news

The couple’s solicitor, Catherine Lee, from legal firm Irwin Mitchell, added: “Whilst the trust has recognised the severity of the failings Aarav suffered and the need for improvements, it’s now vital that staff are supported to uphold the highest standard of care at all times.”

Gregoire headed a list uniting the traditional left, the Greens and the Communists to victory in French capital.

The Socialist Party’s Emmanuel Gregoire has won the Paris mayoral race, as the results of nationwide municipal elections showed gains for the traditional left and right, and a major win for the far right in the city of Nice.

Sunday’s run-off votes in more than 1,500 communes saw Gregoire on course to become mayor of the French capital, with exit polls showing that the far-right National Rally (RN) fell short of taking control of the key southern cities of Marseille and Toulon.

Gregoire, who headed a list uniting the traditional left, the Greens and the Communists, clinched the prized mayoralty with an estimated 51 to 53 percent of the vote, according to pollsters, seeing off Conservative rival Rachida Dati, who conceded defeat.

The 48-year-old son of a teacher and civil servant is stepping into the spotlight after previously serving as deputy to outgoing mayor and fellow Socialist Anne Hidalgo. During his bid, he had promised that Paris would stand as a “city of refuge” and a “bastion against the right and the far right”.

In Marseille, the second-largest city in the country, Socialist Mayor Benoit Payan was on track to be re-elected with 56.3 percent of the vote, according to an Elabe poll for BFM TV. RN’s chances of winning the coveted prize took a hit after the withdrawal of a hard-left candidate from France Unbowed (LFI) aimed at uniting left-wing voters.

Socialist Party chief Olivier Faure hailed the wins in Paris and Marseille, positioning his party as a bulwark against the far right. “Only the left can prevent France from this regression,” he said.

In Toulon, an Elebe poll showed centre-right candidate Josée Massi leading at 53.5 percent, with RN candidate Laure Lavalette conceding defeat. Yet, senior RN officials rejected suggestions that the party’s loss indicated it had hit a “glass ceiling” ahead of next year’s presidential election.

“The National Rally and its candidates have achieved tonight, in this municipal election, the biggest breakthrough in its entire history,” RN chief Jordan Bardella said, alluding to wins in local constituencies where it previously had no presence.

In the first round, Bardella’s anti-immigration party won re-election in the southern city of Perpignan, and it won in smaller cities, too. And on Sunday, exit polls indicated that Eric Ciotti, a former mainstream conservative who is now an ally of the RN, won in Nice, France’s fifth-biggest city.

Former Prime Minister Edouard Philippe was re-elected mayor in his northern city of Le Havre, according to the TF1 and LCI broadcasters, delivering a better-than-expected performance that boosts his hopes of running for president in 2027.

Philippe, a centre-right politician who served as prime minister under centrist President Emmanuel Macron, made a speech with a clear national message, saying his victory showed that “there were reasons to be hopeful” in the values of France and that the extremes can be beaten.

Turnout at 5pm local time (16:00 GMT) was just higher than 48 percent in France’s mainland, more than than in the 2020 vote held during the COVID-19 pandemic, but four points lower than in 2014, according to the Ministry of Interior.

Key indexes in Japan, South Korea and Hong Kong tumble as Iran threatens attacks on energy infrastructure across region.

Stock markets in the Asia Pacific have fallen sharply amid US President Donald Trump’s ultimatum warning Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz or face the annihilation of its energy infrastructure.

Japan’s benchmark Nikkei 225 and South Korea’s KOSPI plunged 4 percent and 4.5 percent, respectively, in early trading on Monday.

In Hong Kong, the Hang Seng Index tumbled about 2 percent.

Australia’s ASX 200 dropped about 1.6 percent, while the NZX 50 in New Zealand dipped about 1.3 percent.

Futures on Wall Street, which are traded outside of regular market hours, saw moderate losses, with those tied to the S&P500 and the Nasdaq Composite down about 0.5 percent.

Oil prices remained volatile amid fears of further disruption to global energy supplies.

Futures for Brent crude, the international benchmark, rose more than 1.5 percent to top $114 a barrel, before easing to about $112 as of 02:00 GMT.

Trump on Saturday threatened to “obliterate” Iran’s power plants within 48 hours if Tehran does not end its effective blockade of the strait, through which about one-fifth of global oil and natural gas exports usually transit.

Tehran has pledged to completely close the waterway, which is still being transited by a small number of Chinese, Indian and Pakistani-flagged vessels, and launch retaliatory attacks on energy and water infrastructure across the region if Trump follows through on his threat.

Based on the timing of Trump’s warning on Truth Social, the deadline for his ultimatum is set to expire at 23:44 GMT on Monday.

Trump’s threat has added to fears of a cascading global energy crisis as the US and Israel’s war on Iran approaches the one-month mark with no clear end in sight.

Oil prices have surged more than 50 percent since the start of the war, which began with US-Israeli strikes on February 28.

Analysts have warned that energy prices are likely to rise significantly further if the strait remains effectively closed, with some observers predicting oil to hit $150 or even $200 a barrel.

Trump on Sunday held a phone call with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer to discuss the situation in the Middle East, including the effective closure of the strait.

The two leaders agreed that unblocking the strait is “essential to ensure stability in the global energy market”, Starmer’s office said in a statement.

Trump has provided conflicting messages about the goals of the war and how long it might last.

Hours before issuing his ultimatum on Saturday, Trump said that his administration was “very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down” military operations against Iran.

Israeli military spokesperson Lieutenant Colonel Nadav Shoshani last week told reporters that officials had detailed plans for at least three more weeks of war.

Residents in Indian-administered Kashmir are donating their gold possessions and cash to support Iranians impacted by the US-Israeli war. Iran’s embassy in India has acknowledged the gesture, saying their kindness ‘will never be forgotten’.

US-Israel attacks on Iran continue as Israeli forces blow up the Qasimiyah Bridge in south Lebanon.

For decades, mole catchers in the countryside have hung their carcasses on fences to be counted for payment and as evidence of their trapping prowess. But when hill walker Simon Lucas shared a photograph of the tradition on social media, he was unprepared for the ferocity of the response.

The “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine is a central feature of U.S. strategy designed to secure hegemony and limit Chinese and Russian influence in Latin America and the Caribbean. It does not, however, represent a decisive shift in Washington’s relations with the region. Although the corollary does not make this explicit in its formal statement, in practice it makes more evident what liberal rhetoric has long sought to mask: military and covert interventions aimed at preserving U.S. domination in the Western Hemisphere, undermining progressive movements and governments, and backing right-wing regimes. In this sense, it abandons even the pretense of respect for international law and human rights. In what follows we argue that the Trump Corollary constitutes not only an ideological and imperialist offensive against decolonial and multipolar currents in Latin America, but also a strategic project whose assault on Venezuela has broader geopolitical implications.

The ideological backdrop

Although Washington’s unrestrained militarism, which enjoys bipartisan support, is indeed cause for alarm, the erosion of even the pretense of commitment to liberal-democratic values, human rights, and international law did not begin with the Trump administration. The live-streamed Israeli genocide in Gaza, enabled and backed by the Biden administration, has made this difficult to deny. Moreover, it highlights how the U.S.-European axis has normalized impunity for systematic violence against non-combatants. This erosion of even its own professed liberal values has helped consolidate a political climate in which the Trump administration could intensify its offensives against Venezuela and Cuba and pursue a war of aggression against Iran.

This normalization of necropolitics can be better understood through the ideological logic used to justify it. We can make sense of this logic by distinguishing between two different tendencies within Western Eurocentric modernity. On the one hand is the myth of European supremacy, what Enrique Dussel calls the “developmentalist fallacy,” which has been used to justify colonization, with its racial hierarchy, since the invasion of Amerindia in 1492. On the other is a rational, emancipatory current rooted in ideas of community, equality, and liberty. As critical historians have shown, these emancipatory traditions did not originate solely in Europe; they were also present among some Indigenous peoples, such as the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, whose Great Law of Peace established participatory forms of government centuries before European contact. Historically, these ideals were never extended fully to colonized peoples, nor to people of color within the metropole. This contradiction persists. Washington’s recent rhetoric justifying attacks on Venezuela, Cuba, and Iran expresses the colonial, violent side of modernity while discarding its emancipatory, humanist dimensions.

Civilizational rhetoric and the objectives of the Trump Corollary

It is this myth of European supremacy, often expressed with religious fervor even when stripped of its humanist facade, that serves as the ideological justification for the offensives launched this year. This worldview was crystallized in a speech delivered by Secretary of State Marco Rubio at the 62nd Munich Security Conference on February 14, 2026. That speech anticipated the inauguration in Miami, on March 7, of Shield of the Americas, a new U.S. partnership with right-wing allies in Latin America and the Caribbean, to be led by former Secretary of DHS Kristi Noem. Rubio, in effect, called for a rejection of historical accountability, stating:

We do not want our allies to be shackled by guilt and shame. We want allies who are proud of their culture and of their heritage, who understand that we are heirs to the same great and noble civilization, and who, together with us, are willing and able to defend it. . . . The great Western empires had entered into terminal decline, accelerated by godless communist revolutions and by anti-colonial uprisings that would transform the world and drape the red hammer and sickle across vast swaths of the map in the years to come.

This rhetoric illustrates Rubio’s disdain for anti-colonial struggles that commenced not with the Cold War and communism, but at the very start of the European invasions of Amerindia. Indeed, the “guilt and shame” surrounding the subjugation and exploitation of Indigenous peoples was expressed as early as the sixteenth century, when Bartolomé de Las Casas documented and denounced the tortures inflicted upon them in the name of a European civilizing mission. The same civilizational appeal surfaced again at the Miami summit, where Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth called upon members of the Shield to defend their shared cultures and, in particular, “Western Christian civilization.” By casting anti-colonialism as an insidious force, Rubio’s rhetoric functions to blunt decolonial critiques of the Trump Corollary.

Despite Washington’s zeal for exporting Western ideals, decolonizing currents in Latin America’s political, economic, social, and cultural life have taken deep root. Since the 1960s, Marxism, along with liberation theology, liberation philosophy, and Indigenous struggles for self-governance, have helped articulate ethical and political critiques of colonial domination, racial hierarchy, and dependent forms of development from the perspective of the Global South. Indigenous cosmovisions and the philosophy of buen vivir have influenced constitutional and political life in the region and beyond. For example, the United Nations now recognizes the concept of the rights of nature as central to sustainable development. The recognition of the rights of Mother Earth has also been incorporated into the constitutions of both Bolivia and Ecuador, and the plurality of Indigenous and Afro-descendent nationalities is recognized in several Latin American constitutions.

The Trump Corollary emerges in direct opposition to these decolonial currents. It seeks to restore U.S. primacy over the hemisphere’s governance and resources by curtailing the region’s expanding commercial and diplomatic ties with China, Russia, and other non-Western partners. To advance this agenda, Washington has worked to destabilize or overthrow progressive governments while favoring right-wing administrations more aligned with its interests, in some cases through intimidation, electoral interference, or direct military intervention. Much like the Alliance for Progress, Operation Condor, and the invasion of Panama before it, this latest evolution of the Monroe Doctrine invokes the pretext of security to reassert Washington’s influence over hemispheric political and economic life while limiting the region’s turn toward greater autonomy. Yet that effort confronts a regional reality that Washington cannot easily reverse. Trade relations transcend political divisions in Latin America and the Caribbean. And in South America, China has become the principal trading partner for much of the subregion. This complicates Washington’s efforts to rein in Latin America’s turn toward multipolarity. China’s Third Policy Paper on Latin America and the Caribbean presents the region as an “essential force” in the move toward a multipolar world and economic globalization, and describes the bilateral relationship in terms of equality, mutual benefit, openness, and shared well-being. This stated approach stands in clear contrast to the Trump Corollary’s posture of coercion, Western supremacy, and geopolitical subordination. It is, in part, this regional turn toward multipolarity that the assault on Venezuela seeks to counter.

Venezuela: The central case

The violent reality of the Trump Corollary has been most clearly revealed in Venezuela. Washington’s campaign of deadly strikes against maritime vessels in the Caribbean, a series of extrajudicial killings that claimed the lives of more than 145 people, served as a prelude to the January 3 surprise aerial assault on Caracas, named Operation Absolute Resolve. The maritime victims included people from nations such as Colombia, Saint Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela who were targeted without public evidence of narco-trafficking or due process. Operation Absolute Resolve itself claimed the lives of more than 120 people, including civilians and security forces, and culminated in the kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores. In Venezuela, the Trump Corollary deploys military force, coercive diplomacy, and control over strategic resources. It also deals a blow to the Bolivarian cause by making an example of a state that has stood as the leading force of regional independence and integration for more than two decades.

Rather than moving, in the short term, to dismantle Chavista institutions, as many Venezuelan opposition hard-liners in Miami and Madrid expected, the Trump administration in the aftermath of Operation Absolute Resolve instead has resorted to “deal-making” with Acting President Delcy Rodríguez. The recognition of interim president Delcy Rodríguez as “the sole Head of State” of Venezuela might be part of an effort by the Trump administration to strip President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores of the presidential immunity to which they are entitled. Despite Trump’s praise for a supposedly mutually beneficial relationship with the Chavista government, this is not a win-win situation. Acting President Rodríguez is attempting to balance Washington’s demands for unfettered access to the country’s natural resources with Venezuela’s own economic interests and the long-term survival of the Bolivarian Revolution. That coercive political context also affects the economic arrangements now taking shape in Venezuela.

As new economic agreements are being “negotiated,” major Venezuelan state assets previously frozen, seized, or placed beyond Caracas’s control remain unrecovered. Prior to Operation Absolute Resolve, the U.S. seized Venezuelan aircraft and targeted ships carrying Venezuelan oil that U.S. authorities said were involved in sanctions evasion. The most egregious case is that of Citgo, Venezuela’s most valuable foreign asset. Caracas has already lost real control over it, and U.S. courts are now overseeing proceedings that could permanently strip Venezuela of ownership to pay creditors.

More recently, a series of Trump administration officials have gone to Caracas to press for greater U.S. influence over Venezuela’s oil industry. They have also “negotiated” with the Chavista government to bring about legal reforms that will facilitate U.S. investment in the extraction of critical minerals and other natural resources. According to Venezuela Analysis (02/20/26), “The Trump administration is forcing all royalty, tax, and dividend payments from Venezuelan oil production [to] be paid into accounts managed by Washington.” For Venezuelan critics of U.S. intervention, these arrangements may result in a significant transfer of national wealth under pressure. Other observers argue that renewed investment could bring Venezuela badly needed revenues. In any case, there is no doubt that these economic arrangements are being carried out in a coercive context.

Regional extensions of the corollary

The offensive against Venezuela did not occur in isolation. It was soon followed by a strangling energy embargo on Cuba designed to provoke a humanitarian crisis to bring about “regime change.” After more than sixty-six years of U.S. embargo against Cuba, this latest escalation is intended not only to destabilize and isolate the island but also to shatter the morale of the forces of resistance throughout the region. At the same time, it has galvanized worldwide solidarity, despite the betrayals of governments that have succumbed to U.S. pressure to expel Cuban doctors and dismantle other forms of Cuban internationalist assistance. Meanwhile, the administration has been pressuring Mexico with the specter of unilateral military strikes against drug cartels, signaling a disregard for Mexico’s repeated insistence on its own sovereignty. In Colombia, Washington antagonized President Gustavo Petro with politically charged drug-trafficking allegations and threats of military intervention, a confrontational posture that later gave way to rapprochement after Petro met with Trump at the White House. In Honduras, the U.S. intervened to back the presidency of the right-wing candidate Nasry “Tito” Asfura who won the presidential election in December 2025 and took office on January 27.

The latest example of this interventionist regional posture was the U.S.-Ecuadorian military operation launched on March 3, which conducted bombings near the Colombian border in northeastern Ecuador, ostensibly aimed at narco-terrorists and illegal mining. In Ecuador, as in Peru, small-scale artisanal mining is often practiced within Indigenous communities living near mineral deposits and employs methods with a far lighter environmental impact than industrial-scale extraction. Whatever its stated purpose, the operation may have the effect of displacing artisanal mining and opening mineral-rich territory to large North American transnational corporations. In brief, by convening twelve compliant right-wing regional leaders in Miami, the Shield of the Americas summit serves to institutionalize Washington’s renewed drive toward regional hegemony. But the significance of this offensive is not only regional.

Geopolitical implications

The Trump Corollary has geopolitical importance because the recent offensive to consolidate U.S. hegemony in the Americas has served as a strategic prelude to the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran. The offensive in Venezuela not only stops Venezuelan crude from reaching Cuba, thereby sharpening the knife of the subsequent energy embargo, but also secures strategic leverage over the largest oil reserves in the world ahead of Iran’s restrictions on passage through the Strait of Hormuz. In this sense, Venezuela is not peripheral to the wider conflict, but central to it. This does not, however, mean that the Trump administration ever had a clear, coherent rationale for starting this war of aggression against Iran.

The ever-shifting rationale for the war was at first framed in terms of protecting demonstrators in Iran, then became an effort to overthrow the government, and has now dissolved into incoherence, with no consistent justification offered at all. In any case, the war may also carry broader geopolitical implications, insofar as prolonged disruption in Gulf oil exports would place pressure on China, whose energy needs depend heavily on Middle Eastern crude shipments. It is also beginning to generate visible political strains within NATO, as doubts about the direction of the war grow in Europe, with Spain as the clearest example. It has likewise raised concerns among some U.S. allies in the Gulf about the wisdom of continuing to host major U.S. bases.

Taken together, the shifting rationale for the war, the U.S.-Israeli callous disregard for civilian life and infrastructure, its mounting economic costs, and the danger that the conflict could spiral out of control and raise the specter of the possible deployment of nuclear weapons suggest that the decision to wage war on Iran was a profound miscalculation, one harmful not only to Iran and the wider region, but also to the people of the U.S. and the global economy. It also exhibits in stark relief the same colonial ideology that underlies the Trump Corollary. For these reasons, opposition to the war, as well as to the Trump Corollary, is growing both at home and abroad.

William Camacaro is a Venezuelan-American  National Co-Coordinator in the Alliance for Global Justice. He was a co-founder of the Bolivarian Circle of New York “Alberto Lovera” and Senior Analyst for the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA). He holds a Master’s Degree of Fine Arts and a Master’s Degree in Latin American Literature from City University of New York. William has published in the Monthly Review, Counterpunch, COHA, the Afro-America Magazine, Ecology, Orinoco Tribune and other venues. He has organized delegations to Ecuador, Bolivia and Venezuela. He has been a long-time activist for social justice in the United States, such as organizing protests against police brutality in NYC, for the independence of Puerto Rico, and for the freedom of political prisoners. William has also been a leader in defense of progressive governments and social movements in Latin America.

Frederick B. Mills, Ph.D., is professor of philosophy and a member of the Philosophy of Liberation Association and the American Philosophical Association. He has received awards for excellence in teaching and international outreach from Bowie State University. Mills has published articles on philosophy of mind, ethics and public policy, Descartes, Spinoza, Kant, Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, Mario Bencastro, Enrique Dussel as well as political analysis on contemporary Latin American politics. He has contributed articles to Counterpunch, the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, and other independent media.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Venezuelanalysis editorial staff.

Source: Orinoco Tribune

Real stay within four points of league leaders Barcelona with hard-fought win in Madrid derby.

Vinicius Jr scored ⁠twice ⁠as Real Madrid fought back to beat Atletico Madrid 3-2 in ⁠a breathless Spanish capital derby on Sunday, keeping Alvaro Arbeloa’s side ⁠within four points of La Liga leaders Barcelona.

Atletico’s Ademola Lookman opened the scoring in the 33rd minute on Sunday, finishing a slick ‌counterattack involving Matteo Ruggeri and a delightful backheel from Giuliano Simeone.

Vinicius equalised from the penalty spot in the 52nd minute after David Hancko clumsily tripped Brahim Diaz, and Federico ⁠Valverde capitalised on a ⁠Jose Maria Gimenez error three minutes later to make it 2-1 to Real.

Nahuel Molina silenced Real’s ⁠Bernabeu stadium with a thunderous 30-metre strike in ⁠the 66th minute, but ⁠Vinicius restored Real’s lead with a cracking solo effort six minutes later.

Valverde then saw red ‌for an inexplicable challenge on Alex Baena, and Julian Alvarez struck the ‌post ‌as Atletico pressed, but Real held firm.

Arbeloa praised his side for showing “pure Real Madrid mentality” to emerge with a difficult win.

“We’re in a good moment, it wasn’t an easy match at all. The opponent made it very difficult for us,” he said.

“We had to show a very strong mentality, they equalised again fiercely and we had to press again. That’s what I liked the most – the mentality of this team.”

Atletico Madrid boss Diego Simeone said his side deserved to come away with more from the game.

“We could have defended their goals better and done more in attack,” he said.

“We’re facing teams that play well, and if you give them anything, they’ll hurt you. We deserved more.”

Earlier on Sunday, Barcelona edged Rayo Vallecano 1-0 as Ronald Araujo headed in the winner in the 24th minute at Camp Nou, and Barcelona goalkeeper Joan García’s impressive performance showed why he is most likely heading to the World Cup with Spain.

Araújo jumped over his marker and scored after Joao Cancelo’s corner to the far post.

Raphinha came close on three occasions to also scoring for the hosts in the first half. He shot wide on the break, forced goalkeeper Augusto Batalla to tip a shot over the bar, and hit the woodwork shortly after Araújo’s goal.

Garcia saved a shot by Carlos Martin in the game’s opening minute, blocked Unai Lopez’s header early in the second half and got just enough on a low strike from Jorge de Frutos in the final moments to push it wide.

Garcia was included in Spain’s squad for the first time on Friday ahead of two friendly matches which will serve as warmups for this summer’s World Cup.

Elsewhere on Sunday, Alaves achieved one of the club’s most memorable wins after it erased a three-goal deficit at Celta Vigo to secure a 4-3 victory. The stunning result lifted Alaves out of the relegation zone.

In Bilbao, Dani Vivian and Oihan Sancet scored to give Athletic a 2-1 win over Real Betis in the first match since Athletic coach Ernesto Valverde said he would leave the Basque club at the end of the season.

Governing liberals edge ahead of opposition conservatives in a race too close to call, according to exit poll.

Slovenia’s governing Freedom Movement (GS) is on track to win a parliamentary election but will need to find more coalition partners to form a government, according to an exit poll.

GS was set to secure 29.9 percent of the votes, or 30 seats in the country’s 90-seat parliament, in a dip from its previous result of 41 seats, according to the poll, published by TV Slovenia and Pop TV on Sunday.

The opposition Slovenian Democratic Party, led by populist Janez Jansa, is expected to come second and secure 27 seats in parliament, according to the Mediana polling agency.

As he voted, incumbent Prime Minister Robert Golob, 59, called on citizens to cast their ballots.

“Democracy and Slovenia’s sovereignty cannot be taken for granted any more,” he told reporters.

Jansa welcomed the exit poll results and said he would wait for the final result.

“If someone wants a government like the one we’ve had so far, then they are probably satisfied with what these parallel results indicate,” Jansa said.

“Whoever wants change will likely have to wait for the final results, just as we will, and then we will analyse the situation. But we have done everything that was within our power,” he said.

The opposition party leader has served as prime minister three times, most recently from 2020 to 2022.

Ahead of the vote, the election had been marred by controversy after a report last week alleged that Jansa met with officials from the Israeli spy firm Black Cube in December.

Golob told journalists after the report: “The fact that … foreign services are interfering in the elections of a democratic member state of the European Union is something unheard of.”

US President Trump, who cut off oil supplies to Cuba after abducting Venezuela’s President Maduro, has threatened to take over the island-nation.

The Cuban government has said it is prepared for any potential United States attacks as the island-nation begins to recover from yet another blackout under a punishing oil blockade imposed by Washington that has pushed its economy to the brink.

Deputy Foreign Minister Carlos Fernandez de Cossio responded on Sunday to US President Donald Trump’s threats this week to take over Cuba, insisting that it had “historically been ready to mobilise as a nation for military aggression”.

“We don’t believe it is something that is probable, but we would be naive if we do not prepare,” de Cossio told NBC’s Meet the Press.

His comments were aired a day after the latest collapse of the country’s ageing nationwide grid that had left millions of people in the dark. Saturday’s outage was the second in the past week and the third in March.

The state-run Electric Union and the Ministry of Energy and Mines said some 72,000 customers in the capital, Havana, including five hospitals, had electricity again early on Sunday. But the number represented only a fraction of Havana’s total population of approximately two million.

The Cuban Electric Union, which reports to the Ministry of Energy and Mines, said the total disconnection of the national system was caused by an unexpected shutdown of a generation unit at the Nuevitas thermoelectric plant in Camaguey province, without providing details on the specific cause of the failure.

Trump, who started blocking oil from reaching the island after abducting Cuba’s ally, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, early this year, has warned potential oil exporters that they could face high tariffs.

According to President Miguel Diaz-Canel, Cuba has not received oil from foreign suppliers for three months. The country produces barely 40 percent of the fuel it needs to power its economy.

On March 16, Trump escalated his rhetoric against Cuba, arguing the leadership was on the verge of collapse and saying he expected to have the “honour” of taking the country.

De Cossio denied that the nature, structure, or makeup of the Cuban government was up for negotiation in what Havana has called a “serious and responsible” dialogue with Washington launched earlier this month. He added that a change of the ruling system was “absolutely” off the table in discussions.

This week, General Francis Donovan, head of the US Southern Command overseeing armed forces in Latin America, told lawmakers at a US Senate hearing on Trump’s military action in the region that troops were not rehearsing for an invasion of Cuba or actively preparing to take over the Communist-run island.

But, he added, the US stood ready to address any threats to the US embassy, to defend its base at Guantanamo Bay, and aid US government efforts to address any mass migration from the island, if needed.

The Cuban government reportedly refused a request by the embassy in Havana to allow it to import diesel for its generators in response to the oil blockade, The Associated Press reported on Saturday, citing two US officials.

Families displaced by Israeli strikes are sheltering in tents across Beirut, as rain falls, with residents describing difficult conditions, limited aid and uncertainty over when they can return.

Great Britain claimed three gold medals in a sensational 28 minutes to make history and achieve the team’s best haul at a World Athletics Indoor Championships.

Georgia Hunter Bell began Sunday night’s medal rush when she stormed to her first global 1500m title, before pole vaulter Molly Caudery secured her return to the top of the podium in Poland.

A third triumph never looked in doubt as Olympic champion and world record holder Keely Hodgkinson dominated the women’s 800m final to win her first World Indoors gold.

Following Josh Kerr’s 3,000m triumph on Saturday, it guaranteed the British team’s most successful World Indoor Championships of all time, surpassing the three gold medals achieved in 1999.

Returning to the championships at which she represented Great Britain for the first time just two years ago, Olympic bronze medallist Hunter Bell reeled in Ethiopia’s Birke Haylom before bursting clear of her rivals on the final lap to win in three minutes 58.53 seconds.

Caudery, already guaranteed silver by the time her team-mate crossed the line, reclaimed the title which represented her breakthrough success two years ago with a second-time clearance over 4.85 metres.

With US-Ukraine talks set to resume in Florida, Volodymyr Zelenskyy warns that Russia is increasing its oil revenues through shadow fleets.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has urged allies to keep up sanctions pressure on Russia’s economy ahead of a second day of talks between Ukraine and United States officials on ways to end the more-than-four-year Russia-Ukraine war.

Russia’s representatives were not present at the talks, which opened on Saturday in Florida. They were originally expected to attend the negotiations, which had been due to take place in the United Arab Emirates, before the US-Israeli war on Iran.

The US delegation is being led by special envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law.

In a post on X on Sunday, Zelenskyy called for tougher action against Moscow’s so-called shadow fleet of tankers and for it to be denied oil revenues.

“Over the past week, Russia launched nearly 1,550 attack drones against Ukraine, more than 1,260 guided aerial bombs, and two missiles. Over that same week, due to the easing of sanctions, Russia increased its crude oil sales to finance its war,” Zelenskyy wrote.

“Revenues give Russia a sense of impunity and the ability to continue the war. That is why pressure must continue, and sanctions must work. Russia’s shadow fleet must not feel safe in European waters or anywhere else,” he said.

The Ukrainian president added that tankers that “serve the war budget can and must be stopped and blocked, not just let go”.

The so-called shadow fleet is a network of vessels that continue to export oil and gas despite Western sanctions due to the ongoing war with Ukraine.

Last week, the French Navy seized an oil tanker in the Western Mediterranean, which France’s President Emmanuel Macron said was part of Russia’s shadow fleet, a network of vessels used to export oil despite Western sanctions.

The shadow fleet, which has grown following Western sanctions on Russia aimed at curbing Moscow’s oil revenues, has helped to keep Russian oil exports flowing.

Talks continue

The last time the Ukrainian and Russian delegations met was in February in the Swiss city of Geneva, but no progress was made, as key issues surrounding territory remain unresolved.

Moscow has repeatedly said it will not agree to a peace deal that gives up the Ukrainian territory it has captured during the war. In contrast, Kyiv has said it will not agree to a deal that does not lead to the return of its territory.

Elements of the peace plan being promoted by the US include a presidential election in Ukraine, alongside territorial concessions.

Zelenskyy, whose term has already expired, ⁠is under renewed pressure from Trump to hold a vote ⁠as Washington pushes Kyiv towards a peace deal.

Ukrainian law bars wartime elections, but Zelenskyy has said Ukraine would be ready to hold democratic elections if the US secured a two-month ceasefire to allow time to prepare infrastructure and put security guarantees in ‌place.

Follow the build-up, analysis and live text commentary of the Madrid derby as Real host Atletico at the Bernabeu.

“Whatever we do, we do together, and as far as possible, in confidence.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vowed to back US strikes on Iran’s power grid if Tehran does not reopen the Strait of Hormuz, as he visited the site of an Iranian strike in Arad. He urged world leaders to join the war effort as US-Israeli attacks on Iran have killed more than 1,500 people and injured thousands.

Iranian missiles have struck the towns of Arad and Dimona near an Israeli nuclear research centre in what Iran says was a response to an Israeli attack on its Natanz nuclear facility in Isfahan province.

At least 180 people were wounded in Saturday’s attack, and hundreds of people have been evacuated from the strategic towns as the Israeli-United States war on Iran is seemingly entering a new, more lethal phase of fighting.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said his country had a “very difficult evening in the battle for our future”. There have been at least 4,564 people wounded in Israel, according to the Ministry of Health, since the start of the war on February 28.

Analysts said that while Israel has regularly waged military campaigns on Gaza, the occupied West Bank, Lebanon and elsewhere, it is rare for the Israeli public to feel the effects of war like it has over the past three weeks.

In Palestinian territory, including Gaza, Israeli forces have used disproportionate force against armed groups, who use rudimentary rockets to fire at Israel. Israel’s war on Gaza has been called a genocide by scholars and rights groups.

With Saturday’s high casualty count, the attacks in Arad and Dimona raise a question: Has Israel underestimated Iranian military capabilities?

What weapons is Iran using?

Defence analysts described Iran’s missile programme as the Middle East’s largest and most varied. Developed over decades, it contains ballistic and cruise missiles and is designed to give Tehran reach even despite its lack of a modern air force.

Iran has short- and medium-range missile systems and longer-range land-attack and antiship cruise missiles.

Iran’s short-range ballistic missiles have a range of roughly 150km to 800km (93 to 500 miles) and are built for nearby military targets and rapid regional strikes.

Their core systems include the Fateh variants: Zolfaghar, Qiam-1 and older Shahab-1/2 missiles. Their shorter range can be an advantage in a crisis. They can be launched in volleys, compressing warning times and making pre-emption harder.

Those medium-range systems include the Shahab-3, Emad, Ghadr-1, the Khorramshahr variants and Sejjil. They also have newer designs like Kheibar Shekan and Haj Qassem.

Iran’s land-attack and antiship cruise missiles include the Soumar, Ya-Ali and the Quds variants, Hoveyzeh, Paveh and Ra’ad.

The longest reaching ballistic missiles, the Soumar, have a range of 2,000km to 2,500km (1,243 to 1,553 miles). However, it was reported that two Iranian missiles were fired late on Thursday or early on Friday on Diego Garcia, the site of a joint US-United Kingdom military base in the Indian Ocean that is 4,000km (2,485 miles) from Iran. The UK said the attack failed, and an Iranian official denied firing the missile.

Former Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei had previously limited Iranian missile ranges to 2,200km (1,367 miles) but removed that limit after Israel’s 12-day war on Iran in June. The US joined Israel in that war as well, carrying out one day of attacks on Iran’s three main nuclear facilities.

“Iran has also used cluster munitions in its attacks on Israel. Each kind of warhead the Iranians have also uses a cluster warhead,” Uzi Rubin, founding director of Israel’s missile defence programme and a senior fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security, told the US news agency Media Line.

What is a cluster munition or warhead?

Instead of a single explosive payload, a cluster warhead disperses multiple bomblets.

“The tip of the missile, instead of containing a big barrel of explosives, contains a mechanism which holds on to a lot of small bombs. And when the missile approaches the target, it opens its skin, it peels off and it spins around and the bomblets are released and released into space and fall on the ground,” Rubin told Media Line.

He added that Iranian cluster warheads may contain 20 to 30 bomblets or 70 to 80, depending on the missile.

These munitions are not new for Iran either. Iran reportedly also used cluster munitions in the 12-day war.

Amnesty International called Iran’s use of cluster munitions during that war a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law while Israel has also been accused of using cluster bombs in Lebanon.

Cluster munitions were banned in 2008 when the Convention on Cluster Munitions was adopted. Neither Iran nor Israel are signatories to the convention.

Why are they making an impact now?

An Israeli military spokesman said Israel’s air defence systems failed to intercept some of the Iranian missiles that hit Arad and Dimona despite being activated. He said Iran’s weaponry was not “special or unfamiliar” and an investigation was under way.

So why are these cluster munitions now making an impact? There are a few reasons.

For a ballistic missile equipped with cluster bomblets to be intercepted, it must happen before the payload opens and releases the submunitions. After the payload opens, the missile goes from a single point of attack to multiple points, making it difficult to stop.

On Thursday, The Times of Israel reported that the Israeli air force will start conserving interceptors. Military officials reportedly said at the time that Iranian cluster bombs are unlikely to cause significant harm if people have taken shelter and, therefore, may avoid shooting down some of them.

What is next?

In the next stage of the war, Iran, the US and Israel may continue to target important infrastructure.

The US and Israel struck Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility on Saturday, according to the Iranian Atomic Energy Organisation. This facility in central Iran is one of the country’s most important uranium enrichment sites, about 220km (135 miles) southeast of Tehran.

In response, Iran launched the attacks on Arad and Dimona, home to Israel’s main nuclear facility.

Israel previously struck fuel storage facilities in Tehran, leading to vast, toxic smoke over the Iranian capital. For its part, the US previously hit Kharg Island, Iran’s oil export hub, and threatened to do it again.

Iran has essentially closed the Strait of Hormuz, a vital chokepoint for global shipping and oil transport, and has targeted military bases and crucial energy infrastructure across Arab Gulf countries.

US President Donald Trump demanded the reopening of the strait and threatened to begin hitting energy infrastructure should Iran not comply.

“If Iran doesn’t FULLY OPEN, WITHOUT THREAT, the Strait of Hormuz, within 48 HOURS from this exact point in time, the United States of America will hit and obliterate their various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST,” Trump wrote on Truth Social at 23:44 GMT on Saturday.

As the United States-Israeli war on Iran enters its fourth week, the conflict seems to have escalated beyond President Donald Trump’s control.

The Iranian government has been able to endure the killings of its top political and military leaders and has launched retaliatory attacks on Israel and Gulf countries despite weeks of air strikes.

Tehran has also been able to impose a de facto blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway through which a fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas supplies pass, sending oil prices soaring. Analysts said the conflict risks unleashing a global recession. And that has put pressure on Trump, prompting his administration to allow the sale of sanctioned Russian oil to try to ease the energy crisis and pressure allies to police the strait, so far unsuccessfully.

Trump’s response in how to deal with the situation has been anything but coherent.

On Saturday, Trump upped the ante, issuing a threat to “obliterate” Iran’s power plants if Tehran does not reopen the Strait of Hormuz within 48 hours. This came a day after he said the US was “winding down” its military operations in Iran.

Analysts said Trump launched the war without a clear goal and misjudged how Tehran would respond. The conflict has expanded across the Middle East.

So is Trump looking to exit the war – or escalate it?

Trump’s mixed messaging on the Iran war

Here’s a brief look at the changing statements from Washington:

Is the war winding up or widening?

While one statement from Trump signalled that the US is considering “winding down” the war on Iran, another one indicated that the conflict would widen in the coming days.

On Saturday, Trump posted on his Truth Social platform that Washington was “very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great Military efforts in the Middle East with respect to the Terrorist Regime of Iran”.

Trump listed the goals of the war as: completely degrading Iran’s missile capability, destroying its defence industrial base, eliminating the Iranian navy and air force, never allowing Iran to get even close to having nuclear weapons, protecting Middle Eastern allies, and guarding and policing the Strait of Hormuz.

Both Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have claimed repeatedly in the past few days that Iranian military capabilities have been “completely destroyed” even as Tehran continues to retaliate against Israel and strike countries in the region.

US military officials said they have carried out heavy bombardments of Iran’s coast, including with bunker buster bombs, but still have not been able to limit Tehran’s capacity to disrupt the Strait of Hormuz.

On Saturday, Trump said the US “has blown Iran off of the map” and insisted that he has “met my own goals … and weeks ahead of schedule!” He also reiterated that Iran’s “leadership is gone, their navy and air force are dead, they have absolutely no defense, and they want to make a deal”.

Iranian leaders have consistently denied reaching out to the US with a ceasefire offer.

Just an hour later, Trump returned to his Truth Social platform with a warning for Iran.

“If Iran doesn’t FULLY OPEN, WITHOUT THREAT, the Strait of Hormuz, within 48 HOURS from this exact point in time, the United States of America will hit and obliterate their various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST!” Trump wrote.

Iran has since responded by saying it will hit energy sites across the Middle East if its power facilities are targeted. It has already fired hundreds of missiles and drones on Gulf countries, targeting US assets as well as energy facilities.

Between Trump’s claims to be “winding down” operations and upping the ante later, his administration announced it is sending three more warships to the Middle East with about 2,500 additional Marines.

The US military said about 50,000 military personnel are already deployed for the war against Iran.

When will the war on Iran end?

That has been among the foremost questions posed to US officials, including Trump, since the war on Iran was launched on February 28.

The next day, Trump told the Daily Mail that “it will be four weeks or so. It’s always been about a four-week process.” A day later, Trump said at the White House: “We projected four to five weeks, but we have capability to go far longer than that.”

On March 8, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told the CBS TV network’s 60 Minutes programme: “This is only just the beginning.” The next day, the US president told the same channel that he thinks “the war is very complete, pretty much.” And the US military operation was “way ahead of schedule”.

Then, on March 9, Trump said one could say the war is “both complete and just beginning”. Later the same day, the president said: “We’ve already won in many ways, but we haven’t won enough” and promised to go further and harsher against Iran.

On March 11, Trump said: “We don’t want to leave early, do we? We’ve got to finish the job.”

Why did US and Israel launch strikes on Iran?

Responses to this question are perhaps the most telling about US posturing in the war against Iran.

On March 2, Hegseth said the attacks were aimed at ending “47 long years” of war by “the expansionist and Islamist regime in Tehran” and were launched because Iran refused to negotiate with the US.

Hours later, Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, told reporters the US knew Israel was about to strike Iran, adding that the Trump administration believed the US needed to launch a pre-emptive strike before Iran’s retaliation potentially targeted US forces. “We went proactively in a defensive way to prevent them from inflicting higher damage,” he said.

This sparked a massive row in Washington with critics saying Israel had forced the US into war with Iran. Soon Trump rebutted his top diplomat, saying: “They [Iran] were going to attack. If we didn’t do it, they were going to attack first. … So if anything, I might have forced Israel’s hand.”

The next day, the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, concluded that Trump just had a “good feeling” that Iran would strike so Washington attacked Tehran.

The launch of the war came as Washington and Tehran were scheduled to meet for another round of talks that were started late last year. Before the war, their Omani mediator said a deal was “within reach”.

The US and Israeli assertion that Tehran was on the verge of making a nuclear bomb has not been backed up by the United Nations nuclear watchdog. Last week, US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard also told Congress that Iran was not in a position to make an atomic bomb.

Some analysts said the Trump administration was convinced to go to war by Netanyahu, who has been seeking US military intervention in Iran for decades. They said Trump was buoyed by a swift US military operation in Venezuela and did not think through Iran’s strengths before going into the war. In January, the US military abducted President Nicolas Maduro in a military operation in Caracas that took two and a half hours.

What does the conflicting messaging mean for US strategy?

Analysts said the moving goalposts in the Iran war show the policy limits of the current Trump administration as well as its strategy, to some extent, of keeping off-ramps available.

Zeidon Alkinani, a Middle East analyst at the Arab Perspectives Institute, told Al Jazeera that in the earlier days of the hostilities, there appeared to be clearer targets and limited objectives.

“There now seems to be a more chaotic reaction,” he said. He described the attacks as increasingly reciprocal, suggesting strikes on oil or energy facilities could prompt further escalation.

Last week, Iran attacked energy facilities in Qatar and caused “significant damage”, knocking out  17 percent of Qatar’s liquefied natural gas (LNG) export capacity. Qatar produces 20 percent of global LNG supplies. Iran said the attack was in retaliation for Israeli attacks on a gas plant.

Paolo von Schirach, president of the Global Policy Institute, told Al Jazeera that Trump changes his mind “very quickly” and it is hard to predict what his next step could be in the war on Iran.

The analyst said it was unclear to him what “tools” Trump has to end the war.

“We look at his message saying the war is winding down. OK, good. Things are quiet. Maybe there is an off-ramp somehow. But now he says that if the Iranians don’t open the Strait of Hormuz, then we [the US] are going to unleash hell and what have you,” von Schirach noted.

“It is not quite clear to me what he wants and what the tools are to accomplish this.”

Von Schirach added that it would be difficult to predict whether the US could force Iran into submission, given its size and population. Using as a reference Iraq, where 150,000 American soldiers were deployed during the Second Gulf War, the analyst predicted that the US might need as many as half a million soldiers if Trump “wants to take over Iran”.

Tehran, Iran – Military and political authorities in Iran are projecting a message that “victory” is near as war with the United States and Israel continues to escalate, and air strikes and assassination attempts are reported across the country.

Massive joint US-Israeli air raids were recorded in multiple areas of the capital Tehran overnight into Sunday, and in central Iran’s Isfahan city in the morning, a day after Dezful and Andimeshk in western Khuzestan and several other cities were hit.

Israeli warplanes also conducted two separate sets of precision strikes on privately-owned residential units located in small towns in the green provinces of Gilan and Mazandaran to the north on Saturday, which appeared to be assassination attempts on officials.

Local authorities confirmed that several people were killed, but did not elaborate. Israeli and US media said a senior drone commander is believed to have been killed.

Nevertheless, top officials in Tehran said they were unyielding and focused on retaliatory attacks.

Parliament speaker and former Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commander Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said the fact that Iranian missiles struck Israel’s Dimona overnight shows that a “new stage of battle” has started where “Israel’s skies are defenceless”.

Majid Mousavi, aerospace commander of the IRGC, echoed the same statement about control over Israeli skies in a post on X on Saturday night, which came in response to the US and Israel declaring dominance over Iranian airspace.

“Pinpoint precision Seyed Majid, hit Dimona again,” chanted flag-waving pro-establishment supporters shown on state television broadcasts, calling on Mousavi for action.

Israel said more than 180 people were injured in Dimona, a southern city where its key nuclear facilities are also located, in addition to nearby Arad.

Ahmad-Reza Radan – Iran’s hardline police chief, who has been cited by Israeli media as being a target for assassination along with Mousavi, Ghalibaf and others – was seen briefly addressing a group of supporters in Tehran on Saturday night.

“Trump first threatened the European Union, then begged. Today, he has said he will come take Greenland if the Europeans don’t come. I want to tell the European Union that if they can’t hold on to Greenland, then send a request and we will come preserve it,” he said, followed by chants of “Alla akbar” (God is greatest).

Defence Ministry spokesman Reza Talaei-Nik said in a statement that attacks across the region will continue “until the complete halt and surrender of the enemy”.

The taunts are in line with the state’s messaging in recent days, including a written statement attributed to Mojtaba Khamenei, who was selected as the supreme leader after his father Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was assassinated on the first day of the war, but who has not been seen or heard.

The message said Iran’s enemies were being “defeated” and there is “particular unity” among supporters of the theocratic establishment.

Over the past week, the country’s top security official, commanders of the paramilitary Basij force of the IRGC, the government’s intelligence minister, and a number of other military and security personnel have been among those killed.

The government reports that a large number of residential buildings, hospitals, schools and other civilian facilities have also been impacted during the war, as state supporters control the city streets, squares and mosques to counter potential anti-government protests.

‘Say goodbye to electricity!’

The Iranian rhetoric quickly escalated on Sunday after US President Donald Trump issued a 48-hour ultimatum for Tehran to reopen the strategic Strait of Hormuz, a key water route for global energy export, or face strikes on its power plants.

In response, Iranian politicians and armed forces said they would strike back harder against the region’s energy facilities.

The IRGC-affiliated Mehr news agency released a map with graphics that showed power plants across the region, including in the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait, that could be attacked if Iranian facilities are hit. An accompanying message read, “Say goodbye to electricity!”

On Saturday night, state and IRGC-affiliated media circulated a different map, showing Doha and also marking the central offices of Al Jazeera network as potential targets, and said all residents of the Qatari capital were advised to evacuate immediately.

State television quickly issued a retraction and cited unnamed sources as saying the map was not official, but no explanation was provided about who circulated the image and why.

The all-around promises of escalation, particularly around bombing electricity facilities and other critical civilian infrastructure, have created additional concerns among many Iranians about the impact on daily lives and implications on the country’s future.

“If the main power plants are bombed, it’s not going to be just a brief disruption; it could stop the flow of everything from water to gas,” a Tehran resident told Al Jazeera, asking to remain anonymous due to security concerns. “It would be foolish to just punish the population like that.”

The US-Israeli forces have also struck natural gas facilities in southern Iran and bombed fuel reserves across Tehran, but authorities said fires and damage were contained quickly without creating major disruptions.

In an Instagram post to mark Nowruz, the Persian New Year, iconic footballer and nationally respected figure Ali Daei said this year’s celebrations were different because Iran is grieving for its people killed in the war.

“Wishing for a prosperous and free Iran, away from war and bloodshed, all about welfare and calm,” he wrote, drawing the ire of a number of state media, including the IRGC-affiliated Tasnim, which criticised Daei for not specifically condemning the US and Israel.

Proclamations, warnings under blackout

Meanwhile, the internet remains cut for more than 92 million Iranians for a 23rd day, becoming the longest shutdown in the country’s history, trailed only by a 20-day blackout imposed during the killing of thousands of anti-government protesters in January.

State media outlets continue to focus on successful IRGC attacks and present Iran as a country on the brink of being recognised as a world power, as they refrain from communicating details about the US and Israeli attacks or significant damage sustained.

Alaeddin Boroujerdi, a member of the national security committee of Iran’s parliament, told the state television on Sunday that the IRGC’s overnight attacks against Israel “opened a new page in shifting the balance of power and showed the victory of the Islamic Republic in this imposed war”.

The parliamentary committee’s spokesman, Ebrahim Rezaei, stretched the same line of thinking even further, and said in a post on X that Iran should demand to become a veto-yielding permanent member of the United Nations Security Council as a condition for ending the war. The lawmaker did not say how or when he expected that to happen.

Iran’s government has also demanded war reparations and guarantees against future aggression, but the US and Israel have been pushing to overthrow the Islamic Republic that came to power in a 1979 revolution.

Intelligence authorities advised the Iranian population on Saturday that even being a member of foreign-based news and war footage channels on Telegram and all other social media outlets banned by the state could violate national security laws.

The Iranian judiciary said that such channels are considered “terrorist” outlets and that sending any videos of impact sites or armed state checkpoints on the streets to them could carry maximum penalties like confiscation of assets and even execution.

State security authorities have emphasised that anyone who engages in anti-establishment protests will be treated as an “enemy”.

As Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting, prayer, and reflection, entered its second week, specifically on March 5, terrorists from the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) attacked multiple military positions in Borno State, northeastern Nigeria, in a single night.  

The attacks killed at least 16 soldiers and officers. The following day, a suicide car bomb detonated near Njimya village inside Sambisa Forest, forcing Nigerian troops to retreat.

That same week, Nigeria’s Minister of Defence, General Christopher Musa, convened a closed-door security meeting with President Bola Tinubu at the Presidential Villa in Abuja. When he came out, his explanation for the rise in attacks was unusually direct.

“As usual with the terrorists during the Ramadan period,” he told journalists, “they feel when they die, they are going to heaven, so they are ready to commit any offence or get killed because they believe there is a reward.”

He assured Nigerians that security forces had adjusted their strategies. “You can see in the past few days we’ve taken over those locations. We’ve killed their commanders and taken over their assets. We’ll continue to do more,” he said.

The assurance arrived against a backdrop of twelve confirmed attacks on Nigerian military bases since January 2025 — eleven of them in Borno State alone.

However, the violence did not stop. 

On March 17, three suspected suicide bombings rocked Maiduguri, killing at least 23 people and wounding more than 100 others. The military said the attacks were carried out by “suspected Boko Haram terrorists”. Earlier, on March 6, terrorists from Jama’atu Ahlussunnah Liddaawati Wal Jihad (JAS), also known as Boko Haram, attacked Ngoshe in Borno’s Gwoza Local Government Area (LGA), abducting over 300 people and killing more than a hundred.

The real question is whether Ramadan genuinely drives this violence, or whether it merely overlaps with a war that was already escalating. HumAngle’s analysis of Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED)’s five-year data shows the answer is both. 

But only one part of that answer is getting worse.

Sacred month recast as a season of war

Just as it encourages insurgents to migrate to Africa, the Islamic State, ISWAP’s parent organisation, has long designated Ramadan as what its propaganda formally frames as a “season of jihad and harvest”. 

The ideological foundation reaches back to events central to Muslim memory.

Prophet Muhammad waged his first major battle, the Battle of Badr, in 624 CE, during Ramadan. The conquest of Mecca in 630 CE also fell within the month.

For ordinary Muslims, these are historical moments shaped by circumstances. For jihadist organisations, they are annual instructions.

While mainstream Islam understands Ramadan as a month of fasting, prayer, and restraint, jihadist ideology inverts this completely. In their reading, violence is not a departure from religion — it is its highest expression. For them, history is more than a context; it is a whole calendar.

JAS was the first Nigerian jihadi organisation to work from this theology, though inconsistently. Its former leader, Abubakar Shekau, was unpredictable. During his time, attacks came when opportunity appeared, not when doctrine demanded. 

ISWAP, which split from JAS in 2016, partly over Shekau’s methods, brought a different discipline. Trained by Islamic State commanders who operate on fixed ideological cycles, ISWAP insurgents do not treat Ramadan as one month among twelve. They treat it as a deadline. For them, the 2026 attacks were deliverables.

What the data shows and what it doesn’t 

Between 2021 and early 2026, Nigeria recorded 20,317 violent incidents involving armed groups: battles, explosions, and attacks on civilians, according to ACLED. Of these, 1,774 occurred during the months of Ramadan. That is roughly one in every twelve incidents nationally occurring in a month that lasts one in twelve months. On the surface, there is no obvious spike.

The total number of annual attacks also climbed sharply, from 3,269 in 2021 to 5,242 in 2025, a 60 per cent rise in four years. Ramadan months tracked that general rise without breaking dramatically above it. When you count incidents per day rather than per month — which is fairer, since Ramadan is only 30 days — the Ramadan daily rate of 9.5 attacks only sits slightly below the non-Ramadan daily rate of 10.2. If anything, the country as a whole is marginally quieter during Ramadan than outside it.

But that national picture hides a more important local one.

Borno State alone accounts for 277 of Nigeria’s 1,774 Ramadan incidents — more than Zamfara and Kaduna combined, two states notorious for non-jihadi terrorism. Most of Borno’s violence traces to either ISWAP or JAS. And ISWAP’s Ramadan record tells a completely different story from the national trend.

In 2021, ISWAP recorded zero Ramadan attacks in the data. By 2022, that number rose to 7; by 2023, 16; by 2024, 12; and by 2025, 19. In the first three weeks of Ramadan in 2026, the figure had already reached 31, ISWAP’s highest Ramadan count on record as of the time of filing this report.

Every other major actor in the data, including communal militias from Kaduna, Zamfara, and Katsina, unidentified armed groups, and even the Nigerian military, shows a flat or inconsistent Ramadan pattern. ISWAP alone shows a line pointing upward, year after year, specifically during the holy month. 

What does this mean at the national scale? ISWAP accounts for just 85 incidents across all Ramadan periods in the dataset — 4.8 per cent of all Ramadan violence in Nigeria. The majority of other attacks during Ramadan are carried out by non-jihadi terrorists, communal fighters, and unidentified groups with no relationship to the Islamic calendar whatsoever. 

From the data, we can deduce that Nigeria’s broad Ramadan violence problem is a governance crisis. But  ISWAP’s Ramadan violence problem is an ideological one — and it is the only one that is systematically growing.

 The tactical evolution

What distinguishes ISWAP’s Ramadan 2026 campaign from previous years is not its scale, but its method.

The group has launched at least twelve coordinated attacks on military bases and infrastructure across Borno State since January 2025 alone — a pace comparable only to its 2018-2019 operational tempo, the period when it briefly seized Baga, the Lake Chad headquarters of the Multinational Joint Task Force.

The March 5 night assault hit multiple locations simultaneously. 

In April 2025, fighters detonated IEDs on bridges along the Biu-Damboa road, cutting off military reinforcements to a surrounded town. This is a deliberate encirclement strategy designed to isolate and starve bases of supply.

The weapons have changed, too. ISWAP insurgents have used armed drones, rocket-propelled grenades capable of destroying armoured vehicles, and suicide car bombs. These are not the weapons of an organisation improvising from local materials; they suggest sustained external supply chains.

Reports indicate that foreign insurgents have also entered and compounded the situation. At least ten have been killed in the past two years during engagements with regional security forces, including a Senegalese national previously resident in Sweden. Cameroonian forces also killed additional foreign insurgents in February 2026 near the border. 

The internationalisation of ISWAP’s fighter pool reflects the Islamic State’s central documented effort to reinforce its West African province ahead of what its propaganda calls the Ramadan offensive season.

State-backed regional cooperation, meanwhile, has deteriorated. Niger’s withdrawal from the Multinational Joint Task Force in March 2025 disrupted intelligence-sharing arrangements and opened corridors along the Nigeria-Niger border, which ISWAP has since exploited. 

The geography of an insurgency 

The ACLED data draws a line across Nigeria. To the North East of it, in Borno and Yobe, jihadist Ramadan operations follow a doctrinal tempo. But in the northwestern region – in Zamfara, Kaduna, and Katsina – and in the North Central, Ramadan-period violence is driven by land disputes, ethnic militia competition, and criminal enterprise. These conflicts share a calendar window, not a cause.

The distinction matters. Strategies built to counter ISWAP’s religious framing will not reduce militia attacks or cult violence in other states. Operations designed for terror suppression in Zamfara are poorly suited to ISWAP’s organised, doctrinally motivated attacks in Borno. Nigeria is not fighting one war during Ramadan. It is fighting several actors with different motives.

The northern Muslim-majority states make this clearest. Kano recorded 18 Ramadan incidents across five years. Jigawa recorded five. Gombe, three. These are some of Nigeria’s largest Muslim populations. 

However, the infrastructure that turns a holy month into an operational order – the preachers, the propaganda, the pipeline from grievance to detonation – is not spread across Muslim Nigeria. It is concentrated, almost entirely, around Lake Chad.

Overall, Nigeria’s conflict is worsening across all months, actors, and regions. A 60 per cent rise in four years is a trend that contains every other story, and  Ramadan does not create that trajectory. But for one group, in one geography, with one ideology, it sharpens it.  And that group is growing faster, fighting harder, and planning more carefully than it was this time last year.

Watch the moment an Iranian strike hits what appears to be a bridge in central Tel Aviv, startling pedestrians nearby with the loud blast.