news

Last week, a prominent Saudi Sheikh, Mohammed Al-Issa, visited the Auschwitz concentration camp in Poland to commemorate the 75th anniversary of its liberation, which signalled the end of the Nazi Holocaust. Although dozens of Muslim scholars have visited the site, where about one million Jews were killed during World War Two, according to the Auschwitz Memorial Centre’s press office, Al-Issa is the most senior Muslim religious leader to do so.

Visiting Auschwitz is not a problem for a Muslim; Islam orders Muslims to reject unjustified killing of any human being, no matter what their faith is. Al-Issa is a senior ally of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MBS), who apparently cares little for the sanctity of human life, though, and the visit to Auschwitz has very definite political connotations beyond any Islamic context.

By sending Al-Issa to the camp, Bin Salman wanted to show his support for Israel, which exploits the Holocaust for geopolitical colonial purposes. “The Israeli government decided that it alone was permitted to mark the 75th anniversary of the Allied liberation of Auschwitz [in modern day Poland] in 1945,” wrote journalist Richard Silverstein recently when he commented on the gathering of world leaders in Jerusalem for Benjamin Netanyahu’s Holocaust event.

READ: Next up, a Saudi embassy in Jerusalem 

Bin Salman uses Al Issa for such purposes, as if to demonstrate his own Zionist credentials. For example, the head of the Makkah-based Muslim World League is leading rapprochement efforts with Evangelical Christians who are, in the US at least, firm Zionists in their backing for the state of Israel. Al-Issa has called for a Muslim-Christian-Jewish interfaith delegation to travel to Jerusalem in what would, in effect, be a Zionist troika.

Zionism is not a religion, and there are many non-Jewish Zionists who desire or support the establishment of a Jewish state in occupied Palestine. The definition of Zionism does not mention the religion of its supporters, and Israeli writer Sheri Oz, is just one author who insists that non-Jews can be Zionists.

Mohammad Bin Salman and Netanyahu – Cartoon [Tasnimnews.com/Wikipedia]

We should not be shocked, therefore, to see a Zionist Muslim leader in these trying times. It is reasonable to say that Bin Salman’s grandfather and father were Zionists, as close friends of Zionist leaders. Logic suggests that Bin Salman comes from a Zionist dynasty.

This has been evident from his close relationship with Zionists and positive approaches to the Israeli occupation and establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, calling it “[the Jews’] ancestral homeland”. This means that he has no issue with the ethnic cleansing of almost 800,000 Palestinians in 1948, during which thousands were killed and their homes demolished in order to establish the Zionist state of Israel.

“The ‘Jewish state’ claim is how Zionism has tried to mask its intrinsic Apartheid, under the veil of a supposed ‘self-determination of the Jewish people’,” wrote Israeli blogger Jonathan Ofir in Mondoweiss in 2018, “and for the Palestinians it has meant their dispossession.”

As the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, Crown Prince Bin Salman has imprisoned dozens of Palestinians, including representatives of Hamas. In doing so he is serving Israel’s interests. Moreover, he has blamed the Palestinians for not making peace with the occupation state. Bin Salman “excoriated the Palestinians for missing key opportunities,” wrote Danial Benjamin in Moment magazine. He pointed out that the prince’s father, King Salman, has played the role of counterweight by saying that Saudi Arabia “permanently stands by Palestine and its people’s right to an independent state with occupied East Jerusalem as its capital.”

UN expert: Saudi crown prince behind hack on Amazon CEO 

Israeli journalist Barak Ravid of Israel’s Channel 13 News reported Bin Salman as saying: “In the last several decades the Palestinian leadership has missed one opportunity after the other and rejected all the peace proposals it was given. It is about time the Palestinians take the proposals and agree to come to the negotiations table or shut up and stop complaining.” This is reminiscent of the words of the late Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban, one of the Zionist founders of Israel, that the Palestinians “never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.”

Bin Salman’s Zionism is also very clear in his bold support for US President Donald Trump’s deal of the century, which achieves Zionist goals in Palestine at the expense of Palestinian rights. He participated in the Bahrain conference, the forum where the economic side of the US deal was announced, where he gave “cover to several other Arab countries to attend the event and infuriated the Palestinians.”

US President Donald Trump looks over at Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia Mohammad bin Salman al-Saud as they line up for the family photo during the opening day of Argentina G20 Leaders’ Summit 2018 at Costa Salguero on 30 November 2018 in Buenos Aires, Argentina [Daniel Jayo/Getty Images]

While discussing the issue of the current Saudi support for Israeli policies and practices in Palestine with a credible Palestinian official last week, he told me that the Palestinians had contacted the Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro to ask him not to relocate his country’s embassy to Jerusalem. “The Saudis have been putting pressure on us in order to relocate our embassy to Jerusalem,” replied the Brazilian leader. What more evidence of Mohammad Bin Salman’s Zionism do we need?

The founder of Friends of Zion Museum is American Evangelical Christian Mike Evans. He said, after visiting a number of the Gulf States, that, “The leaders [there] are more pro-Israel than a lot of Jews.” This was a specific reference to Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince, and his counterpart in the UAE, Mohammed Bin Zayed.

“All versions of Zionism lead to the same reactionary end of unbridled expansionism and continued settler colonial genocide of [the] Palestinian people,” Israeli-American writer and photographer Yoav Litvin wrote for Al Jazeera. We may well see an Israeli Embassy opened in Riyadh in the near future, and a Saudi Embassy in Tel Aviv or, more likely, Jerusalem. Is Mohammad Bin Salman a Zionist? There’s no doubt about it.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

Despite promising to end United States involvement in costly and destructive foreign wars, President Donald Trump, together with Israel, has launched a massive military assault on Iran, targeting its leadership and nuclear and missile infrastructure.

Much like his predecessors, Trump has relied on military force to pursue US strategic interests, continuing a pattern that has defined US foreign policy for more than two decades.

Since the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and the US capital, the US has engaged in three full-scale wars and bombed at least 10 countries in operations ranging from drone strikes to invasions, often multiple times within a single year.

The graphic below shows all the countries the US has bombed since 2001.

These may not include all military strikes, particularly covert or special operations.

The cost of decades of war

In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks, President George W Bush launched what he called a “war on terror”, a global military campaign that reshaped US foreign policy and triggered wars, invasions and air strikes across numerous countries.

According to an analysis by Brown University’s Watson Institute of International & Public Affairs, US-led wars since 2001 have directly caused the deaths of about 940,000 people across Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and other conflict zones.

This does not include indirect deaths, namely those caused by loss of access to food, healthcare or war-related diseases.

The US has spent an estimated $5.8 trillion funding its more than two decades of conflict.

This includes $2.1 trillion spent by the Department of Defense (DOD), $1.1 trillion by Homeland Security, $884bn to increase the DOD base budget, $465bn on veterans’ medical care and an additional $1 trillion in interest payments on loans taken out to fund the wars.

In addition to the $5.8 trillion already spent, the US is expected to have to lay out at least another $2.2 trillion for veterans’ care over the next 30 years.

This would bring the total estimated cost of US wars since 2001 to $8 trillion.

Afghanistan war (2001-2021)

The first and most direct response to 9/11 was the invasion of Afghanistan to dismantle al-Qaeda and remove the Taliban from power.

On October 7, 2001, the US launched Operation Enduring Freedom.

The initial invasion succeeded in toppling the Taliban regime within just a few weeks. However, armed resistance groups mounted a prolonged resistance against US and coalition forces.

The war went on to become the longest conflict in US history, spanning four presidencies and lasting 20 years until the final withdrawal in 2021, after which the Taliban regained control of Afghanistan.

An estimated 241,000 people died as a direct result of the war, according to an analysis from Brown University’s Costs of War project. Hundreds of thousands more people, mostly civilians, died due to hunger, disease and injuries caused by the war.

At least 3,586 soldiers from the US and its NATO allies were killed in the war, which is estimated to have cost $2.26 trillion for the US, according to the Cost of War project.

Iraq war (2003-2011)

On March 20, 2003, Bush launched a second war, this time in Iraq, claiming that President Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction – a claim that proved to be false.

On May 1, 2003, Bush declared “mission accomplished” and the end of major combat operations in Iraq.

However, the subsequent years were defined by violence from armed groups and a power vacuum that fuelled the rise of ISIL (ISIS).

In 2008, Bush agreed to withdraw US combat troops, a process completed in 2011 under President Barack Obama.

The drone wars: Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen

Although not declared wars, the US has also expanded its air and drone campaigns.

Beginning in the mid-2000s, the CIA launched drone strikes inside Pakistan’s tribal areas along the Afghan border, targeting al-Qaeda and Taliban figures believed to be operating there. These strikes marked the early expansion of remote warfare.

Obama dramatically expanded the drone strikes in Pakistan, particularly in the early years of his presidency.

At the same time, the US conducted air strikes in Somalia against suspected al-Qaeda affiliates, later targeting fighters linked to al-Shabab as that armed group grew in strength.

In Yemen, US forces carried out missile and drone strikes against al-Qaeda leaders.

Libya intervention

In 2011 during an uprising against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, the US joined a NATO-led intervention in Libya. American forces launched air and missile strikes to enforce a no-fly zone.

Gaddafi was overthrown and killed, and Libya descended into prolonged instability and factional fighting.

Iraq and Syria

From 2014 onwards, the US intervened in the Syrian war with the stated goal of defeating ISIL. Building on its campaign in Iraq, the US conducted sustained air strikes in Syria while supporting local partner forces on the ground.

In Iraq, US forces advised Iraqi troops, fought ISIL remnants and tried to counter Iranian influence, highlighted by a Trump-ordered 2020 strike that killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani.

Beirut, Lebanon – Hezbollah raised the stakes for the Lebanese government on Tuesday, when it launched an attack on Israel’s Ramat Airbase and a barrage of rockets another military facility in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, a day after Prime Minister Nawaf Salam’s cabinet announced a ban on Hezbollah’s military and security activities.

Analysts said that the Lebanese government’s decision, while difficult to implement, might have a decisive impact on the future of Lebanon. Some say it was a necessary step to bring decisions related to security and defence under the central government’s control, while others argue it raises the spectre of internal strife.

Imad Salamey, a political scientist at the Lebanese American University, said that implementation of the government’s decision to disarm Hezbollah was “more plausible today than in previous years because the decision reflects unusually broad national backing, including from within the Shia political sphere”.

“Amal’s vote in favour signals that support for consolidating arms under state authority is no longer framed purely as a sectarian or anti-resistance demand, but increasingly as a state-stabilisation necessity – especially amid economic collapse and regional escalation,” he said, referring to the other Lebanese Shia Muslim group headed by Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri.

But Michael Young, a Lebanon expert at the Carnegie Middle East Center, said the decision was easier said than done.

“Implementation is going to he much more complicated. The army is not enthusiastic to enter into a fight with Hezbollah,” Young told Al Jazeera.

“It’s good that the state has taken this decision, but it is not good that the army seems very reluctant to implement this decision,” he added.

The Iran-backed Hezbollah effectively joined the war that the United States and Israel started against Iran on Saturday when it launched a barrage of rockets and drones towards northern Israel on Monday, saying it was acting to avenge the killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Tehran and Israel’s near-daily attacks on Lebanon.

Israel responded by hitting Beirut’s southern suburbs with loud attacks that woke many of the city’s residents up, and issued evacuation warnings for more than 50 towns, displacing tens of thousands of people from their homes.

Hezbollah’s military actions banned

As this unfolded, Salam’s cabinet met and debated the events before the prime minister called an emergency news conference.

“We announce a ban on Hezbollah’s military activities and restrict its role to the political sphere,” Salam said in a news conference on Monday after the meeting.

“We declare our rejection of any military or security operations launched from Lebanese territory outside the framework of legitimate institutions.”

He added that all of Hezbollah’s military or security activities are “illegal” and said security forces would “prevent any attacks originating from Lebanese territory” against Israel or other states.

“We declare our commitment to the cessation of hostilities and the resumption of negotiations,” he said.

The statement was the strongest stance against Hezbollah to date and even gained the support of Parliament Speaker, and longtime staunch Hezbollah ally, Nabih Berri, who leads the Amal Movement.

Justice Minister Adel Nassar, meanwhile, ordered the arrest of the people who ordered the attack.

A ‘landmark’ decision

Hezbollah has been Lebanon’s strongest political and military force for decades. But the 2023-2024 war with Israel devastated the group. Hezbollah lost the majority of its military leadership, including longtime Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah.

Since the end of that war, a debate over Hezbollah’s weapons and role has ensued. Salam’s government has promised to disarm Hezbollah, while the group itself only accepted giving up its arms south of the Litani River that cuts across southern Lebanon.

Despite a November 2024 ceasefire agreement, Israel continued to attack south and east Lebanon almost daily. But since Hezbollah’s retaliation, Israel has started bombing Beirut’s suburbs again. On Monday alone, Israel killed more than 52 people, wounded more than 150 others, struck targets all over Lebanon, and gave evacuation orders for more than 50 Lebanese towns.

While Hezbollah’s first attack on Israel in over a year took many by surprise, Israel’s violent response did not.

Critics of Hezbollah pointed out that the group had acted recklessly and gave Israel an excuse to unleash its fury on Lebanon. Israel has also spoken about a potential ground invasion.

For analysts, the Lebanese government’s decision was a clear indication of how far the group has fallen since 2024.

“The government’s decision to officially ban all Hezbollah activities represents a landmark shift in the position of the government toward disarming Hezbollah,” Dania Arayssi, a senior analyst at New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy, told Al Jazeera. “This is a further reaffirmation that Hezbollah has lost a lot, if not all, its political power and influence in the Lebanese government.”

Arayssi said Hezbollah’s diminished status since 2024 also meant that the likelihood of a clash between the group and the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) was minimal.

“I don’t think there is a possibility of this leading to internal strife,” she said.

Hezbollah challenges Salam’s government

Hezbollah did not welcome the announcement.

The head of Hezbollah’s Parliamentary Bloc, Mohammad Raad, dispelled rumours of his assassination on Monday evening when he released a statement dismissing the government’s decision.

“We see no justification for Prime Minister Salam and his government to take bombastic decisions against Lebanese citizens who reject the occupation and accuse them of violating the peace that the enemy itself has denied and refused to uphold for a year and four months,” Raad said in a statement. “[Israel] has imposed a state of daily war on the Lebanese people.”

“The Lebanese were expecting a decision to ban aggression, but instead they are faced with a decision to ban the rejection of aggression,” Raad added.

Jawad Salhab, a political researcher and analyst, called the government’s move “a grave betrayal of the Lebanese people and a grave betrayal of the Lebanese state, whose sovereignty has been violated for 15 months.”

“Fifteen months of strategic patience have cost us more than 500 martyrs, while this Zionist enemy has persisted in its aggression against Lebanon and its sovereignty by air, land, and sea,” he said.

Overnight on Monday, leading into Tuesday, Israel struck targets around Lebanon, including the southern suburbs of the capital Beirut. In one strike, Israel targeted al-Manar, Hezbollah’s television station.

Then, on Tuesday morning, Hezbollah attacked Israel again, in what will be interpreted as a clear challenge to Salam’s announcement.

The Lebanese army had been tasked with an earlier government decision to disarm Hezbollah and said in January that it completed the first phase south of the Litani River. But Hezbollah has refused to move along with phase two, set to take place between the Litani and the Awali River, which is near the city of Sidon.

Nicholas Blanford, a nonresident senior fellow with the US-based Atlantic Council, told Al Jazeera that the government’s move was a “bold step” but one that might be difficult to enforce.

“How can they implement the decision?” Blanford asked, adding that it increased the potential for internal conflict.

Former US defense official Michael Mulroy breaks down the US justification for striking Iran, while some US officials say there were no immediate threats.

A shock-and-awe campaign laying down a tsunami of bombs. An enemy succumbing rapidly under overwhelming firepower. And a triumphant U.S. president trumpeting a quick and easy campaign.

In 2003, President George W. Bush strode confidently on the deck of an aircraft carrier less than five weeks after he ordered the invasion of Iraq and declared the “end of major combat operations” under a banner proclaiming “Mission Accomplished.”

It proved anything but.

The invasion became a meat grinder, leaving thousands of Americans and possibly more than a million Iraqis dead. It unleashed forces whose effects are felt in the region and beyond to this day.

More than two decades later, another U.S. president attacked another Persian Gulf nation, promising rapid success in yet another Middle East adventure that he says will remake the region.

President Trump and his staff have vehemently rejected any comparison between “Operation Epic Fury,” launched Saturday, and “Operation Iraqi Freedom.” On Monday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave a pugnacious news conference, insisting, “This is not Iraq. This is not endless.”

Yet the assault on Iran — almost four times larger than Iraq with more than double its population — presents no lack of challenges, ones that could spread chaos far beyond Iran’s borders and become a defining feature of Trump’s presidency.

In many ways, analysts say, toppling Iran’s leadership represents a much more complex task than Iraq ever did. Iraq was a state with deep sectarian divisions that was largely dominated by a single dictator: Saddam Hussein.

The Iran that emerged after the 1978-79 Islamic Revolution had a supreme leader, but Iran also developed an elaborate system of governance. That includes a president, a parliament and varying governmental, military and religious hierarchies, noted Paul Salem, senior fellow at the Middle East Institute.

“Unlike Saddam’s Iraq, the Iranian state is multi-institutional and hence much more resilient — and, yes, not as vulnerable,” Salem said. “And hostility to the United States and Israel is at the heart of the Islamic Revolution — baked into the state.”

Here are some of the ways the Iran attacks could develop into the very scenarios Trump once derided in his days as the antiwar candidate:

Boots on the ground

For now, the U.S. and Israel have wielded air power to pound Tehran into submission. In the first minutes of the joint operation, a 200-plane fleet — Israel’s largest — struck more than 500 targets in Iran, according to the Israeli military. One such strike killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Iran is still fighting back, lobbing missiles at Israel, Persian Gulf nations, Jordan and other areas with U.S. bases in the region. The U.S. has the qualitative and quantitative edge of materiel to eventually prevail, but Iran’s capabilities will not make it easy, as the losses in service members and planes have demonstrated in the last two days.

And wars have never been won with air power alone. Rather than relying on boots on the ground, Trump expects ordinary Iranians to finish the job for him.

“When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take,” he said in a video address on the first day of the campaign.

During the Arab Spring of 2011, protesters throughout the Middle East took to the streets to demand change. But those efforts mostly did not lead to significant reforms and, in some countries, prompted further repression.

In Iran, it’s true many people would welcome the Islamic Republic’s demise — as many Iraqis rejoiced at Hussein’s fall. But it’s unlikely that mostly unarmed protesters will triumph in a confrontation against enforcers from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or its volunteer wing, the Basij.

It’s also difficult to gauge how many of Iran’s 93 million people despise the government enough to rise up against it.

Meanwhile, Trump has left the door open for dispatching U.S. troops, but the math of such a deployment raises doubts.

According to the U.S. Army, counterinsurgency doctrine dictates 20 to 25 troops for every 1,000 inhabitants to achieve stability. In the case of Iran that would entail deploying 1.9 million people — almost all the U.S. military’s active duty, reserve and National Guard personnel.

New leadership unclear

At this point, it’s not clear that decapitation of much of Iran’s leadership class will produce any real change in government, much less a successor inclined to bend to U.S. wishes. The top echelons of the Islamic Republic boast a deep bench of mostly hard-liners — not surprising, perhaps, for a nation that has braced for attack for years, if not decades.

Whatever new leadership that does emerge could rally around the “martyrdom” of Khamenei. Not especially popular in life, he appears to have become, in death, a rallying cry for defiance. And martyrs are exalted in Shiite Islam, Iran’s prevalent faith.

“He was the religious leader of the Shiites, so it’s sort of like killing the pope,” Salem said. “And he’s more popular dying as a martyr, than, say, of a heart attack. … He went out in style, no doubt about it.”

When the U.S. occupied Iraq, the expectation was that whatever came next would be a fervent U.S. ally, an idea perhaps best captured in the notion in Washington that a grateful Iraqi populace would shower U.S. troops with flowers. That didn’t happen. And in the Darwin-esque culling of leaders that followed, the ones that emerged victorious had little love for the U.S.

One of them was Nouri Al-Maliki, a Shiite supremacist whose policies were blamed for fueling years of sectarian bloodletting, and whose loyalties often seemed more aligned with Tehran than Washington.

Meanwhile, Tehran, playing on its proximity and deep ties to the new Iraqi ruling class, was able to steer Iraq — a majority Shiite country — deeper into its orbit.

After the Iraqi government — with the help of a U. S.-led coalition — pushed Islamic State out of Iraq in 2017, Iran was able to embed allied militias into Iraq’s armed services. That created the paradoxical situation of Tehran-aligned fighters wielding U.S.-supplied materiel.

Iraq has yet to emerge from Iran’s shadow. After Iraq’s most recent elections, Maliki seems poised to become prime minister once more, prompting Trump to write on Truth Social, “Because of his insane policies and ideologies, if elected, the United States of America will no longer help Iraq.”

A fragmented opposition

Iran’s population is diverse; an estimated two-thirds of Iranians are Persian, while minorities include Kurds, Baloch, Arabs and Azeris.

Those minorities have long-standing grievances against the ruling majority. It’s possible that Trump’s campaign and the resulting disorder could fuel separatist tensions.

Just last month, Iranian Kurdish factions joined together in a coalition that they said would seek the overthrow of the Islamic Republic “to achieve the Kurdish people’s right to self-determination, and to establish a national and democratic entity based on the political will of the Kurdish nation in Iranian Kurdistan.”

An experienced insurgency

Over the decades, the Islamic Republic created a network that at its peak stretched from Pakistan to Lebanon.

It was a fearsome constellation of paramilitary factions and amenable governments that became known as the Axis of Resistance. It included Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestinian lands, Yemen’s Houthis, and militias in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

After Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attacks, Israel — and, eventually, the United States — launched offensive campaigns to defang the groups.

Although weakened, the factions still survive, and could form a powerful, transnational and motivated insurgency when the time comes to fight whatever emerges if the Islamic Republic falls.

Bulos reported from Khartoum, Sudan, and McDonnell from Mexico City.

With 100 ⁠days to go until the tournament kicks off, appetite for tickets to the 2026 World Cup in the United States, Mexico and Canada is reaching fever pitch despite eye-watering prices that have fans crying foul amid global unrest after the US-Israeli attacks on Iran.

In addition ⁠to the war against Iran – a country scheduled to play its World Cup group stage games in the US – the heavy-handed immigration crackdowns in the US and the violence that erupted near host city Guadalajara after the death of Mexico’s most-wanted drug cartel leader are causing concern for fans.

“I’m afraid I might not ⁠be allowed into the country. I’ve decided to fly to Canada at most but not to the USA,” German football fan Tom Roeder told the Reuters news agency

“I hope that at least the issue of war with Iran does not reach North America, at least not in a way that affects us personally.”

FIFA, which did not immediately respond to a request from Reuters for comment, has said nearly 2 million tickets were sold in the first two sales phases and demand was so intense that World Cup tickets were oversubscribed more than 30 ‌times.

The most expensive tickets for the opening game are going for almost $900 and more than $8,000 for the final while tickets in general cost at least $200 for matches involving leading nations. The cheapest tickets for the final cost $2,000 and the best seats $8,680 – that is before taking into account FIFA’s official resale site, where one category three seat for the game in New Jersey on July 19 was being advertised for an eye-watering $143,750, more than 41 times its original face value of $3,450.

Political and social tensions surrounding host nations are nothing new for the World Cup.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said there was “no risk” for fans coming to the country, and Adrian Nunez Corte, leader of Unipes, a fan association in Spain, said the situation has not affected willingness to buy tickets.

“Obviously, it is causing concern, but some Spanish fans living in the area have helped to calm things down after the initial hours of alarm,” Corte said.

“There is no alarm regarding US immigration policy, but people are taking preparation of the necessary visas seriously to avoid problems, especially since some fans will be travelling between the US and Mexico due to the match schedule.”

The buzz around the tournament in North America is unprecedented.

“The demand for the 2026 World Cup ⁠in the USA, Canada and Mexico is the strongest I’ve ever experienced,” said Michael Edgley, director at Australia’s Green and ⁠Gold Army Travel.

“I think FIFA will make record amounts of money. There’s no question.

“This World Cup will be a massive financial success, and the beneficiaries will be the member federations.”

But such popularity comes with a price.

Geography adds another layer of complexity as the tournament spans 16 host cities across three countries, making it more challenging and expensive for fans wanting to follow their teams.

“The price of ⁠tickets has been a major drawback, particularly affecting the number of matches each fan will attend, as well as the distances between venues and the costs involved,” Corte said.

Secondary ticket market soars

The sticker shock is even more pronounced this year, especially with ⁠a huge resale market in which tickets are sold at above face value, which is legal in the ⁠US and Canada.

FIFA defended the ticketing model.

“Unlike the entities behind profit-driven third-party ticket marketplaces, FIFA is a not-for-profit organisation,” a spokesperson said.

“Revenue generated from the FIFA World Cup 2026 ticket sales model is reinvested into the global development of football. … FIFA expects to reinvest more than 90 percent of its budgeted investment for the 2023-2026 cycle back into the game.”

Mehdi Salem, vice president of the French football fans association Les ‌Baroudeurs du Sport, said its members are seeing more than a 200 percent increase on what they were told would be the prices in 2018 by the French federation and FIFA.

The pricing pain is so acute that Salem’s association, which boasts about 400 members, will have only 100 attend the tournament – a dramatic drop that he attributed to ticket prices ‌and ‌the political landscape in the US.

“We feel like this World Cup will not really be a people’s World Cup but rather an elitist World Cup,” Salem added.

Iran has held a mass funeral for 165 schoolgirls and staff killed in what it has described as a United States-Israeli attack on a girls school in the southern city of Minab.

Saturday’s strike came on the first day of the joint US and Israeli attacks on Iran. It was the deadliest incident in the campaign against Tehran so far.

The Israeli military said it was not aware of any Israeli or US attacks in that area. Throughout its genocidal war on Gaza, however, Israel has repeatedly denied responsibility for deadly attacks on Palestinian civilians, only to later backtrack when evidence emerged, often describing such incidents as “accidental”.

The attack in Minab has been condemned by UNESCO and Nobel Peace Prize-winning education activist Malala Yousafzai.

Deliberately attacking an educational institution, hospital or any other civilian structure is a war crime under international humanitarian law.

On Monday, Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said the two countries “continue to indiscriminately strike residential areas, sparing neither hospitals, schools, Red Crescent facilities, nor cultural monuments”.

Bala Abubakar rises before dawn, fetching water and checking his irrigation canals. He grew up in Gurin, a community in Adamawa State, northeastern Nigeria, where rice cultivation has fed generations. To operate a thriving rice farm, Bala says he needs good seedlings, fertilisers, and perhaps a loan to tide him over. 

In 2024, members of the Rice Farmers Association of Nigeria (RIFAN) in the state got subsidy inputs through the Nigeria Incentive-based Risk Sharing System for Agricultural Lending (NIRSAL), a programme designed to de-risk agricultural lending for low-income farmers. Bala went to the nearest cybercafé to register, hoping to benefit from the initiative.

The registration required him to enter his National Identity Number (NIN) before he could access the loan. At the café, he entered his name and the NIN, but the system failed to verify him. The café attendant told him that his record was not found and advised him to try his bank’s verification number (BVN). He tried, but the system still failed him. Disappointed after visiting the cybercafé, Bala trudged back home. 

Like Bala, other farmers faced a similar problem. One farmer, Sani Bukar, tried to access the Growth Enhancement Support under the Government Enterprise and Empowerment Programme (GEEP),  an initiative designed to improve smallholder farmers’ access to agricultural inputs through an electronic, voucher-based system. He only received a “verification failed” message, despite having a phone number linked to his NIN.

“They have our pictures and fingerprints now,” Bala says, referring to the recent biometric enrollment drive. “But those pictures are in Abuja. Here in my village, what do I have?” 

His story reflects a deeper tension in Nigeria’s emerging Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) ecosystem. Although Nigeria has made progress in several areas of DPI, alignment across them is uneven. The NIN, for instance, is managed by the National Identity Management Commission (NIMC), while the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) manages the BVN system to expand financial inclusion. In addition, SIM registration—conducted by mobile network operators—links phone numbers to individuals’ identities.

On paper, these systems should make agricultural targeting seamless, but in practice, they often operate in silos. 

Bala’s dilemma is built on concrete technical barriers. To access most federal or sub-national agricultural interventions today, a farmer must have a valid NIN,  a phone number linked to that NIN, a bank account linked to a BVN, and a registration in a state or federal farmer database.  If any link in that chain fails, the entire process most often collapses. 

A 2025 overview of Nigeria’s connectivity landscape notes that only about 38 per cent of Nigerians were online in 2024, with rural communities significantly lagging behind.

“Without stable internet, many agricultural tools are rendered ineffective,” said Tajudeen Yahaya, an agricultural extension expert. “Even simple SMS or app-based registration frequently fails in rural communities.”

Beyond connectivity, issues with identity and data persist. The NIN registry has enrolled over 120 million people, but reports indicate that many more Nigerians have yet to enrol, particularly those in rural areas. Bala’s village falls within that gap. 

The problem spans across multiple government programmes. Different states in Nigeria maintain their own farmer databases that conflict with federal government records. For instance, Agricultural Development Programme (ADP) offices may possess one list, while federal systems could have a different one. 

“We tell farmers to get on the portal, but many are not in our state ADP database,” says Victor Anthony, who spoke on behalf of the Chairperson of the ADP programme in Adamawa State. “And even if they are, the federal system says we’re not synced.” 

In 2025, the Federal Ministry of Agriculture officially launched a National Digital Farmers Registry. The minister, Abubakar Kyari, announced that it would be anchored and accessed through the NIN. According to Abubakar, the registry would eliminate ghost beneficiaries and ensure targeted delivery of inputs, extension services, credit, and insurance. The goal is a single unified platform that links NINs to farmlands, so that when a farmer applies, the system already “knows” him and his fields. 

However, a recent statement from the agriculture ministry noted duplications and inconsistencies in farmers’ records, making it difficult to support them.

Interventions

Many government parastatals and private institutions are working to improve digitalisation for farmers and rural communities. NIMC has expanded the number of enrolment centres under the World Bank–supported programme, aiming to register up to 150 million Nigerians. Mobile NIN vans now travel to rural markets and religious gatherings, reducing distance barriers.

In October 2025, the World Bank approved a $500 million Building Resilient Digital Infrastructure for Growth (BRIDGE) project to lay fibre optics across Nigeria. Over the next five years, 90,000 km of fibre will be added, expanding the national backbone from 35,000 km to 125,000 km. When completed, this network will connect every local government, thousands of schools and clinics, and even remote agricultural research stations. 

In local communities, farming cooperatives and technology companies are also contributing. The Extension Africa network has provided training to many local extension agents in digital tools, enabling them to act as “digital ambassadors” in rural areas. Some platforms are testing offline kiosks that permit farmers to download guidance and transaction records whenever they visit town.

The federal government’s renewed Agric Infrastructure Fund and various projects with agencies aim to equip these hubs with basic internet as part of a broader “Digital Village” initiative.  However, these fixes are works in progress. 

An African challenge?

Nigeria’s struggles are shared across the Global South, and other countries’ experiences offer cautionary lessons. In India, billions of dollars in farmer subsidies are paid directly to bank accounts via Aadhaar ID. The country is now rolling out Agri Stack, a digital initiative that gives each farmer a unique digital ID linked to land records. 

When the government mandated e-KYC for OTPs in 2023, nearly 5 per cent of beneficiaries were flagged as “ineligible” when verification failed. Many older farmers lacked a working linked phone, had worn fingerprints, or ran into a buggy face-scan app. 

With 70 per cent of the population in rural areas, agriculture accounts for 33 per cent of GDP in Kenya, but the country has struggled with piecemeal data. A recent study notes that millions of Kenyan smallholders remain “invisible to formal agricultural programmes”. In 2023, Kenya launched a national digital registry for farmers, but poor connectivity and low smartphone ownership are barriers, as in Nigeria. 

On the positive side, Kenya has explored linking its digital ID (Huduma card) to farm cooperatives and training agents in the field. Rwanda goes even further by running the Smart Nkunganire e-voucher system, in which registered farmers receive digital coupons for seeds and fertilisers based on precise plots. These programmes suggest that pairing farmer IDs with geotagged land data can dramatically improve targeting, but only if the data are entered correctly, experts said.

Ethiopia has introduced a National ID requirement for various services. The newly established National Agricultural Finance Implementation Roadmap (NAFIR) incorporates a Fayda ID, which is a 12-digit unique identification number provided by the National ID Programme (NIDP) to residents who meet the necessary criteria set by NIDP. This system is designed for farmers associated with a land registry containing 18 million plots. The World Bank highlights that digital identity could unlock rural finance at scale in Ethiopia, but warns that without addressing its infrastructure gaps, digital solutions risk remaining pilots.

What needs to change

Experts argue that Nigeria must double down on making its digital agriculture ecosystem inclusive and resilient. Frank Akabueze, a Nigerian-based digital identity expert, noted that IDs should be flexible to ensure seamless registration. He said the NIN may be central, but alternative pathways should exist. For instance, cooperative leaders should be allowed to register farmers offline (paper intake by trusted agents) and synchronise later, rather than requiring each individual’s smartphone.” 

“Voter card numbers should be made acceptable as interim IDs,” Frank said, noting the importance of equipping extension workers with portable biometric devices so they can register farmers on the spot, as some countries do. In India, the option of offline Aadhaar verification was eventually introduced to help offline farmers. 

The digital expert noted that all of Nigeria’s data siloes – NIMC, BVN, SIM records and databases should be harmonised. He stressed that legal frameworks like the new digital ID policy can mandate data sharing between agencies (with privacy safeguards). 

“Spelling mismatches and duplicates should be proactively cleaned: one approach is to use biometric deduplication, as India did at scale for Aadhaar,” he added. 

He also said the proposed National Digital Farmers Registry should connect to the NIN and verify existing records, such as the national farmers’ census, to minimise errors, such as listing the same farmer in multiple states or with different ages.

This report is produced under the DPI Africa Journalism Fellowship Programme of the Media Foundation for West Africa and Co-Develop.

Explosions have rung out across Tehran as the war entered its fourth day with the United States and Israel continuing to pound Iran’s capital and numerous other cities and locations after the assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

Iran continued on Tuesday to retaliate against Israel and throughout the Gulf where nations host US assets.

At least 787 people have been killed in US-Israeli strikes on a minimum of 131 cities across Iran, the Iranian Red Crescent Society said on Tuesday.

Israel’s military said it had “struck and dismantled” the headquarters of Iran’s state radio and television broadcaster, the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), accusing it of “calling for the destruction of the State of Israel and for the use of nuclear weapons”.

In a post on Telegram, IRIB reported explosions near its headquarters in Tehran but said there had been no disruption to its operations.

Tehran’s streets have been largely deserted as people take shelter during the air strikes.

Iranian media also reported explosions in the city of Karaj, just outside Tehran, as well as in the central city of Isfahan.

Iran held a mass funeral on Tuesday for 165 schoolgirls and staff killed on Saturday in what Iran said was a US-Israeli attack on a school in the southern city of Minab.

Mérida, March 2, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan popular movements condemned the recent US and Israeli attacks against Iran and expressed support and solidarity with the West Asian nation. 

On Saturday, February 28, the International Platform for Solidarity with the Palestinian Cause and the Alexis Vive Patriotic Force were among the organizations issuing statements rejecting Washington and Tel Aviv’s military actions.

The organizations decried the bombings of Iranian territory, including against civilian targets, and described the operations as serious violations of international law. The International Platform for Solidarity with the Palestinian Cause expressed “deep outrage” over the bombing of a girls’ school in Minab that killed over 175 people.

“This infamous act will not crush the heroic resistance of the Iranian people, in their example of dignity in the face of imperialist and zionist aggression,” the platform’s communiqué read.

For its part, the Alexis Vive Patriotic Force emphasized that the latest attacks are not an isolated incident, but rather “another attempt to impose regime change and undermine Iran’s self-determination.” 

“These actions seek to reconfigure the political map of Western Asia in favor of the strategic interests of Washington and Tel Aviv,” the organization, a driving force in El Panal Commune in Caracas, added in its statement.

The Venezuelan chapter of Alba Movimientos, a continental alliance of social movements, likewise issued a statement declaring “unrestricted solidarity” with Iran and calling on multilateral organizations to deter the US and Israel’s “warmongering.”

Venezuelan grassroots organizations scheduled a rally on Tuesday in front of the Iranian embassy in Caracas to reiterate their support and condemnation of the foreign aggression against the country.

West Asia has been thrown into open conflict after the US and Israel launched operations “Epic Fury” and “Lion’s Roar,” respectively, on Saturday, with widespread bombings against Iran and targeted assassinations against the country’s leadership. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, was killed along with several relatives by an Israeli strike. 

Washington and Tel Aviv justified the systematic bombing of Tehran and other cities as a “preemptive strike,” with officials from both countries claiming without evidence that Iran was working toward nuclear weapons.

In response, Iranian forces launched defensive maneuvers and retaliatory attacks against US military assets in the region, striking bases and other targets in countries including Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Iraq, and Jordan. Iran has also launched multiple waves of missiles against Israel and vowed to implement a strategic blockade in the Strait of Hormuz.

Caracas withdraws statement, expresses solidarity with Qatar

The Venezuelan government issued a statement on Saturday expressing its “condemnation and deep regret” that the “military option was chosen” with attacks against Iran while diplomatic talks were ongoing. However, Caracas did not name the US and Israel as the perpetrators. 

The communiqué went on to condemn Iran’s retaliatory actions as “inappropriate and reprehensible military reprisals against targets in various countries in the region.” The document ended with a call for a return to negotiations between all parties.

The government’s position drew widespread criticism on social media and was removed from the Foreign Ministry’s official accounts, as well as from Foreign Minister Yván Gil’s Telegram and X platforms, on Saturday evening.

Venezuelan leaders, including Acting President Delcy Rodríguez, have offered no explanation for the statement’s publication and deletion. On Monday, Rodríguez reported a phone conversation with Qatari Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani in which she expressed “solidarity” amidst the “violence and instability” in the region.

“I expressed my condolences and deep concern over the loss of civilian lives due to the ongoing conflict, reiterating our call to respect international law and preserve peace,” the acting president wrote.

Caracas’ latest stance contrasts with its previous fierce condemnations of US and Israeli actions in West Asia, including the genocide in Gaza, attacks against Lebanon, and the assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah.

Venezuela had likewise firmly backed Iran, one of its strongest allies in the past quarter century, against foreign attacks, including during the June 2026 war against Israel.

During Hugo Chávez’s presidency (1999-2013), Caracas and Tehran consolidated a multidimensional strategic alliance based on opposition to US expansion and a commitment to building a multipolar world. During this period, more than 270 bilateral agreements were signed in sectors such as energy, housing, agriculture, and technology.

The close ties, described by both governments as a “revolutionary brotherhood,” also provided key lifelines as both countries faced US-led economic sanctions. Venezuela benefited from Iranian technology transfers in areas such as drone manufacturing, cement, and vehicle assembly.

Iran provided key fuel shipments in 2020, defying US threats, as the Venezuelan economy reeled under US coercive measures.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

The loss of three U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles to apparent friendly fire over Kuwait earlier today underscores an enduring reality of conflict: despite advances in technology, high levels of training, and the most carefully prepared plans, casualties inflicted by the same side are always a hazard. Indeed, these are not the first blue-on-blue incidents involving U.S. and allied combat aircraft in the various campaigns since the end of the Cold War. Two of those, in particular, both dating from the invasion of Iraq in 2003, appear eerily similar to the incident over Kuwait today.

While we are still awaiting detailed information as to what happened over Kuwait today, U.S. Central Command has confirmed that the six crew members involved are all safe. You can meanwhile get up to date with what we know about the incident in our report here.

In light of that, we now look back at the previous, high-profile friendly-fire incidents in which the U.S. military has been involved in recent decades.

U.S. Army UH-60 Black Hawks, 1994

In terms of overall loss of life, the costliest fratricide incident involving U.S. military aircraft since the end of the Cold War was the April 14, 1994, shootdown by U.S. Air Force F-15 Eagle fighters of two U.S. Army UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters over Iraq, in which 26 individuals died.

On that date, the two Black Hawks and their crews were assigned to Operation Provide Comfort, a multinational relief effort to aid Kurdish refugees in southern Turkey following the 1991 Gulf War. The helicopters were transporting U.S., British, French, and Turkish military officers; Kurdish representatives; and a U.S. political advisor in northern Iraq. Operating over Turkey was a U.S. Air Force E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control Systems (AWACS) aircraft, to offer airborne threat warning and control for the Provide Comfort aircraft, including the Black Hawks. Despite this, the pilots of two U.S. Air Force F-15 fighters patrolling the area misidentified the Black Hawks as Iraqi Mi-25 Hind helicopters (export versions of the Mi-24) and shot them down.

A subsequent investigation into the incident revealed that, despite the AWACS crew being aware that the Black Hawks were in the area, the two F-15 pilots were not. The Eagle pilots received two radar contacts (indicating helicopters) and stated that they attempted unsuccessfully to identify them by electronic means. They twice reported their unsuccessful attempts to the AWACS, but were still not informed of the presence of the friendly Black Hawks. The F-15 pilots attempted a visual identification, making a single pass each of the helicopters, but this was later deemed insufficient for a positive ID. Instead, the lead pilot misidentified the helicopters as hostile Hinds. The pilot’s confusion was compounded by the fact that the UH-60s were carrying fuel tanks on their external pylons, making them look more like Hinds, with their characteristic stub-wing weapons stations.

The F-15C flight lead fired a single missile and shot down the trailing Black Hawk helicopter. At the lead pilot’s direction, the F-15 wingman also fired a single missile and shot down the lead helicopter. All 26 individuals aboard the two Black Hawks were killed.

After the investigation, which described a catalog of failures, both human and technical, the two F-15 pilots were disqualified from aviation service for three years. Similar punishments were faced by three members of the AWACS crew.

U.K. Royal Air Force Tornado GR4A, 2003

The pilot and navigator of this Tornado reconnaissance jet were both killed when they were targeted by a U.S. Army Patriot air defense missile during the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Flying as part of a package of Coalition aircraft, the Tornado was returning to Ali Al Salem Air Base in Kuwait on March 22, 2003, when the Patriot battery wrongly identified it as an Iraqi anti-radiation missile. The suspected hostile track was interrogated by the identification friend or foe (IFF) system, but there was no response. The Patriot crew launched the missile, and the Tornado began self-defense actions.

Both Tornado crew members were killed instantly when the missile hit their aircraft.

The U.K. Ministry of Defense’s investigation into the incident concluded that a number of issues had contributed. Some of these related to the Patriot system and included the threat classification criteria, rules of engagement, firing doctrine, crew training, IFF procedures, and the nature of autonomous battery operation. The Tornado’s IFF serviceability was a contributing factor, and investigators also found issues with aircraft routing and airspace control measures, as well as overall orders and instructions.

U.S. Navy F/A-18C Hornet, 2003

The F/A-18C flown by Lt. Nathan Dennis White of Strike Fighter Squadron 195 was another victim of a Patriot missile during the war in Iraq in 2003.

According to U.S. Central Command, on April 2, 2003, Lt. White was flying one of two Navy F/A-18s near Karbala in central Iraq, which were heading back to their aircraft carrier, the USS Kitty Hawk. As in the Tornado incident the previous month, a Patriot missile battery mistakenly identified the Hornet as an Iraqi missile. The notification was passed on to the Information Coordination Center, responsible for coordinating air defense. The center mistakenly designated the flight path of the Navy jet as a missile track.

Seconds later, a second Patriot battery located closer to the front line also detected the F/A-18C and also mistook it for an Iraqi missile. The second battery concluded that it was being targeted by the missile. The air defense batteries were reportedly both assigned to defend the U.S. Army’s 3rd Infantry Division, which was driving north near Karbala and about 50 miles from the Iraqi capital.

Since the erroneous reports aligned, the operators at the two Patriot batteries and at the command center became “increasingly confident that they were all detecting the same hostile missile, that their detection was accurate, and that this missile was a direct threat to U.S. forces,” according to a summary of the report into the incident.

The command center ordered that two Patriot missiles be launched, shooting down the F/A-18C and killing Lt. White.

The personnel involved did not face punishment. “It was determined … that no disciplinary action was warranted,” said Marine Capt. Kelly Frushour, a spokeswoman for Central Command.

U.S. Navy F/A-18F Super Hornet, 2024

Most recently, a U.S. Navy F/A-18F belonging to Strike Fighter Squadron 11 was involved in a friendly-fire incident with a U.S. Navy Ticonderoga class cruiser in the Red Sea on December 22, 2024.

As we detailed in our previous coverage of the incident, the F/A-18F was returning to the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman, after conducting a refueling mission. The Carrier Strike Group had been busy fending off a sustained Houthi drone and missile attack in the run-up to the incident. Indeed, a series of errors and misjudgements meant that the Super Hornet had been identified by the warship as a Houthi anti-ship cruise missile, like others fired at the strike group.

“After successfully returning from its initial mission, an F/A-18F launched again to provide air defense support from OWAs and ASCMs [one-way attack drones and anti-ship cruise missiles] that were inbound to the force,” a U.S. official told TWZ at the time. “They were shot down while recovery of remaining aircraft was underway.”

The F/A-18F was downed by a Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) from the cruiser USS Gettysburg. Both crew members ejected from their jet and were recovered. Initial reports indicated that one of the crew members had minor injuries.

A myriad of issues, some systemic, contributed to the shootdown and the near miss, as we discussed once the report into the incident was published. How all these factors combined to cause the friendly-fire incident is something we previously examined in a study about the stresses the Red Sea deployments were putting on Navy surface combatants’ Combat Information Center (CIC), the nerve center and tactical brain of those vessels.

During the same operation in the Red Sea, Gettysburg also almost shot down another Super Hornet, too.

What all these incidents have in common is the fact that the complexities of aerial warfare make this an unpredictable and hazardous business, especially when split-second decisions have to be made. The proliferation of varied threats, as well as the fact that U.S. forces may have to fight alongside allies using different weapons, doctrines, and operating procedures, only adds to the challenge.

In all of these cases, the incidents occurred in high-threat environments with multiple layers of hazards, some of which can be very hard to detect and categorize, and which increasingly arrive simultaneously. As well as more traditional threats, like cruise and ballistic missiles, and aircraft, these increasingly include (and are enhanced by) electronic warfare and other emerging threats.

It is a sometimes-cruel irony that, while U.S. and allied forces are optimized to suppress and destroy hostile threats, this sometimes makes the positive identification of non-threat assets harder. Moreover, while technology, such as enhanced IFF and datalink systems, aims to decrease the chances of a blue-on-blue incident, these systems don’t always work as advertised, especially in a coalition environment.

Even the close-to-reality nature of combat exercises provides a risk of friendly fire. A case in point that we have looked at in the past involved the shootdown of a U.S. Navy A-6E Intruder on June 4, 1996, during the Rim of the Pacific maneuvers, or RIMPAC. The strike jet was flying off the Forrestal class aircraft carrier USS Independence when it was accidentally shot down by a Mark 15 Phalanx close-in weapons system, or CIWS, aboard the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) Asagiri class destroyer Yugiri.

A much more confused situation exists over the battlefields in the Ukraine war. Here, a much more diverse collection of air defense assets is at work, of both Soviet and Western origin. An even greater potential for blue-on-blue exists since many of the same (or very similar) air defense systems and combat aircraft are facing off against each other. Aircraft missions are also regularly flown much closer to the ground, and in proximity to ground forces, meaning the reaction times are even more limited. Both Russia and Ukraine have experienced friendly-fire incidents, bringing down fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, and drones. In one of the most prominent such incidents, it was claimed that one of the first F-16s delivered to Ukraine was shot down by a Patriot missile due to a lack of coordination between the units.

Kinshasa welcomed the sanctions while Kigali said the US move ‘unjustly’ targets Rwanda.

The United States has imposed sanctions on Rwanda’s military and four of its top officials for “direct operational support” of the M23 rebel group that has seized large swaths of territory in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).

Rwanda has long rejected allegations from DRC, the United Nations and ⁠Western powers that it backs M23 and its affiliated Congo River Alliance (AFC), which captured key cities in the mineral-rich east, including the capitals of North and South Kivu provinces last year.

The US Department of the Treasury said on Monday that the rebels’ gains would not have been possible without Rwandan backing.

The US State Department separately added that M23 continued to capture territory even late last year “in clear violation” of a US-mediated agreement.

US President Donald Trump in December brought together the leaders of Rwanda and the DRC to sign a peace deal, predicting a “great miracle”.

But just days afterwards, the State Department noted, the M23 captured the key Congolese city of Uvira.

The Treasury Department said those included in Monday’s sanctions are Vincent Nyakarundi, the Rwandan Defence Force (RDF) army chief of staff; Ruki Karusisi, a major-general; Mubarakh Muganga, chief of defence staff; and Stanislas Gashugi, special operations force commander.

The US said they were critical to M23’s gains.

“M23, a US- and UN-sanctioned entity, is responsible for horrific human rights abuses, including summary executions and violence against civilians, including women and children,” State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott said in a statement.

“The continued backing from the RDF and its senior leadership has enabled M23 to capture DRC sovereign territory and continue these grave abuses,” he added.

‘A strong signal’

Rwandan government spokesperson Yolande Makolo said in a statement that the sanctions “unjustly” target Rwanda and “misrepresent the reality and distort the facts of the conflict” in eastern DRC.

She accused DRC of violating the peace agreement by allegedly conducting “indiscriminate” drone attacks and ground offensives.

Rwanda’s government also told the Reuters news agency that Kigali was “fully committed to disengagement of its forces in tandem with the DRC implementing their obligations” under US-led mediation, but accused DRC of failing to keep promises such as ending support for militias.

The Congolese government, however, said it welcomed the sanctions, describing them as “a strong signal in support of respect” for its territorial integrity and ⁠sovereignty.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a statement that the department “will use all tools at its disposal to ensure that the parties to the Washington Accords uphold their obligations”.

“We expect the immediate withdrawal of Rwanda Defence Force troops, weapons and equipment,” Bessent said.

Fighting continues in eastern DRC on several fronts, despite the accord signed between Kigali and Kinshasa in Washington, and a separate peace deal signed between M23 and the Congolese government in Qatar last year.

Though M23 later pulled out of Uvira under US pressure, the rebels still hold other key Congolese cities, including Goma and Bukavu. The US Treasury Department said on Monday that M23’s continued presence near Burundi’s border “carries the risk of escalating the conflict ‌into a broader regional war”.

M23 is the most prominent of about 100 armed factions vying for control in eastern DRC, near the border with Rwanda. The conflict has created one of the world’s most significant humanitarian crises, with more than seven million people displaced, according to the UN agency for refugees.

M23 are already under US sanctions since 2013.

A Marshall Islands-flagged oil tanker became the first ship to be struck by an Iranian uncrewed surface vessel (USV) during this conflict, the Ambrey maritime security firm told us. As we have frequently reported, USVs have been widely used by Ukraine against Russia and, in the Middle East, by the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels against commercial shipping.

You can catch up with our latest coverage of Operation Epic Fury, the joint U.S.-Israel attack on Iran in our rolling coverage here.

The ship, the MKD VYOM, was initially thought to have been struck by a projectile on March 1, in a deadly attack about 50 nautical miles north of Muscat, Oman. However, the United Kingdom Marine Trade Operations (UKMTO) organization, which is managed by the Royal Navy in the United Kingdom, gave an updated assessment of the incident Monday morning.

“UKMTO has received confirmation that the vessel was attacked by an Uncrewed Surface Vehicle (USV), and that the crew has been evacuated to shore,” the organization stated. “Authorities are investigating. Vessels are advised to transit with caution and report any suspicious activity to UKMTO.”

“The vessel suffered an explosion and subsequent fire after being struck by a suspected projectile while off the coast of Muscat, Oman on 1 March,” MKD VYOM‘s owner, V.Ships Asia said in a statement. “It is with great sadness that we confirm one crew member, who was in the engine room at the time of the incident, has died.”

أعلن المركز العُماني للأمن البحري تعرّض ناقلة النفط MKD VYOM لهجوم بواسطة زورق محمّل بالمتفجرات أثناء إبحارها على بُعد 52 ميلا بحرياً من سواحل محافظة مسقط. pic.twitter.com/XUABktn3kt

— الجريدة (@aljarida) March 2, 2026

While this is the first time Iran has used a USV to strike ships in the region, it should come as no surprise that it would deploy these weapons. Iran has steadily developed USVs and undersea vehicles capable of launching kamikaze attacks and added them to its arsenal. Iran, together with its Houthi allies in Yemen, has long been a pioneer in this space. As we have previously reported, the Houthis frequently used USVs in their campaign against Red Sea shipping.

The ongoing war in Ukraine has now fully demonstrated the very real threats these capabilities present to ships and coastal targets — even aircraft.

The MKD VYOM was one of at least four ships struck by Iran since the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps announced it was shutting down the Strait of Hormuz some 150 nautical miles to the northwest. That warning came after the U.S. and Israel started bombing Iranian targets on Feb. 28. We have previously examined in great detail what Iran could do to shut the Strait, a major chokepoint through which about 20% of the world’s crude oil passes.

“For your information, from now on…no ship of any type is…allowed to pass from the Strait of Hormuz.. From now on, the Strait of Hormuz is banned for all ships, the Strait of Hormuz is banned for all ships,” the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said, via a radio transmission obtained by The War Zone.

The IRGC updated that warning on Monday, saying it was shutting the Strait and any ships attempting to pass through would be set on fire.

“The strait (of Hormuz) is closed. If anyone tries to ​pass, the heroes of the Revolutionary Guards and the regular navy will set ​those ships ablaze,” Ebrahim Jabari, a senior adviser to the Guards commander-in-chief, ⁠said in remarks carried by state media.

BREAKING: Islamic Revolutionary Guards commander says that the Strait of Hormuz has been closed and that Iran will set fire to any ship trying to pass, according to Iranian media – Reuters pic.twitter.com/ra0B2x5oWq

— Faytuks News (@Faytuks) March 2, 2026

In addition to three other tankers hit in the Gulf of Oman, the U.S.flagged oil tanker STENA IMPERATIVE suffered at least two direct hits from a suspected Iranian projectile while in the Port of Bahrain on Monday, a maritime security official confirmed to The War Zone.

It is unclear at the moment if the ship was struck by a missile or a drone, the official added.

⭕️⚡️IRGC hit the US Navy-operated Oil tanker “Stena Imperative” docked in Bahrain.

💡An IRGC Drone Ababil flew over the vessel a few weeks ago over the Strait of Hormuz, CENTCOM condemned the incident back then. https://t.co/1bGw6IQ4e7 pic.twitter.com/buTP70JVfW

— MenchOsint (@MenchOsint) March 2, 2026

Shortly before 5:30 a.m. Eastern, UKMTO stated that it “received a report of an incident in the Port of Bahrain. The Company Security Officer reported that the vessel had been struck by two unknown projectiles causing a fire. The fire has been extinguished and the vessel remains in port. All members of the ship’s crew are safe and have evacuated the vessel. Authorities are investigating.”

“Vessels are to remain cautious and report any suspicious activity to UKMTO,” the organization added.

It is believed that the STENA IMPERATIVE is the only U.S.-flagged vessel to be struck by Iran so far.

It has been reported that the tanker is part of the U.S. Maritime Administration’s Tanker Security Program, which “exists to enhance U.S. supply chain resiliency for liquid fuel products.” The Tanker Security Program came into effect in 2021 and empowered the Department of Transportation to create an ad-hoc 10-ship expanded U.S.-flagged tanker fleet for use in a crisis.

Weeks before the war broke out, the STENA IMPERATIVE was approached by Iranian gunboats, which threatened to board the vessel, in the Strait of Hormuz, before continuing on its way under military escort, according to CBS News.

U.S. Central Command issued a statement at the time confirming the incident, saying, “Two IRGC boats and an Iranian Mohajer drone approached M/V Stena Imperative at high speeds and threatened to board and seize the tanker.”

CENTCOM spokesman Capt. Tim Hawkins told CBS that the Arleigh Burke class guided-missile destroyer USS McFaul immediately responded to the scene and escorted the ship with defensive air support from the U.S. Air Force. “The situation de-escalated as a result, and the U.S.-flagged tanker is proceeding safely,” he said.

US Oil Tanker Approached By Iranian Gunboats In Strait Of Hormuz As Peace Talks Begins Soon

Since the launch of Epic Fury, shipping traffic through this vital body of water has plummeted by almost 85%, and a large number of ships have turned off their transponders to avoid being tracked.

New: Ship traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has fallen almost 85%, @Kpler‘s @DimAmpatzidis tells Hunterbrook. 

“Since 00:00 UTC today, only six vessels have crossed the Strait with AIS signals active.” One of those vessels has since been bombed by Iran. pic.twitter.com/offUWTYGic

— Hunterbrook (@hntrbrkmedia) March 2, 2026

While Iran attacks tankers, the U.S. is striking Iranian Navy vessels. U.S. President Donald Trump has said “annihilating” Iran’s naval forces is a core objective of Epic Fury and that 10 Iranian ships have been “knocked out” so far.

Below is a satellite image showing damage to Iran’s main naval base in Bandar Abbas, including what looks to be the IRINS Makran sea base-type ship, following strikes as part of the ongoing U.S.-Israeli campaign. You can read more about that in our story here.

While no one knows how much longer Epic Fury will last, this war will continue presenting major danger to commercial shipping.

Update: 5:51PM EST-

A U.S. official tells The War Zone that while the IRGC claims they’ve closed the Strait, U.S. monitoring of the body of water does not back that up.

Contact the author: howard@thewarzone.com

Soap spoilers for next week tease big drama and revelations across Emmerdale, Coronation Street, EastEnders, Hollyoaks and Home and Away, with some sad news and new twists

It’s another big week fro the soaps with twists, discoveries, hints at what’s ahead and some sad news.

On Emmerdale, one character finally shares the heartbreaking news about their secret cancer diagnosis. We also see characters tempted with an affair teased, while there’s also fresh hope after recent turmoil.

As for Coronation Street, villain Megan Walsh might be rumbled as another character faces trouble. There’s also romance drama and Theo Silverton’s abusive behaviour continues.

On EastEnders fans will see a showdown between Mark Fowler Jr and Ravi Gulati after a truth is revealed. There’s also an attack, while on Hollyoaks there’s a heartbreaking diagnosis for one fan favourite. Home and Away also features the possible end of a marriage.

READ MORE: EastEnders fans ‘rumble’ identity of flashforward gunman who’s after Max BranningREAD MORE: Coronation Street fans issue same complaint after Bernie Winter’s wrongful arrest

Ensure our latest headlines 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.

EastEnders

Mark’s under pressure to get rid of the informant, Ravi, leading to them clashing. Priya ends up dropping Ravi in it, confirming to Mark that his suspicions are correct. Soon, a reckless Ravi speeds out of Walford with Mark in tow. Priya panics for Ravi’s safety, while a fight ensues at Walford Common.

Later, Priya discovers Ravi’s self-harming scars as she fears for his mental health. She tells Jack how Ravi has compromised his position as an informant, while later, Ravi breaks down in her arms.

Events see Vicki concerned for her safety, leading to a clash with her brother Mark. Ross tries to reason with him, but Mark insists he must hand over the informant, while Vicki soon asks Phil for help.

Lauren fears for her future when she learns the car lot is up for sale. After she’s rejected for a bank loan, she asks her dad Max to invest but he refuses. Oscar and Cindy jibe at Lauren but Max does a U-turn, and agrees to invest.

It’s not long until Lauren realises she and her dad have very different ideas. As Peter supports Lauren, she tries to prove herself to Max. When Mark shows interest in a car, Lauren is soon disappointed when he reveals he hasn’t got the funds for it.

When Lauren’s alone, a thug attacks her and steals the car, with Mark rushing to her aid. Phil continues to avoid visiting Nigel at the care home, leaving Lexi, Julie and Callum to go instead.

Emmerdale

As Cain struggles knowing the farm could be lost, he can barely cope as Moira thanks him for keeping everything going. Sarah forces him to tell Moira the truth before things get any worse, as Joe threatens their future.

As Sarah continues to hide Cain’s cancer diagnosis from loved ones, he’s left panicked when he finds blood in his urine. As it’s time to reveal what’s going on, Cain visits Moira in prison and tells her he has cancer, leaving her heartbroken.

Soon it’s time to tell the family and after sharing his news, Cain prepares to tell sons Kyle and Isaac. A chat with Rhona sees Graham admit he knew about Cain’s diagnosis, leading to a charged moment. When Lydia tells Kim she spotted the pair together, Kim claims it doesn’t bother her.

Soon, Graham gives Rhona an ultimatum, and as he prepares to speak his truth, Rhona has a decision to make. Meanwhile, Joe is deflated when his master plan fails to impress Kim, while Kim decides to visit Moira.

Elsewhere, Mack, Matty and Ross feel like things might have turned a corner for the farm after Vanessa confirms the TB results for the herd are promising. Also next week, Laurel confides in Nicola, Arthur rejects a job with Jai while someone is suspicious over Kerry and Jai’s closeness. Finally, Paddy awaits news on whether Bear will be discharged from the mental health unit.

Coronation Street

It’s Theo’s birthday, but he’s clearly underwhelmed by Todd’s gifts. When he invites Maria and Gary to join him and Todd at The Bistro, Todd’s late, and Theo gives him daggers. When Todd is unable to afford the bill, Theo confronts him for ruining his birthday before he loses it with him.

As Todd tidies up after the fight, avoids work while Gary spots Theo sleeping in his van. When Gary goes to the flat to get some of Theo’s things, he spots the mess and tries to get Theo to sort things out with Todd. Later, Theo agrees to talk as Todd struggles to cope.

Adam gives Jodie a lecture, leaving her seething, while soon Tracy is having a word about David the dog. When Adam suggests a holiday with Alya she’s delighted but a text message leaves her thrown.

The next day, Adam is determined to catch out Jodie, who is left fearful when she realises her act has been shared on the Weatherfield Community page. Ollie and Amy enjoy a date, until Lauren accidentally soaks Amy with some drinks.

Amy’s buzzing about her possible romance though, with another date planned only for Maggie to encourage Lauren to try and win Ollie back. When Ollie can’t keep his eyes off of Lauren, will Amy be left heartbroken? Ollie realises Maggie is behind it, but Lauren confesses her reunion hopes.

Sam is sick, leaving Leanne concerned. She confides in Megan who plays it down, while she’s soon caught flirting on her phone. Later, Megan continues to make digs at Sam, while Leanne makes a comment to Daniel about his flirty phone chat with Megan, unaware she was speaking with Will.

Soon her interest is piqued, while Sam vows he’s not afraid of Megan anymore. Steve’s avoiding Cassie after her proposal plans. When the day of his dad Jim’s funeral arrives, he invites Ben for support.

As he attends without his mum Liz or brother Andy, he’s grateful for Ben joining him, while Maggie is keen for Ben to avoid the wake as he has a hospital appointment the next morning. George is upset as he continues to receive funeral cancellations, and things get worse when Maggie tells him he’s not welcome at the pub.

Hollyoaks

Diane hides her devastating advanced stage ovarian cancer diagnosis from her family, as an unaware Tony returns home with his brother Dom in tow. Diane soon leaves Nancy and Leela speechless with the news, and soon Tony finds out the truth.

He’s determined to get a second opinion, while Nancy tells Darren what’s happening as Diane’s children remain in the dark. Dillon confides in Lucas about Donny, and Lucas reveals he’s managed to get a phone into the prison.

But during a phone call, Dillon is panicked when he hears a fight taking place and Lucas goes silent. Later, Frankie and Vicky share their concerns about Dillon’s rekindled romance. Mercedes tries to track down ‘Jake’, while Froggy has some advice for Rex.

Home and Away

Cash is feeling the pressure about Remi’s secret, while Remi wakes up after a seizure. Dana tries to help Sonny, leaving him overwhelmed and soon he snaps.

Kerrie is upset with how much time her grandson Archie is spending with Tane instead of her, so she tries to find dirt on him. Kerrie’s soon distracted by an emotional Dana, who opens up to her mum but they soon clash, with Harper soon telling Kerrie to leave.

Meanwhile Sonny faces the reality of learning to use a wheelchair, leading to some advice from John. Elsewhere, Levi is thinking about a career change, and Lacey and David prepare for Jo to be discharged from hospital. Finally, Leah announces that she’s going to leave the Bay for a while, but Justin, keen to fix their marriage, urges her to stay.

Home and Away is available to stream from 6am weekdays, with double bill episodes airing from 6pm on 5Star. Hollyoaks is available to stream on Channel 4’s streaming service now, while it also airs Mondays to Wednesdays on E4 at 7PM.

EastEnders airs Mondays to Thursdays at 7:30pm on BBC One and BBC iPlayer. Emmerdale airs weeknights at 8pm on ITV1 and ITVX.

Coronation Street airs weeknights at 8:30pm on ITV1 and ITV X. * Follow Mirror Celebs and TV on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .

Israeli attacks on Lebanon have killed more than 50 people. It says the strikes are a response to Hezbollah rockets and drones fired into Israel to protest the US-Israeli killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader.

‘What is needed now in the region more than anything, is a way out.’ The UN Secretary-General is urging a cessation of hostilities and de-escalation amidst the ongoing US and Israeli military offensive against Iran.

Iran strikes energy infrastructure across the Gulf as IRGC announces closure of Strait of Hormuz.

Heavy Israeli air strikes have hit multiple parts of Tehran including near the building of Iran’s state broadcaster and the central prison complex. Explosions have been heard across the city.