Middle East

The preliminary memorandum represents the first formal framework outlining how Washington and Tehran intend to move from military confrontation toward diplomacy.

While many details remain unpublished, statements from U.S., Iranian and Pakistani officials provide a broad outline of the deal’s structure.

Rather than resolving every dispute immediately, the agreement establishes a phased process aimed at reducing tensions first and addressing more difficult issues later.

The approach reflects the reality that both sides were able to reach consensus on ending hostilities more easily than on the underlying disputes that fueled the conflict.

Phase One: Ending the Fighting

The first stage focuses on immediate de-escalation.

According to mediator Pakistan, both sides have agreed to permanently halt military operations across all fronts.

The formal memorandum is expected to be signed in Switzerland, after which implementation would begin.

The objective of this phase is straightforward: stop active hostilities, reduce the risk of escalation, and create space for broader negotiations.

This represents the most immediate achievement of the agreement and is likely the reason markets reacted positively.

Reopening the Strait of Hormuz

The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz is arguably the agreement’s most significant economic provision.

The waterway serves as one of the world’s most important energy transit routes and has been at the center of global concerns throughout the conflict.

Both sides indicate that commercial shipping will resume following the signing of the memorandum.

The restoration of maritime traffic could:

• Increase global oil supply.
• Reduce shipping disruptions.
• Ease pressure on energy prices.
• Lower inflation risks for major economies.

However, questions remain over how the route will be governed.

Iran has suggested it will coordinate management of traffic with Oman, potentially giving Tehran a more formal role in overseeing one of the world’s most strategically important waterways.

That issue could become a future source of diplomatic friction.

The Nuclear Issue Has Been Deferred

The most controversial subject in the negotiations remains unresolved.

Rather than settling the nuclear dispute immediately, both sides appear to have agreed to address it during a 60-day negotiation period.

According to Iranian officials, Tehran would freeze nuclear activities during that time by halting additional enrichment and refraining from expanding facilities.

The long-term future of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure remains unclear.

Washington continues to emphasize inspections and preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Tehran continues to insist that its nuclear program is peaceful and seeks recognition of its right to maintain civilian nuclear activities.

These competing positions are likely to dominate the next phase of talks.

Sanctions Relief Could Shape the Success of the Deal

Economic issues may ultimately prove as difficult as nuclear negotiations.

Iran expects meaningful sanctions relief as part of any final settlement.

Iranian officials have spoken about:

• Temporary waivers on oil sanctions.
• The release of frozen assets.
• Financial support mechanisms.
• A pathway toward lifting U.S. and international sanctions.

The Trump administration has signaled a more cautious approach.

Washington has indicated that sanctions relief will depend on Iranian compliance and future negotiations rather than automatic implementation.

This difference highlights one of the central tensions in the agreement: each side expects benefits on different timelines.

Lebanon Remains a Flashpoint

The agreement’s treatment of Lebanon illustrates how regional conflicts have become intertwined.

Iran views a ceasefire in Lebanon as a critical component of the broader settlement.

Lebanese political leaders have welcomed the inclusion of Lebanon in the framework.

Israel, however, has made clear that it does not consider itself bound by all aspects of the agreement and intends to maintain military positions in areas it views as strategically important.

This creates uncertainty about whether the Lebanon component can be implemented as envisioned.

The issue could quickly become one of the first tests of the agreement’s durability.

Why This Matters

The memorandum matters because it shifts the conflict from the battlefield to the negotiating table.

The agreement addresses several immediate concerns:

• Rising energy prices.
• Shipping disruptions.
• Escalating regional instability.
• Growing economic uncertainty.

At the same time, it leaves the most difficult questions unresolved.

This means the framework should be viewed as the beginning of a diplomatic process rather than its conclusion.

Its success will depend on whether negotiators can transform temporary understandings into binding commitments.

Key Stakeholders

• United States
• Iran
• Pakistan (mediator)
• Israel
• Lebanon
• Oman
• European powers
• Gulf Arab states
• International energy markets
• Global shipping industry
• International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and nuclear inspectors

What to Watch Next

• Formal signing of the memorandum in Switzerland.
• Reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.
• Progress during the 60-day negotiation period.
• Discussions on Iran’s nuclear program.
• Decisions regarding sanctions relief.
• Reactions from Congress and international partners.
• Israeli actions in Lebanon and other contested areas.

The memorandum creates a framework for de-escalation, but its long-term success remains uncertain.

If implemented effectively, the agreement could stabilize energy markets, reduce regional tensions, and create momentum for broader diplomatic engagement.

However, many of the issues that triggered the conflict remain unresolved.

Nuclear enrichment, sanctions, regional security arrangements, and competing strategic interests are all likely to generate difficult negotiations.

The coming 60 days will therefore be more important than the announcement itself.

They will determine whether the framework becomes a durable peace process or merely a temporary pause in a conflict whose underlying disputes remain intact.

Analysis

The structure of the agreement reveals a pragmatic calculation by both Washington and Tehran.

Rather than attempting to solve every dispute at once, negotiators prioritized issues where agreement was achievable: ending active hostilities, reopening shipping routes, and creating a mechanism for future talks.

This approach reflects the political realities facing both governments.

For President Trump, reducing energy prices and ending a costly conflict addresses growing domestic pressure. For Iran, halting military operations while preserving room to negotiate on sanctions and nuclear issues offers a path to economic relief without immediate capitulation.

Yet the framework’s greatest strength may also be its greatest weakness.

By postponing the hardest questions, the agreement creates momentum for diplomacy but also leaves significant room for disagreement later. Nuclear enrichment, sanctions relief, and regional security arrangements are not peripheral issues—they are the core disputes that drove the conflict.

As a result, the memorandum should be viewed less as a peace treaty and more as a diplomatic bridge. It lowers immediate risks and creates opportunities for negotiation, but it does not yet resolve the strategic rivalry between the United States and Iran.

Whether this becomes a historic breakthrough or a temporary truce will depend on what happens after the signatures are placed on the document. The real negotiations are only beginning.

With information from Reuters.

Governments across the world have welcomed the tentative deal between the US and Iran to end the war, calling it a major diplomatic breakthrough. But Israeli politicians have been quick to criticise it, claiming it would undermine Israel’s security.

The United Kingdom’s Court of Appeal has ruled that the British government was right to proscribe the Palestine Action activist group as a “terrorist” organisation last year.

Palestine Action is a British protest group which was founded six years ago and describes itself as a movement “committed to ending global participation in Israel’s genocidal and apartheid regime”.

On Monday, police made more arrests of protesters demonstrating in support of Palestine Action outside the Court of Appeal in London.

Since the group’s proscription, which also bans support for proscribed groups, about 3,000 people have been arrested.

The Metropolitan Police welcomed the ruling and said it would continue to arrest those who protest in support of the group.

Here is what we know about the ruling:

What has the Court of Appeal ruled?

The judgement released on Monday states: “The proscription of an organisation like Palestine Action is highly controversial. But it is a fundamental mistake to overlook the fact that Palestine Action overtly promotes unlawful violence amounting to terrorism”.

The ruling was made by a five-strong panel, including the two most senior judges in England and Wales.

Palestine Action, which was formally proscribed by the UK last July, is a British protest group founded six years ago. It says it uses “disruptive tactics” to target “corporate enablers” and companies involved in the manufacture of weapons for Israel, such as Israeli group Elbit Systems, Italian aerospace company Leonardo, French multinational Thales and Teledyne from the United States. The group has targeted British facilities linked to those companies.

In all, British police say action by the group has resulted in millions of pounds of criminal damage.

A court in London ruled on June 12 that four Palestine Action members convicted of criminal damage at a British facility owned by Israeli weapons group Elbit Systems near Bristol, west England, would be sentenced on the basis that their actions had a “terrorist connection”.

Why was this case brought?

Following the proscription of Palestine Action last year, the group’s co-founder, Huda Ammori, challenged the decision in the High Court. In February, the High Court ruled that the government’s “terror group” ban was unlawful and disproportionate.

The government immediately said it would appeal. “I am disappointed by ⁠the court’s decision ⁠and disagree with the notion that banning ⁠this terrorist organisation ⁠is disproportionate,” ⁠Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood ⁠said.

The judgement on Monday agreed with her. Its ruling states: “The Home Secretary had the institutional competence and the democratic accountability to make the decision. The Proscription Decision was consistent with the Home Secretary’s Proscription Policy and was proportionate. It was not unlawful.”

Why did the UK proscribe Palestine Action?

On June 20, 2025, Palestine Action activists broke into the Royal Air Force base at Brize Norton in Oxfordshire and sprayed two military aircraft with red paint.

Days after the Brize Norton attack, members of parliament voted in favour of proscribing the group. That classified Palestine Action as a “terrorist” organisation, bringing it into the same category as armed groups such as al-Qaeda and ISIL (ISIS).

Critics decried the vote, arguing that while members of the group have caused damage to property, they have not committed violent acts that amount to terrorism. More than 130 high-profile public figures have spoken out against the proscription.

Other previous actions the group has taken include:

• In 2021, members protested for six days on the roof of Elbit Systems’ subsidiary, UAV Tactical Systems in Leicester, until some were arrested by police.
• In 2022, the group broke into a Thales equipment factory in Glasgow, causing damage to weapons worth more than a million pounds ($1.3m).
• In 2024, 10 months into Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, Palestine Action activists broke into an Elbit Systems UK facility near Bristol in southwest England, causing another million pounds of damage.

How has Palestine Action responded to the ruling?

In a statement read by a representative following the ruling, Palestine Action’s Ammori said the group will challenge the judgement in the UK’s Supreme Court.

“We will fight this all the way. We will seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court and, if need be, take this to the European Court of Human Rights,” Ammori said.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), established by the Council of Europe, allows individuals to hold member states accountable for rights violations through a dedicated court. When the ECHR finds a violation, its judgements are legally binding on the state concerned under the European Convention on Human Rights.

“We will not stop fighting to overturn one of the most extreme attacks on free speech and the right to protest in modern British history,” Ammori added.

“This unprecedented abuse of power has devastated the lives of thousands of people while silencing dissent over Israel’s slaughter of the Palestinian people during the genocide, when that dissent could not be more urgent.”

How have others reacted to the ruling?

Anas Mustapha, Head of Public Advocacy at CAGE International, said: “This ruling tells us exactly what these powers are for. They are not safeguards against violence, they are authoritarian tools for crushing dissent.”

Mustapha added: “No ruling from any court is going to convince people that their conscience is wrong, and no amount of legislation will make support for Palestine disappear. The only sustainable outcome is the abolition of these laws in their entirety.”

Thomas Bell, acting UK Director of Human Rights Watch, said: “This disastrous decision further cements the UK’s place among countries that are backsliding on human rights by classifying acts of protest as terrorism.”

“When Palestine Action members have committed criminal damage, that should be dealt with under normal criminal laws, not by misusing overbroad and poorly defined terrorism powers. Defining a protest group as terrorists has created an absurd situation where thousands of people peacefully holding up signs have been arrested,” Bell added.

Israeli journalist Gideon Levy says the US-Iran announcement represents a personal defeat for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his ambitions against Iran and Lebanon. His relationship with US President Donald Trump could also be at risk if Israel jeopardises the deal.

The personal finance guru said whatever happens ‘don’t wait till you get to your destination’

Personal finance expert Martin Lewis has issued a warning to anyone using an airport this summer. People going on holiday have been told they will be making a big mistake if they make a key decision when they are ‘captive custom’.

People travelling this year are already concerned about potential cost rises and delays caused by the situation in the Middle East. Mr Lewis, appearing on ITV’s This Morning, explained that making any effort to get cash while at the airport is a mistake.

He told hosts Ben Shephard and Cat Deeley that people like to take cash for things like tips – and also some prefer to use it to budget more effectively. He said: “The worst place to get your cash is at the airport or at the ferry port or anywhere like that because they have your captive custom and the rates are horrendous.

“The best thing to do is to use a couple of travel exchange comparison sites online. Now, the thing is, you have to be careful. It’s a combination of the exchange rate and the fee. So what exchange rate are they giving you? What fee are they giving you? You want that all combined. And that’s what the comparison sites will do.

“You’ll just say, ‘I want £600 worth of dollars. Who’s going to give me the most dollars for my £600?’ And that’s the way that they will work. So, that’s by far the simplest way to do it. Just get yourself on a comparison. But don’t wait till you get to your destination.”

He said that comparison sites will look at perhaps 50 or 60 outlets, whereas if you go abroad before looking it’s unlikely those available will be able to compete. He said “If you go regularly to the same price abroad and you know there’s a little fella and you know and he gives you great rates and they’re much better than the ones at home then it’s fine.

“But if you don’t have that specialist knowledge, do the comparison, take the cash before you go. I mean also if you really do want cash, if you got a specialist overseas card, you know you got a Chase card or something just put it in the cash machine abroad. There’s no fees and you get the near-perfect exchange rate. So that’s another way to get cash.”

Mr Lewis also explained that anyone spending money in European destinations such as Spain, Greece or France should always make one decision when it comes to paying or getting money out. He explained that if people have gone to the trouble of lining up a card to work overseas, then they’re actually adding lots of money onto their bills by making the wrong choice when asked if it’s euros or pounds.

He said: “If you spend, if you go to a machine abroad or you go to an ATM and you’re in Europe, let’s say, or if it says, do you want euros or pounds? What it’s actually saying is if it’s euros, do you want your card to do the conversion? Your card company. If it’s pounds, we will do the conversion. for you and then charge your card. So, that’s the decision. Now, we’ve just talked about getting a specialist overseas card that gives you a near-perfect rate.

“Well, you want them to do the conversion. That’s why you got the specialist overseas card. And actually, even if you haven’t got a specialist card, even the bog standard pretty pants cards here tend to be better than the shop abroad doing it where they put a massive we can be six or 7% on the exchange rate.

“The same with overseas cash machines, which can also add a fee on top, but what happens is basically you put, let’s say, you’re in a cash machine abroad and it’s saying pounds or euros, and you say, as I will absolutely do. I go, I want euros, please, and it says are you sure you’re sure we won’t do the conversion are you actually? Yes, I want euros. Are you sure? What are you doing?

“They are desperate to persuade you to let them do the conversion because they make a lot of money from it it’s the opposite of what they’re trying to push you to do is what you want to do so very simply if you’re in Europe and you paying on a card, paying euros if you’re in America, pay in dollars if you’re in Vietnam.”

EXPLAINER

US President Donald Trump and Iranian leaders say a deal has been agreed to end more than 100 days of war that killed thousands.

United States President Donald Trump and Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said on Sunday that they had reached an initial deal to end the war and to resume traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump said the deal allows for toll-free shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, which has been largely closed since the US and Israel launched an assault on Iran on February 28.

“The Deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is now complete,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Sunday.

The US and Iran will sign a memorandum of understanding in Switzerland on Friday, said the prime minister of Pakistan, whose country has served as a mediator.

Monday marks 108 days since the war began, with the US and Israel’s attacks on Iran. Here is what’s happening:

What we know about the deal

• The content of the agreement, which follows weeks of fraught negotiations and periodic threats from Trump of new hostilities unless Iran reaches a deal, remained unclear.
• Strait of Hormuz to reopen: Iran’s semi-official Mehr news agency said the draft deal called for reopening the Strait of Hormuz within 30 days under Iranian arrangements. Trump, who turned 80 on Sunday, said the deal allows for toll-free shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, which has been largely closed since the US and Israel launched an assault on Iran on December 28.
• Frozen assets to be released: Iran’s Mehr news agency reported that the US would release $12bn in frozen assets to Iran before the start of negotiations.
• Iran’s enriched uranium: In an interview with The New York Times on Sunday, Trump said Washington was still negotiating whether Iran would suspend its enrichment for 20 years. Trump hinted that he might settle for a 15-year suspension, but said he did not want to negotiate via the press.
• Israel has not commented: There has been no official comment from Israel about the peace agreement.

In Iran

• The secretariat of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council said on Monday that the deal with the US includes the immediate suspension of hostilities on all fronts. “Based on the agreements reached, the war and military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon, will end immediately and permanently as of tonight, and in addition, the naval blockade against Iran will end immediately and completely,” it said in a statement.

In the US

• Democrats slam Trump over war: While Democratic lawmakers welcomed the deal, they criticised the Trump administration’s decisions pertaining to the war. Senator Chris Coons of Delaware said that while the deal moves the situation in the “right direction”, several questions remain. He warned that competing interpretations of what was agreed upon could pose risks. Senator Chris Murphy, who serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the deal is a “surrender to Iran” but that the US should be “glad about it because every day this insane, illegal war continues, we get weaker”.

In Lebanon

• Trump rebukes Israeli attack on Beirut: On Sunday, shortly before the deal was announced by Trump, Israel launched an air attack on Beirut. Trump angrily blamed Israel for delaying the deal’s signing after launching this attack. In an expletive-laden phone interview with US news outlet Axios, Trump fumed about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying: “I was so pissed off. I let him know.”

Global response

• Western leaders praise deal: UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he was ready to aid the further technical talks between the US and Iran, adding that he hopes the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz will stabilise energy markets.
• French President Emmanuel Macron also praised the deal and said Paris would support the Lebanese government.
• European Union chief Antonio Costa welcomed a deal between the US and Iran to end the Middle East war, adding that the bloc was ready to contribute to a strategy for “lasting peace”.
• UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said it was a “critical step” towards resolving the war in the Middle East.

Global economy

• Oil prices drop: Oil prices slipped to their lowest since March on Monday, with global benchmark Brent crude futures falling $4.08, or 4.7 percent, to $83.25 a barrel by 04:15 GMT. US West Texas Intermediate was at $80.53, down $4.35, or 5.1 percent. Both contracts fell to their lowest levels since March 10 on Monday after tumbling more than 3 percent on Friday.
• Asian markets soar: Markets in Japan soared, more than 5 percent up; in South Korea, they were up 5.3 percent; in Taiwan, they were up 2.4 percent. In Shanghai, they were up 1.3 percent; and in Hong Kong, they were up half a percent; while in Indonesia, they were up 2.07 percent; and in the Philippines, they were up 5.2 percent.

The US and Iran say they have reached a deal to end fighting on all fronts and open the Strait of Hormuz. Al Jazeera’s Osama Bin Javaid explains how both sides are claiming victory, even as tough negotiations over the details still lie ahead.

The 22-year-old scored two goals against Tunisia but had muted celebrations against the country of his father’s birth.

For a 22-year-old making his World Cup debut for Sweden, Yasin Ayari could only have dreamed of a better start to his introduction to the biggest showcase of football.

With a full-throttled volley into the top corner of Tunisia’s net just seven minutes into the first half of their Group H match in Monterrey, Ayari had opened the scoring for the Scandinavian side against their North African opponents.

The fresh-faced midfielder, though, did not revel in the moment as a young World Cup debutant might and instead chose to hold both his hands up before falling onto the ground in sujoud (Muslim act of prostration).

The reason? The deep Tunisian connection that runs in his blood, and one that could have seen him play for the opposition as late as four years ago.

Ayari is of North African heritage, with a Tunisian father and a Moroccan mother, but was born in Sweden. At 18 years of age, the promising footballer decided to represent the country of his own birth, rather than his parents’, and his father backed the decision.

“I wanted him to play for Sweden,” Azzouz Ayari told Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet, adding: “He should feel like he is giving back to the country that took care of him.”

Azzouz, who migrated to the Scandinavian country, revealed that his son was offered a place on the Tunisian side, but neither father nor son considered it an option.

Ayari began playing football at age seven on the youth side of his hometown club Rasunda, in Solna, before moving to Scandinavian football giants AIK, where he made his senior team debut in 2020.

The attacking midfielder was signed by English Premier League club Brighton & Hove Albion in 2023, making his Sweden national team debut in the same year.

Explaining his decision to wear the yellow and blue of Sweden instead of the red and white of Tunisia, Ayari said it was “only natural” to continue representing the country he had played for as a child.

When the World Cup 2026 draws were announced in December, the irony of playing against the country of his father’s heritage was not lost on Ayari.

“It was crazy that we ended up with them in our group,” he said.

The young talent was the standout player in Sweden’s thumping win over Tunisia, and he bookended their dominant performance with another scorching individual goal in the 95th minute.

Ayari found the ball at the edge of the Tunisian goal and sent it flying into the far corner to bag his second World Cup goal in his debut game.

This time, though, he did celebrate and soak in the applause of the jubilant Swedish crowd.

Two goals from Ayari and one each from Isak, Gyokeres and Svanberg take Sweden to the top of Group F in Monterrey.

Sweden crushed Tunisia 5-1 to leave the North African nation’s defensive reputation in tatters and seize control of World Cup Group F as the Mexican city of Guadalupe hosted its first fixture of the tournament.

Graham Potter’s men took the lead in the seventh minute of the game on Sunday, courtesy of midfielder Yasin Ayari’s thunderbolt from outside the box, following a mix-up at the back.

The celebrations of Ayari, who is of Moroccan and Tunisian descent, were muted, despite his fine finish.

Sweden doubled their lead on half an hour after a rapid break freed Alexander Isak on the left.

The Liverpool forward raced ahead and cut inside before unleashing a shot, which goalkeeper Mouhib Chamakh failed to keep out, even though he got a hand to the ball.

Tunisia did not concede a single goal in qualifying, becoming the first side to achieve the feat, subsequently matched by Ivory Coast and England.

Sweden threatened to overwhelm their opponents, but the match changed complexion minutes before half-time, when Omar Rekik headed home Hannibal Mejbri’s teasing cross.

However, the Scandinavian nation restored their two-goal cushion in the 59th minute after another defensive calamity for Tunisia.

Midfielder Ellyes Skhiri was caught in possession on the edge of the box by Isak, who fed Viktor Gyokeres, and the Arsenal man fired home.

Substitute Mattias Svanberg made it 4-1 late on after VAR ruled he was onside.

And there was still time for another stunning goal from Ayari from outside the penalty box.

Sweden reached the quarterfinals of the 2018 World Cup in Russia, but did not qualify for the tournament in Qatar four years later.

Tunisia were the first African team to win a World Cup match when they beat Mexico in 1978, but they have never progressed beyond the group stages.

The US-Iran ceasefire announcement has raised hopes in Lebanon, after Pakistani mediators claimed it included an end to Israel’s war on the country. But as Al Jazeera’s Heidi Pett explains, we’ve been here before.

Dan Perry: The US ‘may pretend’ that Israel can’t attack Hezbollah ‘in order to get this deal done’. Israeli affairs analyst Dan Perry explains how the US, Israel and Iran may react as they get closer to a potential agreement.

Al Jazeera’s Heidi Pett reports from the site of an Israeli attack on a residential building in southern Beirut, which Israel calls a Hezbollah command centre. The strike came hours before President Trump said a US-Iran deal was meant to be signed.

Al Jazeera’s Basel Ghazoghli traces the documented record from 1948 to the present. Sexual violence against Palestinians in Israeli custody is often framed as a post-October 7 issue. But historical records, academic research, and legal testimony suggest a much longer history.

Israel has bombed the southern suburbs of Beirut, saying it targeted Hezbollah ‘infrastructure’ in response to cross-border fire. The strikes come as Israel continues to violate a supposed ceasefire with incursions and daily bombardment in southern Lebanon. Trump has said a deal to end the war on Iran will be signed on Sunday.

Vinicius Junior scored a brilliant goal to dig Brazil out of trouble after Ismael Saibari had put Morocco ahead.

A moment of magic from Vinicius Junior salvaged Brazil a point against Morocco in New Jersey, as the five-time World Champions made a shaky start to the tournament.

Ismael Saibari ran through to give Morocco a 21st-minute lead with a clever scoop in the Group C opener on Saturday, but a solo effort from Vinicius ensured the points were shared in this much-anticipated group match.

Here are the biggest takeaways from the 1-1 draw at New York New Jersey Stadium.

Brazil make a slow start

Brazil are chasing a record sixth World Cup title, 24 years after last lifting the trophy, but this performance suggests there is a lot of work to be done by Carlo Ancelotti’s side.

They showed signs of nerves during the early stages of the game and struggled to cope with a lively Morocco attack.

A fifth-placed finish in South American qualifying underlined the scale of the challenge facing Ancelotti, and this performance has done little to ease concerns about the quality of the Brazil squad.

A number of their players struggled to cope with the intensity of the Moroccan team, with midfielder Casemiro subbed off at half-time after a difficult opening 45 minutes in the heat.

The World Cup final is a long way off in New Jersey, but Brazil will have to vastly improve if they are to have any hope of making it.

Morocco look like the real deal

The Atlas Lions stunned the world of football in 2022 as they made it all the way to the semifinals in Qatar.

Four years later, Morocco have the chance to show that it was not a one-off run to the last four and they are the real deal.

Judging by their performance in New Jersey on Saturday, the North African nation are truly a force to be reckoned with.

They arrived in North America as African Cup of Nations champions, after being retrospectively awarded the title following a controversial final defeat to Senegal, and they continued their strong form with a commanding performance against Brazil, playing with a high level of confidence and plenty of attacking threat.

Morocco appear set for another strong tournament showing.

Vinicius shows his top quality

If Brazil are to make it to the latter stages of this tournament, they will rely heavily on Vinicius to provide goals and assists in North America.

The Real Madrid man has consistently scored for his club this season, including 16 goals in La Liga and five in the Champions League, and it now appears that he is bringing this form to the world stage.

With Brazil struggling in the first half, Vinicius received the ball from Bruno Guimaraes on the left side of the area before cutting back onto his right foot and hammering into the far corner past Yassine Bounou.

It was the kind of magic moment that he regularly produces for Real Madrid, and the Selecao will be looking for more individual brilliance in their coming games.

Neymar injury hangs over Brazil

The Neymar soap opera is set to dominate another tournament for Brazil, with the 34-year-old on the sidelines for yet another major tournament match.

Brazil’s all-time record goalscorer is still recovering from a calf injury, having not played for his country since 2023.

He was dramatically recalled to the national squad, despite not featuring in Ancelotti’s plans ⁠during the Italian’s year in charge, but he remains under scrutiny over his fitness and form following years of injury trouble and an ⁠underwhelming spell back at Santos.

It is unclear exactly when Neymar will be fit enough to return to first-team action, but judging by the media’s focus on him during Saturday’s match, this saga is set to dominate discussion around Brazil.

Draw leaves Group C wide open

Brazil and Morocco are the clear heavyweights in their group, but Saturday’s draw in New Jersey has left Group C somewhat in the balance.

Scotland currently sit top of the table after a 1-0 victory over Haiti in Boston, and they will now be eyeing the chance to reach the knockout stages for the first time in their history.

Morocco and Brazil remain heavy favourites to finish in the top two automatic qualification spots, but Scotland know that any points in their final two group games will almost certainly book their spot in the round of 32.

Qatar has earned its first-ever FIFA World Cup point in dramatic fashion against Switzerland. An injury time own goal put Qatar level with the Swiss in San Francisco. Al Jazeera’s Paul Rhys was there.

Asian Cup holders Qatar level in injury time to draw 1-1 with Switzerland in World Cup 2026 opening game.

Boualem Khoukhi scored an equalising goal on a header in the fourth minute of stoppage time, and Qatar spoiled a dominant day by Switzerland in a 1-1 draw in Group B of the World Cup.

Several of the Qatari players fell to the ground on Saturday in celebration of the late goal, as others ran to each other to embrace.

Breel Embolo scored for Switzerland from the penalty spot in the first half just over a week after being cleared to enter the US following a visa delay, but the Swiss failed to capitalise on multiple other scoring chances.

In the 13th minute, Embolo was fouled by Qatar goalkeeper Mahmoud Abunada, who received a yellow card on the play. Abunada lay face down and appeared motionless for a couple of minutes before he began to move his legs and was able to stand up again.

When Embolo calmly sent his penalty into the upper left corner in the 17th minute, it sent the red-clad Swiss fans into a dancing frenzy in the stands of San Francisco Bay Area Stadium.

The 29-year-old forward applied for an urgent visa at the United States embassy in Bern on June 3, one day after he was denied boarding the team’s flight to travel for his third World Cup because of a 2018 criminal conviction that was only finalised in April.

Switzerland dominated the possession game on an unseasonably warm June afternoon — with sprinklers running during a first-half break.

There were thousands of empty seats scattered throughout Levi’s Stadium, home of the NFL’s San Francisco 49ers. Brazil and Colombia drew 70,971 two years ago in a group match at the Copa America. The stadium in Santa Clara staged the Super Bowl only four months ago.

Switzerland goalkeeper Gregor Kobel made a save in the second minute after Edmilson Junior got through the defence for a one-on-one. Kobel corralled the ball again in the 90th on a close-range attempt by Ahmed Alaaeldin.

Switzerland is hoping to advance further than its round-of-16 showing four years ago before losing 6-1 to Portugal — when Goncalo Ramos delivered an improbable hat-trick playing in place of benched star Cristiano Ronaldo. The loss prompted Switzerland midfielder Xherdan Shaqiri to apologize the the fans.

The Swiss used consistency and experience to go unbeaten through qualifying against Sweden, Kosovo and Slovenia. Coach Murat Yakin’s team produced four wins and two draws to secure its sixth straight World Cup appearance and hasn’t missed one since 2002, but the team has never gotten beyond the quarterfinals.

Qatar, led by Spanish coach Julen Lopetegui, had to qualify through a playoff in November — beating the United Arab Emirates and Oman — after missing an opportunity from its group stage of Asian qualifying.

The Gulf state country became the first host nation to lose all of its group matches four years ago. It lost to Senegal, Ecuador and the Netherlands in the 2022 tournament, scoring its lone goal in a 3-1 loss to Senegal.

United States President Donald Trump has said an initial agreement to end the US-Israeli war with Iran is “scheduled to get signed tomorrow”.

But that announcement, made on Trump’s Truth Social account on Saturday, contradicts an earlier statement by Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei.

In remarks carried by Iran’s IRNA news agency, Baghaei said a memorandum of understanding would not be signed on Sunday and that negotiators are not planning to travel immediately to Geneva, Switzerland, in preparation for such an event.

According to Baghaei, a signing could happen “in the coming days”.

Hours later, Trump wrote, “The Deal is scheduled to get signed tomorrow, and immediately after it is signed, the Hormuz Strait is OPEN TO ALL.” Sunday marks Trump’s 80th birthday.

In recent days, Iran and the US have repeatedly contradicted each other when describing the details of the anticipated agreement, even as both sides have broadly signalled that a deal was closer than ever before.

Still, no terms have been officially released, with US and Iranian officials on Friday stressing that the agreement had not been finalised.

Beyond opening the Strait of Hormuz, Trump said in Saturday’s post that the agreement would be a “A WALL TO NO NUCLEAR WEAPON!” and that “no money would exchange hands”.

Trump also maintained that “at the appropriate time, when all is calm, we will go in and get the Nuclear Dust”, referring to Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium.

But speaking on Iran’s Press TV on Friday, Iranian ⁠⁠Foreign ⁠⁠Minister Abbas Araghchi said the initial memorandum of understanding would only be a launch point for negotiations about the future of Iran’s nuclear programme.

He added that the signing would result in an immediate pause in fighting, but that Iran and Oman would continue to administer the Strait of Hormuz.

The issue of lifting foreign sanctions against Iran and unfreezing the country’s assets would be discussed following the signing of the memorandum of understanding, Araghchi said.

From threats to diplomacy

The latest flurry of diplomacy came after the US and Iran traded strikes for two days this week, threatening to end a pause in fighting that has persisted since April 8.

The US and Israel launched the war on Iran on February 28, amid ongoing indirect talks on the future of Iran’s nuclear programme.

The US and Israel had also launched a 12-day war on Iran in 2025, during another round of nuclear talks.

Iranian officials have said that deep distrust towards the US has slowed the progress towards creating a lasting agreement to bring the current war to an end.

Trump, meanwhile, has repeatedly pledged to reach a deal that would surpass the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), struck under his Democratic rival, former President Barack Obama.

That agreement, from which Trump unilaterally withdrew in 2018, saw Tehran agree to limit its nuclear programme and allow for international inspections in exchange for sanctions relief.

For years, Iran has maintained that it is building a nuclear programme for civilian use only and is not seeking a nuclear weapon.

In his post on Truth Social, Trump again pledged that any deal reached would be more stringent than the JCPOA.

“Our relationship with Iran is a much different and better one than previous Administrations have had,” he said.

“Hopefully, this process will all work out quickly, easily, and smoothly,” he added.

“If it doesn’t, we have the ultimate alternative, hopefully never to be used again!” he wrote, without elaborating on what his threat meant.

Animal lovers in Gaza are resorting to desperate measures to keep their pets alive and healthy. Only two pet clinics are still operating, and critical veterinary supplies and animal food are running low. Vets are warning animal deaths will rise unless supplies arrive soon.

Israeli attack reportedly kills one person in central Gaza’s Bureij camp, as a disabled Palestinian is shot in the West Bank.

Israeli forces have carried out a deadly attack in a refugee camp in central Gaza, according to Palestinian media reports, as casualties continue to mount in the enclave despite a “ceasefire” declared months ago.

The Israeli drone attack in the Bureij camp on Saturday killed one person and injured two others, reported the Wafa news agency.

The Palestinian Information Center identified the person killed as Muawiya al-Aydi, a local municipality worker.

Further north, a separate Israeli attack injured a person at a gathering in Gaza City’s Tuffah neighbourhood, according to Wafa.

Despite a ceasefire technically in effect since October, Israel’s military has regularly attacked Gaza, over half of which is under Israeli military control in defiance of the ceasefire’s terms.

According to Gaza’s Health Ministry, at least two Palestinians have been killed and 11 injured in Israeli attacks on the enclave in the past 48 hours.

The ministry said 983 people have been killed and 3,122 injured in Israeli attacks since the ceasefire was declared.

Hamas has accused Israel of repeatedly violating the agreement through its continued attacks and by shifting the so-called “Yellow Line” that demarcates Israeli-controlled areas in Gaza.

“Israeli actions reflect its unwillingness to implement the ceasefire agreement and aim to blow up the negotiation track and thwart the efforts being made, while continuing escalation to serve political and electoral considerations,” said Hamas spokesman Hazem Qassem on Friday.

Disabled Palestinian shot, injured in West Bank

Israeli troops also carried out a series of violent raids in the occupied West Bank on Saturday, part of a pattern of near-daily operations since the Hamas-led attacks on Israel on October 7, 2023.

According to Wafa, Israeli forces deployed stun grenades and tear gas during two separate incidents near Bethlehem, causing numerous injuries: one during a raid on the Dheisheh refugee camp and the other while blocking access to the Solomon’s Pools reservoirs.

A disabled Palestinian man was also shot and injured in the town of Duma, near Hebron.

Wafa said Israeli forces shot the man, while Israeli media cited Israeli police as saying an Israeli settler was responsible. According to Israeli police, the settler felt threatened by the man who was carrying a rock.

Other Israeli settlers attacked Palestinians and vandalised property near Bethlehem, including assaulting Palestinian electrical workers and stealing water pipes, said Wafa.

Henry Ensher, a former US ambassador, says the US–Iran agreement is not a final settlement but only the start of a process, with many ways it could still go wrong.

Israel has continued to attack Lebanon, despite Iran saying it was included in a potential memorandum of understanding with the US. Fresh forced displacement orders were issued on Saturday morning, following Israeli bombardment throughout Friday night on towns and villages in the south.