Sides

Following the start of the US-Israel war on Iran,, the first match of the Iranian league was played last week.

Iranian clubs have been confirmed to play at neutral venues against their Qatari and United Arab Emirates opponents following the draw for the group stage of the Asian Champions League Elite.

Matches in the Asian Football Confederation’s (AFC) premier event, which was drawn on Tuesday, begin on September 14.

Tehran’s Esteghlal and Tabriz-based Tractor will face UAE sides Al Ain, Al Wasl and Shabab Al-Ahli, and Qatari clubs Al Gharafa, Al Sadd and Al Shamal, despite the ongoing conflict in the region.

Esteghlal and Tractor avoided the heavily favoured Saudi Arabian contingent.

Since the United States and Israel attacked Iran in February, Iran has struck targets in Qatar and the UAE, saying it is retaliating for allowing US bases to be used for strikes.

Iran’s neighbours have implored Tehran to stop firing at them. On Sunday, Iran claimed three of its pilots who went missing in March were being held in Qatar, though Doha denied the charge.

Iran’s domestic league was suspended in February as attacks began but returned last weekend with one match behind closed doors and others under capacity restrictions.

The AFC Elite features two 16-team regional zones. In the west, Saudi Arabia has five representatives, including Jeddah’s Al-Ahli, which is aiming to become the first club to win three straight Champions League titles. Coach Matthias Jaissle left this month to take over English Premier League side Newcastle.

Riyadh rival Al-Hilal is seeking a fifth title, while Cristiano Ronaldo leads Al-Nassr back into the competition after winning the Saudi Pro League in May.

In the east, Japan reached the final in the past two editions, with Kawasaki Frontale and Machida Zelvia losing to Al-Ahli, though neither has qualified this year.

Gamba Osaka won in 2008, and South Korea also supplies two former champions: Jeonbuk Hyundai Motors, aiming for a third crown, and Pohang Steelers, looking for a fourth.

The top eight from each group advance to the round of 16. From the quarterfinals onward, all matches will be played in Saudi Arabia, with the final set for May 1.

President Trump’s goal of ending gender-affirming care is not improper and cannot be the basis for quashing a subpoena issued by the Justice Department against a provider of medical treatment for transgender youth, a divided federal appeals court ruled Friday.

The Justice Department announced last year that it had issued more than 20 subpoenas to doctors and clinics that provide gender-affirming care as part of an effort to investigate healthcare fraud. Federal judges have quashed many of the subpoenas as illegitimate efforts to intimidate providers into ending care.

In a 2-1 decision, a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the efficacy and long-term risks of the treatments are “uncertain,” and the president has the power to align the Justice Department’s enforcement priorities with his broader policy goals.

“Every President has law enforcement priorities, just as every President has signature policies (often, the former are components of the latter),” wrote Judge Carlos Bea.

Bea, a nominee of Republican President George W. Bush, was joined in the opinion by Daniel Bress, a Trump nominee. They reversed a ruling that quashed the subpoena against telemedicine provider QueerDoc, sending the case back to the district court to consider other arguments.

The subpoena seeks QueerDoc’s personnel files, billing documents, communications with drug manufacturers and records of patients who were prescribed puberty blockers or hormone therapy, among other information, according to the 9th Circuit decision.

American Civil Liberties Union attorney Adrien Leavitt, who represented Washington state-based QueerDoc, said the ACLU would continue fighting the subpoena in district court. QueerDoc has also argued the subpoena is overbroad and burdensome. The Justice Department has said it has reason to believe the company may be misleading people about puberty blockers and hormones.

“We’re ready to continue defending one of the most fundamental principles of healthcare: every patient’s right to confidential medical care,” Leavitt said in a statement.

He said the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit was the first appeals court to weigh in on the subpoenas.

Trump has signed one executive order defining sex as only male or female — and as unchangeable — and another that seeks to end federal funding of the care for patients under 19. The latter order also directs the Justice Department to “prioritize investigations” into violations of a drug safety law by “any entity that may be misleading the public about long-term side effects of chemical and surgical mutilation.”

Gender-affirming care includes a range of medical and mental health services to support a person’s gender identity, including when it’s different from the sex they were assigned at birth. It encompasses counseling, medications that block puberty and hormone therapy to produce physical changes as well as surgeries to transform chests and genitals, though those are rare for minors.

Most major medical groups say access to the treatment is important for those with gender dysphoria and see gender as existing along a spectrum.

The 9th Circuit majority called discussion around gender-affirming care “an unsettled scientific debate” and said the Trump administration could also justify its opposition to the treatment on ethical or philosophical grounds.

Thanawala writes for the Associated Press.

OK, Wouter Vrancken.

You take over at a club who were denied a historic league title in the final 10 minutes of last season. They then lose their captain and talismanic striker, plus their best midfielder, and have a huge turnover of players.

Your first competitive action is a Champions League qualifier against seasoned European campaigners Sturm Graz, losing 6-0 on aggregate, before conceding twice after the 90th minute up at Aberdeen to lose your first league match.

So, what’s next? Benfica in Europa League qualifying. A doddle.

The Portuguese giants await on Thursday (20:00 BST) amid a savage introduction for Hearts’ new Belgian head coach. Chances of progression feel slim.

There have been aspects of each of the three matches under Vrancken that have been encouraging, and a win at Pittodrie on Saturday would have been a huge morale boost.

However, the nature of the team’s late collapse has intensified fear among the support that their season could unravel before it has even properly started.

A trip to Lisbon to face Marco Silva’s Benfica presents a glamour tie but also the prospect of another chastening defeat on the continent as Vrancken tries to piece together his best XI.

The 38-time Portuguese champions beat Napoli and Real Madrid at home in the Champions League last term on their way to the knockout stage, where they were put out by Real, who have since taken head coach Jose Mourinho.

Benfica’s domestic action is yet to return after they finished third in the league last season, but they defeated Swiss side St Gallen over two legs to reach this stage of Europa League qualifying.

A 2-1 defeat in Switzerland was wiped out with a thumping 5-0 win in the second leg last Thursday, with four of the five goals coming from Greece striker Vangelis Pavlidis.

The United States and Iran have traded attacks for a second day, straining their fragile ceasefire further after US President Donald Trump said the truce was “over”.

The US military said late on Wednesday that the attacks were aimed at Iran’s “ability to threaten the freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz”.

The US struck approximately 90 military targets, including missile and drone storage as well as logistics sites along Iran’s coastline, said the Central Command (CENTCOM), which oversees US military operations in the Middle East.

In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump called the US attacks “retribution for yesterday’s bombing of ships by Iran. If it happens again, it will get much worse!”

The latest attacks come a day after the US said it hit more than 80 targets in Iran in response to Iranian attacks on commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said on Thursday it carried out attacks on “key infrastructure and facilities” at bases used by the US military in Arifjan and Ali Al Salem in Kuwait, and Juffair and Sheikh Isa in Bahrain in response to the latest US bombardment.

The Iranian army later said its forces targeted a Patriot missile system in Kuwait, a satellite antenna in Qatar and US military fuel depots in Bahrain.

Kuwait’s Ministry of Defence said it was intercepting missiles and drones, while Qatar issued an “elevated security threat” alert.

The renewed fighting threatens to undermine a memorandum of understanding (MoU) the two sides agreed last month to extend an April ceasefire and gradually reopen the Strait of Hormuz to shipping.

The attacks come a day after Trump said the ceasefire with Iran was “over” and criticised the Iranian leadership. However, he left the door open to more talks and suggested that any strikes would end quickly.

Speaking to reporters on board Air Force One as he travelled back to the US after attending the NATO summit in Turkiye, Trump said the Iranian side had “called a little while ago” and that they wanted “to make a deal so badly”.

US attacks across Iran

US strikes hit a railway bridge in Iran’s northeast, according to several official media, and the news agency IRNA reported strikes on a military base in coastal Bushehr, which hosts the nation’s only civilian nuclear power plant.

The Iranian railway (IRIR) said the train service on the Tehran-Mashhad line had been temporarily suspended as a result.

It said technical teams were on site to repair the damaged section so that the rail service could resume as soon as possible, adding that buses had been arranged to transport affected passengers.

Warplanes hovered over Iran’s Kish Island, and explosions rocked the port cities of Bandar Abbas, Konarak and Chabahar, part of which lost electricity, IRNA reported.

At least three people were killed in an attack on the outskirts of Ahvaz, capital of the southwestern province of Khuzestan, IRNA reported, citing the deputy governor of the region.

At least one firefighter was killed in an attack on an airport facility in Iranshahr, IRNA reported.

Iran’s Health Ministry said at least 14 people were killed and 78 others injured over the past two days.

Calls for diplomacy

In mid-June, the US and Iran signed an MoU to extend their ceasefire. It also led to the lifting of the US naval blockade of Iran and the gradual reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

The MoU came following mediation by Pakistan and Qatar, which served as a launch point for 60 days of talks on more intractable issues, including the future of Iran’s nuclear programme, the administration of the Strait of Hormuz and access to billions of dollars in frozen Iranian funds.

Since US-Israeli strikes triggered war in February, Tehran has effectively blocked the strait, threatening to hit vessels that deviate from its authorised route.

Reporting from Tehran, Al Jazeera’s Resul Serdar Atas said the US and Iran are “stuck in an equation – almost a deadlock” over the Strait of Hormuz.

“For the Americans, they say that Iran will not have control over the Strait of Hormuz. For the Iranians, control of the strait is indispensable.”

He said Iran sees control over the strait as the “ultimate deterrent, and if it gives that up, then it loses its negotiating position” with the US.

The US hopes that by targeting infrastructure that affects Iran’s ability to control the strait, including maritime traffic control centres, it will be forced to “return to the MoU”, Scott Uehlinger, a former senior CIA officer, told Al Jazeera.

United Nations chief Antonio Guterres called “on all parties to exercise maximum restraint”, as did Pakistan.

Qatari ⁠Prime ⁠Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani told Iranian Foreign ⁠Minister Abbas Araghchi in a phone ⁠call on Thursday that Iran and the US should commit to diplomacy.

Sheikh Mohammed, who is also the foreign minister, said Washington and Tehran should implement the MoU to end the war.

Iran said the two officials had spoken over the phone and “underscored the importance of using diplomatic means to resolve regional issues”.

President Donald Trump has sought to limit mail-in voting and has ordered his administration to impose limits on the practice.

A federal judge in the United States has blocked proposed restrictions on mail-in voting that were championed by President Donald Trump.

On Wednesday in Washington, DC, District Judge Emmet Sullivan sided with the NAACP, a civil rights organisation, in its case against the US Postal Service (USPS).

Sullivan found that the restrictions would likely violate a 2021 settlement requiring expedited handling for mail-in ballots.

He therefore granted the NAACP’s motion to enforce compliance with the settlement, dealing another setback to the Trump administration’s efforts to reshape the US voting landscape.

“NAACP has plausibly suggested — and the Postal Service has not disputed — that the Proposed Rule is already having a ‘real impact on present day affairs’,” Sullivan wrote in his ruling.

The case revolves around a rule the Postal Service put forward in May that would require states to provide lists of absentee and mail-in voters. Ballots that do not conform to the list would be returned.

The proposed rule would also require a new envelope design for mail-in ballots, governing logos and barcode placements. Failure to comply would result in the Postal Service refusing to deliver the ballots.

The NAACP argued that the proposal would run afoul of a 2021 legal settlement that forces Postal Service officials to take “extraordinary measures” to ensure timely delivery of ballot mail.

The settlement “stipulated that the Postal Service agreed ‘to prioritize monitoring and timely delivery of election mail’”, Sullivan wrote in Wednesday’s ruling.

The decision comes less than five months before the November 3 midterm elections, which will decide whether Trump’s Republican Party retains control over both chambers of Congress.

Trump has expressed fears that he may be subject to a third impeachment if Democrats flip the legislature.

He has also spread unfounded theories that US elections are vulnerable to “vote rigging”, pointing to commonplace election tools like mail-in voting and electronic voting machines.

Elections are administered by state and local election officials, as established in the US Constitution. But the Postal Service’s proposed rule came as the result of efforts under the Trump administration to impose new limits on voting.

In March, Trump issued an executive order called “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections”. In it, he directed the Department of Justice to take action against states that “fail to comply” with certain standards for mail-in ballots.

He also accused states that accepted absentee or mail-in ballots after Election Day of violating the law.

But in another blow to Trump, the Supreme Court on Monday upheld a state law that allows mail-in ballots to be counted even if they were received after Election Day, so long as they were postmarked on or before that date. The president’s executive order has also been blocked by lower courts.

Civil rights advocates applauded the court’s Wednesday decision and warned against Trump’s efforts to limit mail-in voting.

“The court today correctly recognized that USPS’s plan to create roadblocks to mail-in voting was inconsistent with its commitment to timely deliver election mail,” said Allison Zieve, director of the Public Citizen Litigation Group, which argued on behalf of the NAACP.

“USPS’s plan was unwise, unlawful, and a threat to the millions of voters who rely on mailed ballots to participate in our democracy.”

Sam Spital, the associate director-counsel of the Legal Defense Fund, which also argued for the NAACP, called the Postal Service’s proposed plan “a blatant attempt” to disenfranchise voters who rely on mailed ballots.

“Today’s decision recognizes that USPS cannot disregard its legal obligation to timely deliver mail-in ballots to all voters,” Spital said.

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

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

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

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

Phase One: Ending the Fighting

The first stage focuses on immediate de-escalation.

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

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

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

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

Reopening the Strait of Hormuz

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

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

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

The restoration of maritime traffic could:

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

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

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

That issue could become a future source of diplomatic friction.

The Nuclear Issue Has Been Deferred

The most controversial subject in the negotiations remains unresolved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sanctions Relief Could Shape the Success of the Deal

Economic issues may ultimately prove as difficult as nuclear negotiations.

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

Iranian officials have spoken about:

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

The Trump administration has signaled a more cautious approach.

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

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

Lebanon Remains a Flashpoint

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why This Matters

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

The agreement addresses several immediate concerns:

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

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

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

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

Key Stakeholders

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

What to Watch Next

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Analysis

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

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

This approach reflects the political realities facing both governments.

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

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

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

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

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

With information from Reuters.

What to do after writing some of this century’s most devastating songs about the torment of breaking up? Write some of this century’s most devastating songs about the ecstasy of getting together.

With her first two albums — 2021’s Grammy-winning “Sour” and 2023’s triple-platinum “Guts” — Olivia Rodrigo proved herself to be perhaps the most gifted of the many chroniclers of Gen Z romance to emerge in Taylor Swift’s wake. She could convey the hot sting of betrayal, as in her smash debut single, “Drivers License”; she could channel the injustice of watching an ex somehow carry on, as in “Good 4 U”; she could deliver a sick burn like somebody handing out Halloween candy, as in “Get Him Back!” (Because it deserves remembering: “He had an ego and a temper and a wandering eye / He said he’s six-foot-two, and I’m like, ‘Dude, nice try.’”)

• Share via Close extra sharing options

Yet on her thrilling third LP, “You Seem Pretty Sad for a Girl So in Love,” Rodrigo, 23, turns to the pleasure that comes before the pain — and, in a feat very few in pop music are ever able to pull off, ends up with a number of first-flush-of-love songs as potent as any breakup tune.

She opens the album with “Drop Dead,” in which she compares a guy in line for the bathroom at a bar to an “angel on the walls of Versailles” — an early sign of how high the emotional ceiling is here. In “Stupid Song” she cycles through a series of metaphors to describe her lovesickness — she’s a car without a brake, she’s a heart made of melting wax — before finding a simpler but infinitely more vivid way of getting her point across: “You should feel how I feel when somebody says your name.” (Chills.)

“Maggots for Brains” is a song about how useless she becomes “when my baby goes away,” and let’s just take a second to savor the fact that Rodrigo is putting that title into the world less than four years after she was still a working Disney kid. The album’s next tune, “U + Me = <3,” is its high point: a euphoric promise of devotion that sounds like Sixpence None the Richer reborn as a Midwestern emo band. It’s got two young lovers carving their names into car seat leather, and it’s got a girl trying to impress her boyfriend’s older sister with her cynical humor and her taste in yacht rock.

More important, it’s got these lines of pure poetry: “They say modern love’s a cruel endeavor / And to that I say, F— it, whatever.” Kurt Cobain would be proud.

Working with her longtime producer, Dan Nigro, Rodrigo has expanded her stylistic palette to accommodate these new emotions; “You Seem Pretty Sad” pulls in chiming folk-rock and synthed-up new wave and even has a gorgeous wine-bar piano ballad, “Less,” that might put the scare in Rodrigo’s pal Laufey.

The cover of Olivia Rodrigo’s new album.

(Geffen Records)

The album is structured to trace the arc of a relationship, which means that the second half dips into the heartbreak we’re used to getting from Rodrigo. But she’s writing about familiar scenarios with new wisdom, drawing sophisticated conclusions about why people in love do the things they do (and don’t do the things they don’t).

In “The Cure,” which rides a strummed acoustic-guitar pattern that strongly recalls Smashing Pumpkins’ “Disarm,” she realizes a boyfriend can’t fix what’s broken inside her; “Begged” examines the limits of one partner’s willingness to look past the failings of the other. After hearing these songs, the happier ones at the beginning of the album reveal bits of shadow that Rodrigo has built into them to presage what’s to come — to presage what always comes.

It’s fitting, then, that Robert Smith of the Cure — perhaps pop’s most jubilant gloommeister — hovers over this LP like a patron saint: nodded to in “The Cure,” of course, but also “Drop Dead,” where Rodrigo name-checks the Cure’s classic “Just Like Heaven.” Smith himself turns up in “What’s Wrong With Me” for a duet with Rodrigo in which the two learn to accept that love, in the end, might be what kills them.

“My head is spinning and my stomach is sick,” they sing, and neither sounds like they’d have it any other way.

BEIRUT — Israel and Iran traded fire on Monday, all but derailing a brittle two-month ceasefire that had largely stopped the fighting in the U.S and Israel’s assault on Iran.

The tit-for-tat attacks between the two sides threaten to widen the scope of a conflict that has already killed and wounded thousands, displaced more than a million people and rattled economies across the globe — even while embroiling the U.S. in a war with no clear off-ramp.

“Israel and Iran must immediately stop ‘shooting.’ ” wrote President Trump early Monday on his social media platform, Truth Social.

Later, he wrote, “Both sides, Israel and Iran, are looking to do an immediate CEASEFIRE!”

“Final negotiations on ‘Peace’ are proceeding, subject to ignorance or stupidity getting in its way. The Blockade will remain in place, and in full force and effect, until a ‘Final Deal’ is reached. Things should move quickly.”

The latest escalation came after Israel attacked the suburbs of Lebanon’s capital Beirut on Sunday in what it said was a targeted strike against Hezbollah, an Iran-supported paramilitary faction and political party.

In recent days, Iran conditioned a ceasefire agreement with Israel and the U.S. on a cessation of hostilities across all fronts, including Lebanon, threatening it would respond to any Israeli action on the Lebanese capital. Israel rejects linking both battlefields, and insists on having a free hand to attack Hezbollah.

A number of U.S.-brokered ceasefires between the Lebanese and Israeli governments — but without Hezbollah involvement — failed to stop most of the fighting, with Israeli warplanes pounding wide swaths of Lebanon’s south while Hezbollah launched drones and missiles on northern Israel. Nevertheless, the Lebanese government has rejected being included in Iran’s negotiations with the U.S.

By Sunday night, Iran’s threats came to pass with several waves of Iranian ballistic missiles, which caused no injuries and were the first Tehran had fired at Israel since a ceasefire took hold in April. Iran’s military said the fusillade was a warning. But Israel said it would retaliate.

President Trump initially downplayed the Iranian attack on Sunday, saying in an interview with the Financial Times Iran’s barrage was “not going to have any impact on the deal.”

“We’ll see how it ends up. But they [the Iranian strikes on Israel] were attacks that did not kick at all,” he said.

“The deal may make it on its own merit, or not, but this will not have any effect on it.”

Trump also told the Axios news site he would talk to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to stop him retaliating against Iran’s barrage.

He also told the Financial Times that Netanyahu “won’t have any choice” but to accept the deal Trump negotiates with Iran.

“I call the shots. I call all the shots. He [Netanyahu] doesn’t call the shots,” Trump said.

Yet by the early morning on Monday, dozens of Israeli warplanes were striking western and central Iran. They hit a petrochemical complex in Mahshahr in southwestern Iran, and waged extensive strikes on “strategic defense systems,” according to Israeli military statements, in what observers said was a prelude to a wider offensive. Residents in Tehran, Isfahan, Tabriz and Shiraz reported powerful explosions.

The Israeli military said in a statement it expected several days of fighting with Iran but was prepared for a prolonged campaign. It said the strikes on Iran were conducted by Israel on its own, but that they had been done in “full coordination” with U.S. Central Command, which also helped in intercepting Iranian missiles launched at Israel.

But that distinction appeared to matter little to Iran’s foreign ministry spokesperson, Esmail Baghaei, who said in a press conference on Monday that the U.S held direct responsibility for recent ceasefire violations and Israel’s action “cannot be looked at in isolation from the U.S.”

“No one believes the Israeli regime would take any action without coordination with the United States,” he said.

“The U.S. bears responsibility for the Israeli regime’s aggression, and it will also be responsible for the consequences of any escalation in tensions.”

Iran launched additional barrages throughout Monday, targeting Israeli airbases in Nevatim and Tel Nof and a petrochemical plant in Haifa, according to a statement from Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps. It added Israel was engaging in “a dangerous game by targeting civilian and oil infrastructure — a game that will now encompass all regional energy targets, with global economic consequences resting on America.”

The renewed hostilities also saw Yemen’s Houthis — who receive support from Iran and Hezbollah, and are part of a regional network of Iran-backed factions — enter the fray with a pair of ballistic missiles lobbed at Israel. The Israeli military said one of the missiles was intercepted; the second fell short of Israel.

Houthi spokesman Brig. Gen. Yahya Sarea confirmed the attack in a televised statement on Monday, and said Israeli maritime navigation in the Red Sea would be targeted.

During the Gaza war, the Houthis attacked commercial shipping in the Red Sea — including ships with no link to Israel — to pressure Israel into lifting its blockade on the enclave.

But, unlike Hezbollah, which attacked Israel on March 2, three days after the U.S. and Israeli campaign on Iran, the Houthis had refrained from helping their ally, until Monday.

Their involvement now raises the specter of another squeeze on energy markets already beleaguered by closures on the Strait of Hormuz. Since the U.S.-Israeli assault, the Red Sea has acted as the main alternative conduit for energy supplies, especially for those from Saudi Arabia. If the Houthis closed the Bab Al-Mandab Strait, it would all but paralyze commercial flows.

Oil prices spiked in the wake of the exchanges, with Brent Crude rising 5% to hit $98 a barrel.

MAURA Higgins has sparked an unexpected Dancing With The Stars feud as she took sides after a pro dancer’s bitter split from his ex-girlfriend.

The 35-year-old landed the biggest job in American telly back in April after her successful stint on The US Traitors.

Maura was snapped up for the job, which is the US equivalent of Strictly Come Dancing, as she continues to crack the showbiz scene out there.

In a recent interview, the reality star confessed the pro dancer she really doesn’t want to be paired with.

While she would love have Mark Ballas or Val Chmerkovskiy as her partner there’s one man that it seems would really hit a nerve.

Maura said: “To be honest, I’m okay to have anyone else – I just don’t want [Gleb Savchenko]. That’s the main thing for me, you know?”

Read more on Maura Higgins

MORE & MAURA

Maura Higgins’ US domination continues as she poses in bikinis at catwalk show

DANCE-PHWOAR

Maura Higgins shows off her abs in routine with Dancing With The Stars pro

The TV personality and model assured fans she wasn’t trying to be “mean” but was simply sticking up for her good pal Brooks Nader.

“It’s just because I get on with [Brooks], and that’s that. I’m on Brooks’ side. I’m a loyalist, okay,” she added.

Actress Brooks, 29, “really fell” for Gleb while they were competing on the show together back in 2024.

The Russian dancer, 42, has gained a reputation for being a “playboy” over the years after being linked to his partners from previous seasons.

Brooks and Gleb had quite the messy break up just seven months after their romance begun.

Reality star Brooks accused Gleb of cheating and he denied all of those allegations.

During Episode 3 of Alex Cooper‘s Unwell Winter Games earlier this year, Gleb called the Sports Illustrated model “crazy.”

He even made brutal comments about their sex life.

Maura and Brooks appear to have struck up a friendship after meeting at events over in America.

The girls posed for snaps together at a Vanity Fair party back in March and it seems they have only grown closer.

Former Love Island star Maura has proved she has Brooks’ back as she risked sparking a huge feud.

The celebrities’ pro dancer partners will be announced later this year.

Dancing With The Stars is set to kick of following it’s usual schedule in the Autumn.