging regional leaders, including Iran and Saudi Arabia.

When US-Israeli strikes killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on February 28, Pakistan condemned the attacks as “unwarranted”. Within hours, it also condemned Iran’s retaliatory strikes on Gulf states as “blatant violations of sovereignty”.

Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar, who was attending an Organisation of Islamic Cooperation meeting in Riyadh when the conflict began last week, launched what he later described as “shuttle communication” between Tehran and Riyadh.

Speaking in the Senate on March 3, and at a news conference later the same day, Dar disclosed that he had personally reminded Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi of Pakistan’s defence obligations to Saudi Arabia.

“We have a defence pact with Saudi Arabia, and the whole world knows about it,” Dar said. “I told the Iranian leadership to take care of our pact with Saudi Arabia.”

Araghchi, he said, asked for guarantees that Saudi soil would not be used to attack Iran. Dar said he obtained those assurances from Riyadh and credited the back-channel exchange with limiting the scale of Iranian strikes on the kingdom.

On March 5, Iran’s ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Alireza Enayati, said his country welcomed Saudi Arabia’s pledge not to allow its airspace or territory to be used during the ongoing war with the US and Israel.

“We appreciate what we have repeatedly heard from Saudi Arabia – that it does not allow its airspace, waters, or territory to be used against the Islamic Republic of Iran,” he said in an interview.

But only a day later, during early hours of March 6, Saudi Arabia’s defence ministry confirmed it intercepted three ballistic missiles targeting the kingdom’s Prince Sultan Air Base. And hours later, Pakistan’s Field Marshal Asim Munir was in Riyadh, meeting Saudi Defence Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman, where they “discussed Iranian attacks on the Kingdom and the measures needed to halt them within the framework” of their mutual defence pact, the Saudi minister said in a post on X.

As the war escalates, analysts say that Pakistan’s tightrope walk between two close partners could become harder and harder.

A defence pact under pressure

The Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement, signed on September 17, 2025, in Riyadh by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif alongside army chief Asim Munir, was the most significant formal defence commitment Pakistan had entered into in decades.

Its central clause states that any aggression against either country shall be considered aggression against both. The wording was modelled on collective defence principles similar to NATO’s Article 5, though analysts have cautioned against interpreting it as an automatic trigger for military intervention.

The agreement followed Israel’s September 2025 strikes on Hamas officials in Doha, an event that shook confidence in US security guarantees across the six Gulf Cooperation Council states: Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Nuclear-armed Pakistan has maintained a military relationship with Saudi Arabia for decades, according to which an estimated 1,500 to 2,000 Pakistani troops remain stationed in the kingdom.

Now the pact is being tested under conditions neither side anticipated.

Umer Karim, an associate fellow at the Riyadh-based King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies, called Pakistan’s current predicament the outcome of a miscalculation.

Islamabad, he argued, likely never expected to find itself caught between Tehran and Riyadh, particularly after the China-brokered rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran in 2023.

“Pakistani leaders were always careful not to take an official plunge vis-a-vis Saudi defence. It was done for the first time by the current army chief, and though the potential dividends are big, so are the costs,” Karim told Al Jazeera.

“Perhaps this is the last time the Saudis will test Pakistan, and if Pakistan doesn’t fulfil its commitments now, the relationship will be irreversibly damaged,” he added.

In 2015, it declined a direct Saudi request to join the military coalition fighting in Yemen, following a parliamentary resolution that the country must remain neutral.

Aziz Alghashian, senior non-resident fellow at the Gulf International Forum in Riyadh, pointed to that episode. “The limitation of the Saudi-Pakistan treaty is clear. Treaties are only as strong as the political calculations and political will behind them,” Alghashian told Al Jazeera.

But Ilhan Niaz, a professor of history at Islamabad’s Quaid-e-Azam University, said that if Saudi Arabia feels sufficiently threatened by Iran to formally request Pakistani military assistance, “Pakistan will come to Saudi Arabia’s aid.”

“To do otherwise would undermine Pakistan’s credibility,” he told Al Jazeera.

The Iran constraint

The complicating factor for Pakistan is that it cannot afford to treat Iran simply as an adversary if Riyadh calls for military assistance.

The two countries share a long and porous border, maintain significant trade ties, and have recently stepped up diplomatic engagement. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian visited Islamabad in August 2025, and the two governments maintain a range of formal and backchannel contacts.

Niaz acknowledged that Tehran has also been “a difficult neighbour”, pointing to the January 2024 exchange of cross-border strikes initiated by Iran as evidence of the relationship’s unpredictability.

Even so, he said Pakistan had “vital national interests” in ensuring Iran’s stability and territorial integrity.

“The collapse of Iran into civil war, its fragmentation into warring states, and the extension of Israeli influence to Pakistan’s western borders are all developments that greatly, and rightly, worry Islamabad,” he said.

The domestic fallout from the US-Israel strikes and Iran’s response has already been immediate.

The army was deployed and a three-day curfew imposed in Gilgit-Baltistan after at least 23 people were killed in protests across Pakistan following Khamenei’s assassination. The protests were driven largely by Pakistan’s Shia community, estimated to make up between 15 and 20 percent of the 250 million population, which has historically mobilised around developments involving Iran.

Pakistan’s violent sectarian history adds another layer of risk.

The Zainabiyoun Brigade, a Pakistan-origin Shia militia trained, funded and commanded by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, has recruited thousands of fighters from Pakistan over the past decade. While many fought in Syria against ISIL (ISIS), many Syrians activists accuse them of committing sectarian violence.

Two years ago, Pakistan’s northwestern Kurram district, the Zainabiyoun’s primary recruitment ground, saw more than 130 people killed in sectarian clashes in the final weeks of 2024 alone.

Pakistan formally banned the group in 2024, but many believe the designation has done little to dismantle its networks.

Analysts warn that fighters hardened in Syria’s civil war could, if Iran’s conflict with Pakistan’s Gulf partners deepens, shift from a defensive to an offensive posture on Pakistani soil.

“Iran has significant influence over Shia organisations in Pakistan,” Islamabad-based security analyst Amir Rana, executive director of the Pak Institute of Peace Studies, told Al Jazeera. “And then you have Balochistan, which is already a highly volatile area. If there is any confrontation, the fallout for Pakistan would be severe.”

Pakistan’s Balochistan province borders Iran, and has been ground-zero for a decades-long separatist movement. “That reality cannot be ignored,” Muhammad Khatibi, a political analyst based in Tehran, said, pointing out that geography itself constrains Islamabad’s choices.

“Any perception that Islamabad is siding militarily against Tehran could inflame domestic sectarian divisions in ways that a full-scale regional war would make very difficult to contain,” Khatibi told Al Jazeera.

What are Pakistan’s options?

Analysts say direct offensive military action against Iran, such as deploying combat aircraft or conducting strikes on Iranian territory, is not a realistic option for Pakistan, given its domestic constraints.

Rana describes Islamabad’s current posture as an attempt to placate both sides.

“Iran’s primary threat is through air strikes using drones and missiles, and that is an area where Pakistan can help and provide assistance to Saudi Arabia. But that would mean Pakistan becoming a party to the war, and that is a major question mark,” he said.

He added that the most viable option for Pakistan could be to provide covert operational support to Saudi Arabia while maintaining diplomatic engagement with Iran.

Alghashian also agreed; he identified air defence cooperation as the most concrete role Pakistan could play — it would be both “militarily meaningful and politically defensible”

“They could help create more air defence capacity,” he said. “This is tangible, it is defensive, and it is in Pakistan’s interest that Saudi Arabia becomes more stable and prosperous.”

Karim, however, warned that the window for Pakistan’s balancing act may be closing faster than Islamabad realises.

“As the situation reaches a tipping point and as Saudi energy installations and infrastructure are hit, it is only a matter of time that Saudi Arabia will ask Pakistan to contribute towards its defence,” he said.

He added that if Pakistan deploys air defence assets to Saudi Arabia, doing so could leave its own air defences dangerously exposed, while deeper involvement could carry political costs at home.

For now, Islamabad’s strongest card remains diplomacy, using its access to both Riyadh and Tehran and the trust it has accumulated. Khatibi said Pakistan should protect that position “at all costs”.

“Pakistan’s most realistic positioning is as a mediator and leveraging its relationships with both sides. It is highly unlikely that Pakistan deploys forces into an anti-Iran coalition. The risks would outweigh the benefits,” he said.

The stakes for Pakistan

The scenario least favourable to Islamabad would be a collective Gulf Cooperation Council decision to enter the war directly, and the warning signs are mounting.

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have both declared that Iranian attacks “crossed a red line”.

A joint statement issued on March 1 by the United States, Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE said they “reaffirm the right to self-defense in the face of these attacks.”

For Pakistan, such an escalation could carry serious consequences.

Economically, with millions of Pakistani workers living and earning their wages in Gulf states, remittances from the region provide crucial foreign exchange for an economy still recovering from a balance of payments crisis.

Khatibi said any prolonged regional war that disrupts Gulf economies would directly affect Pakistan’s financial position.

“Energy prices could also spike, adding further strain,” he said, noting Pakistan’s heavy dependence on Gulf states for its energy needs.

Pakistan is also simultaneously managing its own military confrontation with the Afghan Taliban which began two days before the US-Israel strikes.

Karim warned that deeper involvement in the regional conflict could trigger internal instability.

“Sectarian conflict,” he said, “can reignite, taking the country back to the bloody 1990s. The government already has lean political legitimacy, and such an occurrence will make it even more unpopular.”

Alghashian also highlighted Pakistan’s reluctance to be drawn into the conflict.

“Saudi Arabia does not want to be in this war and is getting dragged into it. Pakistan will also certainly not want to be dragged into somebody else’s war that they didn’t want to be dragged into. It just wouldn’t make any sense,” he says.

But Niaz said that if the crisis eventually forces Islamabad to choose, the calculus may become unavoidable.

“If Tehran forces Pakistan to choose between Iran and Saudi Arabia, the choice would unquestionably be in favour of the Saudis.”

BRITNEY Spears’ manager has slammed her DUI arrest, branding it inexcusable.

Britney, 44, was busted by California Highway Patrol on Wednesday night, with a representative now speaking out, vowing that the singer will “make a long overdue change”.

Britney’s manager Cade Hudson broke his silence hours after the arrest

In a statement to The U.S. Sun, he said: “This was an unfortunate incident that is completely inexcusable.

“Britney is going to take the right steps and comply with the law and hopefully this can be the first step in long overdue change that needs to occur in Britney’s life.

“Hopefully, she can get the help and support she needs during this difficult time.

BUSTED

Britney Spears arrested for DUI & spends night in jail as she deletes social media

GIMME MORE

Britney Spears flashes her bra as she dances to Billie Eilish in crop top

“Her boys are going to be spending time with her.

“Her loved ones are going to come up with an overdue needed plan to set her up for success for well being.”

TMZ have since reported Britney spent some time at a hospital early Thursday morning.

She spent time here because California Highway Patrol officers “transported her there to draw her blood”.

The outlet claims she did not sustain any injuries, and the hospital visit was “purely to determine her blood alcohol content”.

The singer was booked into jail at 3am, records indicate. She was later released at 6am.

On the booking documents, the star’s occupation is listed as “celebrity.”

TMZ report that Britney was “very emotional while being processed” at the Sherriff’s Office.

Sources told the outlet she was “crying a lot”.

After her arrest, Britney’s car was taken to a Thousand Oaks towing yard.

She is expected to return to court on the morning of May 4.

Her arrest comes as The California Post exclusively revealed that cops have been called to Britney’s home 14 times in the past two years.

Records obtained by The Post show 14 calls to the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department made since Jan 1, 2024.

The most recent call logged was for a “trespassing in progress”, which around midnight on October 23, 2025.

The month prior was for a a wellbeing check, which was reportedly listed as canceled.

The outlet also report several calls made to the cops in August 2025, with one listed as trespassing in progress.

Another wellbeing check was carried out in July 2025, which was the first call to cops since March of that year, which was for a “silent alarm”.

December 2024 saw cops called for an “audible alarm” and in November of that year there were two wellbeing checks logged.

In October 2024, the cops went to Britney’s home for a “suspicious subject” after a “subject disturbing” two months prior.

In recent hours, she also deleted her very active Instagram account.

This isn’t the singer’s first run-in with officials.

Just last year, cops were called about her “dangerous behavior” on a plane.

Britney reportedly caused a scene when she started drinking while flying home on a private jet with her security from Cabo San Lucas, Mexico in May 2025, TMZ reported.

Flight attendants were reportedly shocked when she pulled out a cigarette and lit it mid-flight.

Though she put out the cigarette when asked. cops still confronted her when she landed at Los Angeles International Airport.

She was reportedly issued a warning, and then allowed to go free.

Britney was placed under a conservatorship in 2008. Her now-estranged father Jamie was appointed as her conservator, and handled all her personal and financial affairs.

After years of objection and a public legal battle, the #FreeBritney movement exploded onto social media.

Thirteen years after it began, a judge officially terminated her conservatorship on November 12, 2021.

Leaders in Israel and the United States have indicated that the conflict against Iran could continue for weeks.

The US, led by President Donald Trump, has emphasised that this will not be a problem, and that its military has the capacity to conduct an extended fight. But for Israel, already fatigued by the cost of having inflicted a genocide on Gaza, as well as wars or attacks in Lebanon, Syria, and a previous round with Iran, a lengthy conflict could be more costly.

Since it attacked Iran on Saturday, Israel has endured repeated missile and drone strikes, forcing widespread air raid alerts, school closures, and the mobilisation of tens of thousands of reservists.

Cities like Haifa and Tel Aviv have faced sustained attacks, emergency services are stretched, and a public, unused to war on the scale their government has inflicted upon others, has spent the past few days in and out of bomb shelters.

For now, enthusiasm for the war is high. Interviews with Israelis in most major cities show a hunger to confront an enemy that the public was told for decades was determined to exterminate them. With the exception of the far-left, politicians have rallied to the government banner.

“As soon as the war started, Israel was swept in a wave of militarism,” Israeli political economist Shir Hever said.

“It was not the same as [the June 2025 12-day war]. Then, it was mostly panic, an existential fear that Iran could destroy Israel. Now, it is gung-ho militarism and overconfidence. Even the war critics – who are few and far between – recommend that [Israeli Prime Minister] Netanyahu keep the war ‘short’, as if Israel can decide when it ends.”

Support for the war is part of what many see as a radicalisation of Israeli society. Previously peripheral far-right politicians have made their way into the centre of government, with political polarisation and economic strain accelerating the flow of the young and talented out of the country.

Those who remain are already conditioned to think of Iran as the fundamental enemy of their country, and weeks of war may militarise the society even further.

“It’s like the UK blitz in World War II,” Daniel Bar-Tal, an academic at Tel Aviv University, said.

“Then, the British accepted this bombardment because they saw themselves as fighting this ultimate evil. Israelis have the same feeling. We are indoctrinated into believing, almost from birth, that Iran is evil, which is reinforced through kindergarten, high school, and the army.”

For Bar-Tal, it is impossible to guess what kind of Israeli society might emerge from weeks of renewed war, only that the country’s past moral certitude in the righteousness of its establishment had not been dented by the massacres committed during the 1948 Nakba, nor the recent Gaza genocide.

“Now, we have a generation who are still more militaristic and more rightist, with Netanyahu telling us we now need to live by the sword. It’s just more evidence that Israel needs enemies to survive.”

Bombs and guns

Beyond the social impacts, Israel has military calculations to take into account if the war does drag on.

Most pressing is determining how long Israel can sustain the current levels of warfare against an opponent of Iran’s scale and military heft. This will be affected by both the support it receives from its allies, such as those in the US and Europe, and whether its defences become exhausted before those of Iran, defence analyst Hamze Attar said.

“In the first three days of the war, Iran launched more than 200 ballistic missiles at Israel,” he told Al Jazeera. “To put that into context, during the 12-day war, they launched around 500, each requiring that Israel counter by launching an interceptor rocket. That’s probably more than Israel has the capacity to counter, so, without US help, it would probably have lost control of its airspace by now.”

Israel has three different air defence systems: the Iron Dome, for short-range rockets and artillery; David’s Sling, to counter medium-range rockets and cruise missiles; and Arrow 2 and Arrow 3, designed to intercept ballistic missiles

The Israelis do not disclose the number of interceptors they have in stock, but Israel began to run low on interceptor stocks during the 12-day war, indicating that it will become more difficult to maintain a high level of interceptions if the war continues for a lengthy period. This would lead to a rationing of interceptors and a focus on defending military and political targets, potentially leading to more civilian casualties.

According to Israeli and US sources, Iran has been producing ballistic missiles at a rate of 100 per month in the aftermath of June’s conflict, Attar said, which would suggest that Tehran had already amassed a significant stockpile.

However, Attar was quick to point out that the Iranian threat is also based on the types of ballistic missiles they have.

“We don’t know what type of ballistic missiles,” Attar said, outlining the different types of missiles: long-range, reaching as far as Greece and the Mediterranean; medium-range, reaching Israel; and short-range, which can target the Gulf states.

“Likewise, we don’t know how many [missiles] they [Iran] had before the 12-day war, how many were destroyed during that war, or how many launchers they have,” Attar added. “If you don’t have the launchers, which the US and Israel are targeting, it doesn’t matter how many missiles you have. It’s like having bullets without a rifle.”

Economic considerations

More than two years of almost constant war have taken their toll on Israel’s economy, analysts warned, with the cost of munitions weighing on the Israeli purse, and the deployment of a reservist force numbered in their hundreds of thousands for periods far longer than any planners had originally conceived of.

Israel’s spending in 2024 on the wars in Lebanon and Gaza was reported to have reached $31bn, contributing to the country’s highest budget deficit in years. Preliminary figures from 2025 show spending on war reaching $55bn.

The pressure on the economy led to the downgrading of Israel’s sovereign credit rating in 2024 by all three major credit rating agencies.

“Israel is experiencing a debt crisis, an energy crisis, a transportation crisis, [and] a health service crisis,” Hever said.

But none of these would be enough to halt Israel’s military campaigns on their own, the political economist cautioned. “This is not a question of economy, but a question of technology.”

“If the US can keep supplying Israel with weapons that are so advanced that they can load themselves, aim themselves, and kill from such a distance that the soldiers don’t need to risk their own lives, I don’t see how the economic crisis inside Israel would be enough to stop Israel’s aggression,” he said.

The world’s longest passenger train was over a mile long and passed through a stunning mountain range.

The record for the world’s longest passenger train was broken in 2022, when it reached over a mile in length and was made up of 100 carriages. The train made its way through the stunning Alps, which span countries such as Italy, Austria, Germany, France, and Switzerland. The Rhaetian Railway in Switzerland made history with its 1.2-mile-long train.

It headed on the Albula-Bernina route from Preda to Bergün. The train passed through the UNESCO World Heritage site and took over an hour.

The route passes through 22 tunnels, some of which spiral through the mountains, and 48 bridges, including the curved Landwasser Viaduct. Spectators lined the valley to watch the super-long train pass by.

CEO of Rhaetian Railway, Dr Renato Fasciati, said people from across the world flocked to watch the train. The 100-carriage train helped mark the 175th birthday of Swiss Railways.

Dr Fasciati said: “This world record attempt is a wonderful reason and a wonderful instrument for us to show the world this beautiful railway.”

During the pandemic, the company reportedly lost around 30% of its revenue. The world record attempt was done to raise awareness of the stunning train route.

The train was made up of 25 Capricorn railcars, 100 carriages, 3,000 tonnes of steel and technology. It was controlled by seven train drivers and 21 technicians across the mountain range.

Explaining how the 100-carriage train worked, Rhaetian Railway said: “The 25 trains all had to accelerate or decelerate at the same time, although only four trains each could be controlled from the same driver’s cab.

“An electric circuit ensured that all trains braked at the same time if the trains needed to slow down suddenly.

“Due to the heavy weight of the train (2,850 t without passengers), very high forces were exerted on the infrastructure and the carriages.

“A separate intercom system on the train, trained train drivers and clear instructions ensured the desired result. In addition, special software was loaded for the record-breaking train and the mechanical braking power was reduced.”

The train journey saw the railway set a Guinness World Record for the longest narrow-gauge passenger train.

Ensure our latest stories always appear at the top of your Google Search by making us a Preferred Source. Click here to activate or add us as your Preferred Source in your Google search settings.

When it comes to travelling on a long-haul flight, many people turn to comfort items such as neck pillows, blankets and eye masks, but one frequent flyer says most are making a major mistake

Before setting off on a long-haul flights, most travellers know to wear comfortable clothes to make their journey more easy and relaxing. Beyond this, many passengers also bring along comfort items like neck pillows, blankets and eye masks.

Yet, according to traveller @epthelatino, countless people are making a same mistake with their neck pillows when it comes to flights – and it’s costing them precious sleep. In his clip, he suggests that most long haul flight passengers position their neck pillows with the opening at the front, which fails to adequately support the neck when the head drops forward.

Instead, he says they should rotate it so the gap sits at the back, which he says enables you to rest your head in various positions whilst maintaining proper support.

Reacting to his clip, one viewer said: “I think the inventor should make a doughnut pillow instead.” Another viewer added: “You are doing it all wrong – try sideways.”

A third commented: “I wear my neck pillow sideways. It’s more comfortable… thank me later.” One more person said: “Ooooh! Okay. That’s why it’s called a neck pillow.”

Whilst another added: “I’ve used it this way – it’s way better than how it was meant to be used.”

Offering their perspective, the experts at Travel Sentry stated: “Once you have chosen the right pillow, it’s crucial to place it correctly for maximum comfort.

“Many people make the mistake of placing the pillow behind their head, which can cause their head to fall forward, leading to neck pain.

“Instead, place the pillow on your shoulder and lean your head towards it. This position will support your neck and keep your head from falling forward.”

They suggest that getting to grips with a neck pillow properly “takes practice”, noting: “Like any skill, mastering the art of travel pillow comfort takes practice.

“Don’t get discouraged if you don’t get it right on your first try. Keep experimenting with different positions and adjustments until you find what works best for you.

“With time, you will become a pro at using a travel pillow and enjoy a comfortable journey every time.”

However, if you’re still finding it difficult to settle in, travellers are advised to explore additional comfort aids.

They continued: “If you have trouble finding a comfortable position with just a travel pillow, you can use additional support.

“For example, use a blanket or scarf to support your lower back. Alternatively, place a small pillow or a rolled-up jacket under your knees to relieve pressure on your lower back.”

So much has happened over the past seven days, including two Premier League managers departing, the second round of the Six Nations and many medals being won at the Winter Olympics.

About 9% of you got full marks in last week’s edition. How will you do this week?

After more quizzes? Go to our dedicated Football Quizzes and Sports Quizzes pages and sign up for notifications to get the latest quizzes sent straight to your device.