regime

Ukraine’s Zelenskyy and Syria’s President Ahmed al-Sharaa discuss cooperation and mutual respect as Ukraine and Syria rebuild diplomatic relations.

Ukraine and Syria have formally restored diplomatic relations as their leaders met on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said following his meeting with Syrian interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa.

Syria’s Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani, along with an accompanying delegation, also attended the meeting on Wednesday in New York, the Syrian Foreign Ministry said in a brief statement.

Ukraine broke off relations with Syria in 2022 after the government of the country’s former ruler, Bashar al-Assad, moved to recognise the “independence” of the Russian-backed breakaway republics of Donetsk and Luhansk in eastern Ukraine. Shortly after, Syria announced it would break ties with Kyiv.

Zelenskyy said Ukraine and Syria signed a communique on the restoration of their diplomatic relations.

“We welcome this important step and are ready to support the Syrian people on their path to stability,” the Ukrainian leader wrote on X.

“During our negotiations with the President of Syria Ahmed al-Sharaa, we also discussed in detail promising sectors for developing cooperation, security threats faced by both countries, and the importance of countering them,” Zelenskyy said.

Today, Ukraine and Syria signed a Joint Communiqué on the restoration of diplomatic relations. We welcome this important step and are ready to support the Syrian people on their path to stability.

During our negotiations with President of Syria Ahmed al-Sharaa, we also discussed… pic.twitter.com/HBXsoaRob8

— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) September 24, 2025

The Ukrainian leader said the two sides agreed to build “our relations on the basis of mutual respect and trust”.

Al-Sharaa arrived in New York on Sunday with a delegation of ministers to join the annual UN General Assembly, marking Syria’s first participation in the event at the presidential level in nearly 60 years.

Damascus had boycotted the gathering after the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, when Israel occupied the Golan Heights in southwest Syria.

President Nureddin al-Atassi was the last Syrian head of state to attend the UN summit, holding office from 1966 to 1970.

In January, al-Sharaa assumed power in Damascus after the opposition forces he led overthrew President al-Assad’s regime, bringing an end to the Assad family’s five-decade rule over Syria.

In his debut speech at the UNGA earlier on Wednesday, al-Sharaa called for the lifting of international sanctions on his war-torn nation.

Al-Sharaa highlighted the reform measures introduced in the months since he took power, including the creation of new institutions, plans for elections and efforts to attract foreign investment.

MEXICO CITY — To help justify a sweeping deportation campaign, an extraordinary U.S. military buildup in the Caribbean and unprecedented strikes on boats allegedly trafficking drugs, President Trump has repeated a mantra: Tren de Aragua.

He insists that the street gang, which was founded about a decade ago in Venezuela, is attempting an “invasion” of the United States and threatens “the stability of the international order in the Western Hemisphere.” Speaking at the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday, Trump described the group as “an enemy of all humanity” and an arm of Venezuela’s authoritarian government.

According to experts who study the gang and Trump’s own intelligence officials, none of that is true.

While Tren de Aragua has been linked to cases of human trafficking, extortion and kidnapping and has expanded its footprint as Venezuela’s diaspora has spread throughout the Americas, there is little evidence that it poses a threat to the U.S.

“Tren de Aragua does not have the capacity to invade any country, especially the most powerful nation on Earth,” said Ronna Rísquez, a Venezuelan journalist who wrote a book about the gang. The group’s prowess, she said, had been vastly exaggerated by the Trump administration in order to rationalize the deportation of migrants, the militarization of U.S. foreign policy in Latin America, and perhaps even an effort to drive Venezuela’s president from power.

“It is being instrumentalized to justify political actions,” she said of the gang. “In no way does it endanger the national security of the United States.”

Before last year, few Americans had heard of Tren de Aragua.

The group formed inside a prison in Venezuela’s Aragua state then spread as nearly 8 million Venezuelans fled poverty and political repression under the regime of Nicolás Maduro. Gang members were accused of sex trafficking, drug sales, homicides and other crimes in countries including Chile, Brazil and Colombia.

As large numbers of Venezuelan migrants began entering the United States after requesting political asylum at the southern border, authorities in a handful of states tied crimes to members of the gang.

It was Trump who put the group on the map.

While campaigning for reelection last year, he appeared at an event in Aurora, Colo., where law enforcement blamed members of Tren de Aragua for several crimes, including murder. Trump stood next to large posters featuring mugshots of Venezuelan immigrants.

“Occupied America. TDA Gang Members,” they read. Banners said: “Deport Illegals Now.”

Shortly after he took office, Trump declared an “invasion” by Tren de Aragua and invoked the Alien Enemies Act, a rarely used 18th century law that allows the president to deport immigrants during wartime. His administration flew 200 Venezuelans to El Salvador, where they were housed in a notorious prison, even though few of the men had documented links to Tren de Aragua and most had no criminal records in the United States.

In recent months, Trump has again evoked the threat of Tren de Aragua to explain the deployment of thousands of U.S. troops and a small armada of ships and warplanes to the Caribbean.

In July, his administration declared that Tren de Aragua was a terrorist group led by Maduro. That same month, he ordered the Pentagon to use military force against Latin American cartels that his government has labeled terrorists.

Three times in recent weeks, U.S. troops have struck boats off the coast of Venezuela that it said carried Tren de Aragua members who were trafficking drugs.

The administration offered no proof of those claims. Fourteen people have been killed.

Trump has warned that more strikes are to come. “To every terrorist thug smuggling poisonous drugs into the United States of America, please be warned that we will blow you out of existence,” he said in his address to the United Nations.

While he insists the strikes are aimed at disrupting the drug trade — claiming without evidence that each boat was carrying enough drugs to kill 25,000 Americans — analysts say there is little evidence that Tren de Aragua is engaged in high-level drug trafficking, and no evidence that it is involved in the movement of fentanyl, which is produced in Mexico by chemicals imported from China. The DEA estimates that just 8% of cocaine that is trafficked into the U.S. passes through Venezuelan territory.

That has fueled speculation about whether the real goal may be regime change.

“Everybody is wondering about Trump’s end game,” said Irene Mia, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a think tank focused on global security.

She said that while there are officials within the White House who appear eager to work with Venezuela, others, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, are open about their desire to topple Maduro and other leftist strongmen in the region.

“We’re not going to have a cartel operating or masquerading as a government operating in our own hemisphere,” Rubio told Fox News this month.

Top U.S. intelligence officials have said they don’t believe Maduro has links to Tren de Aragua.

A declassified memo produced by the Office of Director of National Intelligence found no evidence of widespread cooperation between his regime and the gang. It also said Tren de Aragua does not pose a threat to the U.S.: “The small size of TDA’s cells, its focus on low-skill criminal activities and its decentralized structure make it highly unlikely that TDA coordinates large volumes of human trafficking or migrant smuggling.”

Michael Paarlberg, a political scientist who studies Latin America at Virginia Commonwealth University, said he believes Trump is using the gang to achieve political goals — and distract from domestic controversies such as his decision to close the investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Tren de Aragua, he said, is much less powerful than other gangs in Latin America. “But it has been a convenient boogeyman for the Trump administration.”

AN ELDERLY Brit couple wrongfully jailed by the Taliban for eight months have finally been freed.

Peter Reynolds, 80, and his wife Barbie, 76, were snatched by Taliban thugs and tossed into Afghanistan’s most notorious prison.

1

The parents-of-four had lived in Afghanistan for 18 years managing training projects – but were kidnapped on February 1 with no explanation.

They were locked up separately at the maximum security Pul-e-Charkhi in Kabul, and later moved to an underground cell beneath the Taliban‘s intelligence HQ.

More to follow… For the latest news on this story keep checking back at The Sun Online

Thesun.co.uk is your go-to destination for the best celebrity news, real-life stories, jaw-dropping pictures and must-see video.

Like us on Facebook at www.facebook.com/thesun and follow us from our main Twitter account at @TheSun.

The United States has deployed military forces to the Caribbean with the ostensible goal of combatting drug trafficking.

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has said that a United States military deployment in the Caribbean is aimed at overthrowing his government, viewed as a longtime foe by the US.

In a series of rare remarks before reporters on Monday, Maduro said that Venezuela seeks peace but that the military is prepared to respond to any attacks from US forces.

“They are seeking a regime change through military threat,” Maduro told journalists. “Venezuela is confronting the biggest threat that has been seen on our continent in the last 100 years.”

Maduro has raised alarm over a US naval buildup in the region, ostensibly for the purpose of combating drug trafficking, that has caused speculation about possible military interference against Venezuela. The Venezuelan leader has deployed troops along the South American nation’s borders and called on citizens to join militias.

The US Navy currently has two Aegis guided-missile destroyers – the USS Gravely and the USS Jason Dunham – in the Caribbean, along with the destroyer USS Sampson and the cruiser USS Lake Erie in the waters off Latin America.

The news agency Associated Press has reported that those forces could expand further in the coming days, with the inclusion of amphibious assault ships with 4,000 sailors and US Marines. The US, for its part, has not announced plans to deploy any personnel to Venezuelan soil.

US President Donald Trump’s administration has accused Maduro of close connections to an array of drug trafficking and criminal organisations throughout the region, claims for which it has thus far failed to offer any evidence.

The US doubled its reward for information leading to Maduro’s arrest over allegations of involvement in drug trafficking to $50m in August.

In May, US media reported that an internal intelligence memo concluded that there was no evidence linking Maduro to the Venezuelan criminal group Tren de Aragua, undercutting a claim pushed publicly by Trump and his allies. That allegation had also been an important component of the administration’s push to rapidly deport Venezuelans accused of membership without due process.

Despite his frequent use of rhetoric railing against the history of US intervention in Latin America, the Venezuelan leader had previously expressed an interest in cooperating with the Trump administration in areas such as immigration enforcement, agreeing to accept Venezuelans deported from the US.

During his press conference on Monday, Maduro also insisted that he was the rightful ruler of the country after winning a third term in a strongly contested 2024 election. The opposition has maintained that they were the true winners of that election, and neither the US nor most regional governments have recognised Maduro’s victory.

Memo to Mark Walter:

Check your swing.

Now that you’re the majority owner of the Lakers, everyone is expecting you to whack their two most prominent leaders in hopes of transforming the basketball team into your baseball team, but you should instead initially act in terms your Dodgers would understand.

Take a pitch.

Keep Rob Pelinka and JJ Redick in their jobs … for now.

Agreed, this might be a tough call, and certainly there could be temptation to immediately can the two Lakers employees who most epitomize the incestuous decisions that have dragged the once-shining championship organization into dull mediocrity.

Pelinka, the president of basketball operations and general manager, was hired eight years ago because he was the agent and confidant of Kobe Bryant.

Redick, the head coach, was hired last summer because he was LeBron James’ podcast bro.

Neither man came to their current positions with strong qualifications. Both men were beneficiaries of a post-Jerry Buss culture in which daughter Jeanie would surround herself with friends and family.

It is a culture that led to outsized decision-making roles for the likes of Linda and Kurt Rambis. It is a culture that is diametrically opposed to the meritocracy that has made this town’s other glamour team so great.

Now that the Dodgers have basically swallowed the Lakers whole, it might be a foregone conclusion that Pelinka and Redick would be among the first to disappear.

Memo to Mark Walter:

Mark Walter, the controlling owner of the Dodgers, recently became a majority stakeholder in the Lakers.

(Emma McIntyre / Getty Images)

Hold up rounding third.

Both Pelinka and Redick have earned a chance to show their strengths in a new system in which there will certainly be increased scouting, advanced analytics and a new professionalism for an infrastructure that had been difficult for any official to succeed.

Ned Colletti was the Dodgers’ general manager when Walter’s group bought the team in the spring of 2012. He lasted two more seasons, Guggenheim Partners pouring money into the team and giving him every chance to succeed before firing him.

Pelinka deserves at least half that chance.

Don Mattingly was the manager when Walter bought the team. He lasted four more seasons, finally parting ways after the 2015 season.

Redick deserves at least a portion of that leash.

Although both men have been viewed as overmatched both in this space and by NBA insiders across the landscape, each has done well enough to not be summarily beheaded the minute Walter walks through the door.

Start with Pelinka. You do know he has an NBA championship on his resume, right? While Alex Caruso dismissed the 2020 title as phony last week after he won another ring with Oklahoma City, that first one still counts, and Pelinka still deserves credit for overseeing it.

Yes, Pelinka is the villain who ruined everything by letting Caruso walk while gutting the title team to acquire Russell Westbrook. But he’s also perhaps the only executive in NBA history to acquire three players the likes of LeBron James, Luka Doncic and Anthony Davis.

He had lots of help there — Magic Johnson recruited James, and James recruited Davis, and Nico Harrison handed him Doncic — but still, he was the final cog in making it happen.

Pelinka also engineered the splendid undrafted free agent signing that was Austin Reaves, which led to the Lakers finishing this season as the third seed in the West.

You don’t fire a decision-maker the same year his rebuilt team finishes third in basketball’s most competitive neighborhood. You don’t fire a decision-maker two years after his team reached the Western Conference finals. And you certainly don’t fire a decision-maker until you know what’s happening with his best employee.

It seems clear that James is going to opt in to his $52.6 million contract this week and remain with the team — and son Bronny — for at least one more season. If that’s the case, then Pelinka should get the chance to add the rim protector he’s been seeking to maximize Doncic and give James one more opportunity at a ring.

However, if James unexpectedly turns down the money to seek better title opportunities elsewhere — not a bad decision for the Lakers, honestly — then the ensuing roster chaos will not be the right time to make a change at the top.

Either way, the situation is fluid enough that Pelinka should be allowed to see it through.

The same goes for Redick, who did an admirable job in his first regular season before melting down in the playoffs.

Granted, some would consider his first-round series game management against the Minnesota Timberwolves a fireable offense, particularly in Game 4 when he used the same five players for an entire second half. He didn’t do himself any favors when he later reacted to criticism of that decision by bristling at a reporter’s question before stalking away from a pregame news conference.

During the most important moments of the season, Redick was in over his head. But as he admitted, he’ll learn, he’ll grow, he’ll get better, and he did well enough during the regular season to believe him.

Redick coached one team before the arrival of Doncic and the departure of Davis. He coached another team afterward. He deftly handled both of those teams while smartly disarming the potentially divisive distraction that was Bronny. Redick also empowered Reaves to become a legitimate third threat before Reaves joined his coach in a playoff disappearing act.

All of which brings this surprisingly sugary piece to this upcoming week, the start of the NBA’s summer madness, and the pressure is on.

Like it or not, Pelinka and Redick are a pair now, a tandem joined by the appearance of a new owner with new expectations.

Pelinka needs to find a big man who can help carry them deep into the playoffs. No matter who Pelinka acquires, Redick has to scheme around Doncic and make it all work.

They won’t get many chances under a new Dodger regime that demands sustained success, but they deserve at least one chance to take advantage of the massive changes that this new ownership group will surely create in returning basketball’s greatest franchise to new glories.

Memo to Mark Walter:

Keep Pelinka‘s and Redick’s names in the lineup card.

In pencil.

Following the U.S. attack on Iran’s primary nuclear facilities at Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan, Tehran faces nothing but bad options. Militarily, Iran can escalate the conflict by attacking U.S. forces and allies in the region, as it did on Monday with missile attacks on U.S. bases in Qatar and Iraq. Iran could also close the Strait of Hormuz, withdraw from the nuclear nonproliferation treaty or even attempt a rapid “breakout” run to a bomb with its residual capabilities. Each of these options virtually assures an American military response that goes far beyond Iran’s nuclear program, possibly leading to a targeted campaign to topple the regime, the Islamic Republic’s greatest nightmare.

A more likely military response would therefore be for Iran to respond by continuing to attack Israel — as it did just hours after the U.S. strike — in an attempt to turn the conflict into a war of attrition that Israel can ill afford. Israel could escalate to try to end the war more swiftly and avoid prolonging losses.

Diplomatically, Iran can return to negotiations but rebuff President Trump’s demand for an “unconditional surrender,” whose terms he had not spelled out. In reality, these would likely include the complete dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear and missile programs and significant curbs to its regional role, along with long-term inspections and more. Should Tehran rebuff these demands, it would greatly increase the risk of further American military action, including against the regime itself — targeting military and civilian leaders and infrastructure, not just nuclear sites.

Alternatively, it can essentially accede to Trump’s demands, in which case it avoids direct American intervention and the war ends, but Iran loses its ultimate security guarantor — the nuclear capability — and virtually all of its leverage to seek any concessions in further international talks. The regime would also appear so weak that the probability of a domestic uprising would increase exponentially.

Whichever option Iran chooses, the very future of the Islamic Republic has never been in greater peril. Accordingly, the prospects for a dramatic positive transformation of the Middle Eastern strategic landscape have never been greater.

The decades-long American effort to establish a regional coalition of Arab states and Israel, to contain Iran, will be given a significant boost, as the former gains confidence to do so in the face of a greatly weakened Iran and resurgent U.S. in the region. The dangers of proliferation, at least in the Middle East, might be greatly reduced. Israel will have demonstrated — albeit this time only with critical American assistance — that the “Begin doctrine” (Israeli determination to take all means necessary to prevent a hostile regional state from developing nuclear weapons) still applies. Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the three most likely proliferators in the region after Iran, will have little reason to pursue nuclear weapons.

Russia’s and China’s inability to provide their Iranian ally with any practical backing during the war stands in stark contrast to the U.S. and Israel and is particularly galling for Iran because of its strong support for the Kremlin during Russia’s war in Ukraine. Moscow and Beijing will suffer a significant reduction in their regional standing, accruing to Washington’s benefit. The Middle East will once again be considered a clearly American-dominated region, in which Russia and China will have to tread more carefully.

There are some in the U.S. who fear Mideast conflicts distract American attention from the competition with China — the only nation approaching the economic influence of the U.S. today — and Russia. But taking a direct role in this Iran-Israel conflict has not diverted American focus from Moscow and Beijing. On the contrary, it has significantly strengthened Washington’s global stature compared with both countries. China will be more hesitant to attack Taiwan now that the U.S. has demonstrated willingness to bomb aggressors against American allies.

An Israel whose enemies have been dramatically weakened, and which no longer faces an existential threat from Iran, would be in a far better position to make progress on the Palestinian issue, beginning with an end to the war in Gaza. Indeed, it would not be far-fetched to assume that Trump, always transactional, may have made this a precondition for his support for Israel in the war. Saudi-Israeli normalization will be back on the table.

Netanyahu has prepared for this moment for 30 years, for the opportunity to put an end to the only existential threat Israel continues to face. From the reviled leader whose administration allowed the Oct. 7 fiasco and various outrages in domestic affairs, he now stands to be remembered as one of Israel’s great heroes. Moreover, a favorable outcome to the war may very well save him from what otherwise appears to have been a looming electoral defeat — which could have been followed by jail time, given the corruption charges he faces.

The bigger question is whether Netanyahu — whose deep understanding of Israel’s overall strategic circumstances no one has ever doubted — will wish to use this opportunity to crown his legacy not just with saving Israel from an existential military threat, but also from an almost equally severe demographic challenge to its own future as a Jewish and democratic state. Fordo may be gone; the Palestinians remain. He would truly cement his standing in history if he ended the Gaza war and paved the way to a resolution of the Palestinian issue.

Both Netanyahu and Trump deserve credit for taking daring action, and they must be prepared to continue doing so. This is not the time to be fainthearted but to continue pressing the advantage. They have engaged in a classic case of coercive diplomacy, the use of military force for diplomatic ends, and must see it through to the desired end: a diplomatic agreement with Iran that ensures, with an inspections regime of unprecedented intrusiveness, that it can never again develop nuclear capabilities for military purposes, puts severe limits on its missile capabilities and curtails its malign regional role.

Even with a tentative cease-fire now in place, achieving an agreement of this sort will not be easy. The Iranians are unlikely to fully accede to American demands unless they truly feel that they have their backs to the wall, and even then, they are unusually effective negotiators. Persistence, focus and attention for detail, not known to be Trump’s forte, will now be called for. A historic opening has been made; it must not be squandered.

Chuck Freilich, a former Israeli deputy national security advisor, is a senior fellow at Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies. Colin P. Clarke is the director of research at the Soufan Group, a security and intelligence consulting firm based in New York City.

US President Donald Trump said he does not support regime change in Iran, calling it a path to chaos, and claimed nuclear weapons are “the last thing on Iran’s mind right now.” Israel and Iran are observing a ceasefire after 12 days of hostilities.

EXPLAINER

Iran remains the US’s adversary in the Middle East since the 1979 Islamic revolution led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

United States-Iran tensions have surged to the highest point in decades after President Donald Trump on Sunday ordered direct strikes that he said “obliterated” key nuclear facilities across the Middle Eastern country.

Iran remains the biggest adversary of the US in the region since the 1979 Islamic revolution led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini toppled pro-Western Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Since then, the two nations have sparred over a multitude of issues, including Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Iran’s backing of proxies in the region, and US political interference.

Israel, which has long considered Iran a threat, launched unprecedented strikes across Iran last week after accusing the country of developing nuclear weapons. Israeli claims have not been backed by any credible proof, but Trump dragged the US into the war following the Israeli strikes.

On Sunday, the US directly hit Iran in what the Trump administration called a highly sophisticated covert attack that involved more than 125 US aircraft and 75 precision bombs. Washington said it “devastated” Iran’s nuclear sites, but Tehran has warned it will retaliate.

Here’s a timeline of US-Iran relations since 1953:

• (1953) US-backed coup and reinstallation of the shah: Tensions initially began brewing over the democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh’s efforts to nationalise the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now BP). The British colonial power controlled the majority stake in the joint-venture company since oil was discovered in the early 1900s. Mosaddegh’s moves to nationalise the company after his 1951 election angered the British. The US’s Central Intelligence Agency supported the United Kingdom in engineering a coup and backing once-deposed monarch, Pahlavi, back into power as shah.
• (1957) Atoms for Peace: The shah’s ambitions for a nuclear-powered Iran gained support from the US and other Western allies. Both countries signed a nuclear agreement for the civilian use of nuclear power as part of then-US President Dwight D Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace programme. A decade later, the US provided Iran with a nuclear reactor and uranium to fuel it. The nuclear collaboration forms the basis for the current nuclear question.
• (1979) Islamic revolution: While relations between Tehran and Washington flourished, Iranians groaned under the dictatorship of the shah and resisted the perceived overreach of Western influence on their business. Revolutionary protests began rocking the country in late 1978 and forced the shah to flee in January 1979. Exiled Islamic scholar Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned to rule the new Islamic republic.
• (1980) US cuts diplomatic ties: Following the US’s move to admit the shah for cancer treatment after his exile, Iranian students broke into the US embassy in Tehran and kidnapped 52 Americans for 444 days. Washington cut off diplomatic ties and imposed sanctions on the country. The shah died in exile.
• (1980-88) US backs Iraqi invasion: Following Iraq’s invasion of Iran under Saddam Hussein, who was eager to push back against Khomeini’s ideology, the US sided with Iraq, deepening tensions between the two nations. The war lasted till 1988 and saw thousands die on both sides. Iraq also used chemical weapons on Iran.
• (1984) Sponsor of terror designation: President Ronald Reagan officially designated Iran as a “state sponsor of terror” after a series of attacks in Lebanon, where the US had been drawn in after Israel invaded the country. In one attack on a military base in Beirut, 241 US service members were killed. The US blamed Hezbollah, a Lebanese Shia movement backed by Iran. Later, though, Reagan worked with Iran behind the scenes to free American hostages held by Hezbollah. When it came to light, the Iran-Contra affair, as it was termed, was a huge scandal for Reagan.
• (1988) Iran Air flight shot down: Amid war tensions and even direct attacks on each other’s military warships in the Gulf, a US naval ship breached Iranian waters and fired at the civilian Iran Air flight (IR655) headed to Dubai on July 8. All 290 people on board were killed. The US, which claimed it was a mistake, did not formally apologise or claim responsibility but paid families $61.8m as compensation.
• (1995) Tighter sanctions: Between 1995 and 1996, the US imposed more sanctions. Then, President Bill Clinton’s executive orders banned US companies from dealing with Iran, while Congress passed a law penalising foreign entities investing in the country’s energy sector or selling Iran advanced weapons. The US cited nuclear advancement and support of groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
• (2002) 9/11 aftermath: Following the 9/11 attacks on the US, President George W Bush, in a State of the Union address, said Iran was part of an “Axis of Evil” alongside Iraq and North Korea. At the time, Iran had been parlaying with the US behind the scenes to target their mutual foes – the Taliban in Afghanistan and al-Qaeda. The cooperation was soured, and by the end of 2022, international observers noted highly enriched uranium in Iran, inviting more sanctions.
• (2013) Iran nuclear deal: Between 2013 and 2015, US President Barack Obama began high-level talks with Iran. In 2015, Tehran agreed to the nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), that would limit Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for an easing of sanctions. China, Russia, France, Germany, the UK and the European Union were also party to the deal that capped Iran’s enrichment at 3.67 percent.
• (2018) Trump withdraws from the nuclear deal: Under Trump’s first term, the US unilaterally withdrew from the deal in 2018 and slapped back sanctions against Iran. Trump and Israel had been critical of the deal. Iran also called off its commitments and began producing enriched uranium beyond the limits the deal had imposed.
• (2020) IRGC leader assassinated: During Trump’s first term, the US killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, the head of the elite Quds Force of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), in Baghdad in a drone strike. A year earlier, the administration had named the Quds Force a “terrorist” organisation. Iran responded with strikes on US assets in Iraq.
• (2025) Letter to Tehran: In March, Trump shot off a letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei proposing new negotiations on a nuclear deal with a deadline of 60 days. But Khamenei rejected the offer, saying the US is not seeking negotiations with Iran but rather imposing demands on it. Talks started unofficially in Oman and Italy, with Muscat acting as the mediator. Trump claimed his team was “very close” to a deal after several rounds of talks and warned Israel against strikes. Tehran, too, expressed optimism but insisted on the right to enrich uranium – a sticking point in the talks. Israel launched strikes across Iran a day before the sixth round of the Iran-US talks.
• (2025) US strikes: The US bombed three key nuclear facilities in Iran, citing security concerns and the defence of Israel.

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Sunday called into question the future of Iran’s ruling theocracy after a surprise attack on three of the country’s nuclear sites, seemingly contradicting his administration’s calls to resume negotiations and avoid an escalation in fighting.

“It’s not politically correct to use the term, ‘Regime Change,’ but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change???” Trump posted on social media. “MIGA!!!”

The post on his social media platform marked a stark reversal from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s Sunday morning news conference that detailed the aerial bombing of Iran early Sunday.

“This mission was not and has not been about regime change,” Hegseth said.

The administration has made clear it wants Iran to stop any development of nuclear weapons, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures” that any retaliation against the U.S. or a rush toward building a nuclear weapon would “put the regime at risk.”

But beyond that, the world is awash in uncertainty at a fragile moment that could decide whether parts of the globe tip into war or find a way to salvage a relative peace. Trump’s message to Iran’s leadership comes as the U.S. has warned Iran against retaliating for the bombardment targeting the heart of a nuclear program that it spent decades developing.

The Trump administration has made a series of intimidating statements even as it has called for a restart of negotiations, making it hard to get a read on whether the U.S. president is simply taunting an adversary or using inflammatory words that could further widen the war between Israel and Iran that began with Israeli attacks on June 13.

Until Trump’s post Sunday afternoon, the coordinated messaging by his vice president, Pentagon chief, top military advisor and secretary of State suggested a confidence that any fallout would be manageable and that Iran’s lack of military capabilities would ultimately force it back to the bargaining table.

Hegseth had said that America “does not seek war” with Iran, while Vice President JD Vance said the strikes had given Tehran the possibility of returning to negotiate with Washington.

But the unfolding situation is not entirely under Washington’s control, as Tehran has a series of levers to respond to the aerial bombings that could intensify the conflict in the Middle East with possible global repercussions.

Iran can block oil being shipped through the Strait of Hormuz, attack U.S. bases in the region, engage in cyberattacks or accelerate its nuclear program — which might seem more of a necessity after the U.S. strikes.

All of that raises the question of whether the U.S. bombing will open up a more brutal phase of fighting or revive negotiations out of an abundance of caution. In the U.S., the attack quickly spilled over into domestic politics, with Trump spending part of his Sunday going after his critics in Congress.

He used a social media post to lambaste Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), a stalwart Trump supporter who had objected to the president taking military action without specific congressional approval.

“We had a spectacular military success yesterday, taking the ‘bomb’ right out of their hands (and they would use it if they could!)” Trump wrote.

Boak and Pesoli write for the Associated Press.

United States Vice President JD Vance and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth have said that the US is not seeking to topple the government in Iran via “regime change” and is not at war with the country in the wake of its unprecedented surprise attack overnight on three of Iran’s nuclear sites.

The comments on Sunday followed Washington, DC joining Israel’s strikes on its arch-foe, which have been met by daily retaliatory strikes from Iran and are now in their 10th day.

Vance said on Sunday that the US had successfully set back Iran’s nuclear programme, adding that US President Donald Trump now hopes to pursue a diplomatic solution.

Speaking on the NBC News show Meet the Press with Kristen Welker, he maintained his country was “not at war with Iran, we’re at war with Iran’s nuclear programme”.

“We do not want to protract this or build this out any more than it’s already been built out. We want to end their nuclear programme,” Vance said, adding: “We want to talk to the Iranians about a long-term settlement here.”

Meanwhile, Hegseth claimed the series of US strikes against Iran “devastated” its nuclear programme, as he asserted Washington was not seeking “regime change” in Tehran.

There has been no independent confirmation of how heavily the US strikes impacted the sites, or Tehran’s nuclear efforts, which it has repeatedly said are for civilian purposes only.

The Pentagon chief urged Iran’s leaders to find an off-ramp to the conflict after Trump announced the strikes on a key underground uranium enrichment site at Fordow, along with nuclear facilities in Isfahan and Natanz.

Hegseth told a Pentagon press briefing that the operation “did not target Iranian troops or the Iranian people”.

“I can only confirm that there are both public and private messages being delivered to the Iranians in multiple channels, giving them every opportunity to come to the table,” Hegseth added in the news conference with General Dan Caine, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff.

“This mission was not, and has not, been about regime change,” he said.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said earlier that the US strikes on his country have blown up any possibility of diplomacy and strongly intimated a response was in gestation.

During an address to a meeting of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in Istanbul on Sunday, Araghchi said the US crossed “a very big red line” by attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Trump’s intervention – despite his past pledges to avoid another “forever war” – threatens to dramatically widen the conflict after Israel launched an unprecedented bombing campaign against Iran last week, with Tehran vowing to retaliate if Washington joined in.

The US and Iran had been engaged in multiple rounds of nuclear talks brokered by Oman before Israel launched a strike on Iran, unconditionally supported by the US, earlier this month.

‘Bombers took off from US’

Standing alongside Hegseth, Caine said that an assessment of the destruction sustained at Iran’s nuclear facilities will take time to confirm.

“I think PDA [preliminary damage assessment] is still pending and it would be way too early for me to comment on what or what may not still be there,” he said. He confirmed B-2 bombers were launched from the US on Friday for an 18-hour flight to their targets for the “strike package”.

“Operation Midnight Hammer” included several “deception and decoy” manoeuvres. High-speed suppression fire was used to protect the B-2s, and Caine said there’s no indication “any shots were fired” by Iranian defences.

“Iran’s fighters did not fly and it appears Iran’s missile systems did not see us,” Caine said.

He declined to comment on specific moves taken to protect US troops based in the Middle East from potential Iranian retaliation.

“Our joint force remains ready to defend the United States – our troops and our interests in the region,” said Caine.

Al Jazeera’s Alan Fisher, reporting from Washington, said Hegseth gave a very clear message on behalf of the US that this is not an open-ended operation, although there was a warning that while it is intentionally limited, the capabilities of the US military are not.

“What is clear is this was a well-coordinated operation,” Fisher said.

“But as we heard from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, they obviously still have to get full intelligence from the site, and this will take some time,” Fisher said. “So they don’t know whether it has been a huge success. But what it does do is send a real message.”

Separately, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told CBS there were no planned military operations against Iran at the moment.

‘No fatalities’ in Iranian sites

Trump announced that the US forces struck three Iranian nuclear sites in a “very successful attack” overnight into Sunday.

“We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan,” Trump posted on Truth Social.

Trump’s decision to join Israel’s military campaign against Iran has escalated an already intensive conflict and threatens a potential all-out regional war.

The head of Iran’s Red Crescent Society, Pir Hossein Kolivand, said there were no fatalities in the US strikes on the nuclear facilities, according to Iranian state television.

An Iranian health ministry spokesperson cited by state media said none of those injured in the US attacks and sent to hospitals had radiation contamination.

On Saturday, Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian said his country’s right to pursue a civilian nuclear programme “cannot be taken away… by threats or war”. Tehran denies seeking an atomic bomb.

Trump has stepped up his rhetoric against Iran since Israel first struck Iran on June 13, repeating his insistence that it could never have nuclear weapons. He seemed to be uncertain of whether to move militarily, but Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears to have been one of the key voices he was attuned to.

Speaking to Al Jazeera, Scott Lucas, a professor of US and international politics at University College Dublin, said the reason Trump decided to strike Iran after appearing to opt for diplomacy until recently was “Because Donald Trump got played by the Israelis; some might say manipulated.”

June 2 (UPI) — Missing American journalist Austin Tice was imprisoned by the regime of the since-deposed Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in 2012 with his whereabouts now not known, according to top secret intelligence files uncovered by the BBC.

Former Syrian officials also have confirmed Tice’s detention to the BBC. The material was part of a BBC investigation more than one year ago for a Radio 4 podcast series in accompanying a Syrian investigator to an intelligence facility.

The Assad regime had denied they had imprisoned him, and didn’t know where he was.

The U.S. government believes he had been held by the Syrian government.

Tice was a freelance journalist, a former U.S. Marine who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a law student at Georgetown University.

He had gone to Syria to report on the civil war.

Tice vanished near the Syrian capital of Damascus in August 2012, just days after his 31st birthday.

About seven weeks later, a video posted online showed him blindfolded and with his hands bound. He was also forced to recite an Islamic declaration of faith by armed men.

U.S. officials and analysts doubt he was abducted by a jihadist group and the scene “may have been staged.”

Instead, Tice allegedly was held by members of a paramilitary force loyal to Assad called the National Defence Forces.

The files, which are labeled “Austin Tice,” include communication from different branches of Syrian intelligence. Law enforcement verified their authenticity.

In one “top secret” communication, he was held in a detention facility in Damascus in 2012. A Syrian official confirmed to the BBC he was there until at least February 2013.

The BBC reported Tice briefly escaped by squeezing through a window in his cell, but he was later recaptured.

Tice had developed stomach issues from a viral infection.

A man who visited the facility told the BBC that Tice “looked sad, and that the joy had gone from his face.”

A former member of the NDF told the BBC that Tice was a “card” that could be played in diplomatic negotiations with the United States.

After Assad’s ouster in December 2024, U.S. President Joe Biden and mother, Debra Tice, said they believed he was alive. She said he was “treated well,” according to a “significant source.”

Rebel forces stormed his regime-run jails in Damascus and other Syrian regions and freed them. Tice was not among them.

The International Committee of the Red Cross said it has registered 35,000 cases of people who have gone missing in Syria in the past 13 years. Syria’s Network for Human Rights put the number of Syrians “in forced disappearance” at 80,000 to 85,000 killed under torture in Assad’s detention centers.

Only 33,000 detainees have been found and freed from Syria’s prisons since Assad’s ouster, according to human rights network.

On May 14, Trump met with the Syrian Arab Republic’s new president, Ahmed Al-Sharaa, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Trump told reporters, “Austin has not been seen in many, many years,” and gave no other details.

Reuters

Reuters

Jafar Pahani Productions/Les Films Pelleas

Will the Oscars follow?