threat

Nearly 17 years after the King of Pop’s death, Michael Jackson is dominating the box office, television ratings and headlines.

“Michael,” the biopic about the star that hit theaters in April, has surpassed $900 million at box offices globally, according to Deadline, making it the second-highest-grossing film of 2026 behind “The Super Mario Galaxy Movie,” which hit $1 billion. Although “Bohemian Rhapsody” is still the highest-grossing musical biopic, “Michael” is a mere $11 million behind and will likely snag the title in coming weeks.

The film, which stars Jackson’s nephew Jaafar Jackson, follows the “Thriller” hitmaker from his early career leading the Jackson Five to reaching pinnacle star status in the late ’80s. The film’s timeline ends before 1993, when Jackson faced sexual abuse allegations brought by 13-year-old Jordan Chandler.

On Tuesday, “Michael” was released to streaming services, and fans at home can rent or buy on-demand from Amazon Prime Video and other platforms.

Also available for streaming is the Netflix docuseries “Michael Jackson: The Verdict,” which became available on June 3 and dominated the streamer’s charts with nearly 18 million views in its first week. The three-part series examines the pop star’s 2005 molestation trial, in which he was acquitted of all charges, and features key players from the trial, including jurors, eyewitnesses and prosecutors.

The lead prosecutor, Ron Zonen, spoke with TMZ on Tuesday and said that, although he wasn’t sure audiences would view the allegations with a different lens 20 years later, he wanted the documentary to be “as accurate as possible” and feature “the perspective of people who were involved in the trial.”

As far as the response from viewers, Zonen told the outlet that he’d received threats via email. “Well, there are people who are fans, who express their displeasure at the position that we took in this documentary, and express their displeasure very clearly to me,” he said, adding that he’s not bothered by the bad blood with mega-fans, and that the threats were more numerous at the time of the trial.

Department reports raise concerns about increased espionage activity amid US-Israeli war with Iran, ceasefire talks.

The Pentagon’s intelligence arm has raised the assessed threat level on Israeli spying from “high” to “critical” in recent weeks, according to US media.

NBC News first broke news of the change on Friday, with The New York Times issuing its own report the following day.

The news outlets cited anonymous sources as saying the switch came in light of concerns over increasingly aggressive tactics related to the US-Israeli war with Iran.

They said the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) had raised the alert level amid fears that Israel is increasingly attempting to surveil top US officials. The aim is allegedly to understand internal White House deliberations about ending the war.

US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu have publicly diverged in their approach to the war, which the US and Israel started on February 28.

Trump, on one hand, has repeatedly said he wants to bring the war to a close, amid mounting political pressure at home.

Netanyahu, meanwhile, has called for war to resume, despite an April 8 ceasefire. The fighting has been mostly paused since the temporary truce was announced, but efforts to reach a lasting agreement have repeatedly stalled.

The New York Times reported that, while Israel has been known to spy on the US, the DIA cited an uptick in activities beginning in late 2024, as the administration of US President Joe Biden increased pressure on Israel over its genocidal war in Gaza.

That increase continued into 2025, as Trump returned to the presidency and began deliberating about how to approach Iran.

The newspaper added that other recent intelligence assessments have also documented evidence that there are Israeli efforts to monitor Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff as well as Elbridge Colby, a top policy official at the Pentagon, and his deputy Michael DiMino IV.

Witkoff had been the lead negotiator in nuclear talks that preceded the initial US-Israeli attack on Iran in February.

Both NBC News and The New York Times cited unnamed US officials in their reports. The US Department of Defense did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Al Jazeera.

However, an unnamed spokesperson told both news organisations that the reports were “false”.

Still, the reported concerns are likely to raise questions over the close intelligence and military coordination between Israel and the US.

Washington has, for years, provided billions in military aid and weapons sales to Israel, including throughout the genocide in Gaza.

The US Congress is also currently debating a section of a new defence bill, which would integrate the two countries’ research and development for weaponry to an unprecedented degree.

While the US and its allies are known to regularly conduct intelligence operations on each other, officials told both NBC and The New York Times that Israel’s recent vigour was unique.

The New York Times reported that the increased DIA designation surpasses all current allies, as well as a handful of countries with more fraught relations.

Recent incidents included Israel’s military intelligence trying to plant listening devices at the DIA headquarters in 2021, according to the newspaper.

In 2025, Israel’s domestic intelligence agency, Shin Bet, was found to have tried to plant a similar device in a Secret Service vehicle, the report said.

Russia has urged foreigners to leave in Ukraine’s capital Kyiv, and warned of more strikes on the city, suggesting a major escalation in its more-than-four-year-long war on Ukraine.

In a statement issued on Monday, Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said it planned to target “decision-making centres and command posts” and drone manufacturing facilities in the Ukrainian city in a series of strikes.

Due to these facilities being allegedly “scattered throughout Kyiv”, Moscow told “foreign citizens, including personnel of diplomatic missions and international organisations, to leave the city as soon as possible”, the statement read.

The ministry’s statement also urged Kyiv residents to avoid all military and administrative infrastructure facilities in the capital, which could be potential targets.

A later statement said that Russian Foreign Minister ⁠Sergey Lavrov had ⁠advised US Secretary of State Marco Rubio of the plan and urged him to evacuate his embassy staff from Kyiv.

Moscow said these planned strikes were in response to a drone strike on a student dormitory in Starobilsk, in the Russian-occupied Luhansk region of Ukraine, which killed at least 18 people.

The threats come just days after Russian drone and rocket strikes on Kyiv on Saturday night killed at least four people and injured about 100 others.

What is behind Russia’s latest threats, and how significant are the threats to foreigners in Kyiv?

Here’s what we know:

Why is Russia threatening to attack Kyiv?

Ukraine has greatly improved its drone warfare capabilities in recent months, leading to more successful targeting of Russian military and energy infrastructure.

Most of these drones are homegrown interceptors, which have been designed to pursue attack enemy unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) before they hit their targets.

They can also carry a wider range of payloads and do not self-destruct, unlike one-way drones, so they can be used again in future missions.

On May 17, at least five people were killed after Ukraine launched what Russian officials described as one of the largest drone barrages of the war, with waves of UAVs dispatched to Moscow and several other regions overnight.  The Indian embassy in Russia said one Indian worker was killed and three others injured in drone strikes in the Moscow region.

Moscow region’s Governor Andrei Vorobyov added that a woman was killed after a drone slammed into a house in Khimki, north of Moscow. Vorobyov added that apartment buildings and infrastructure sites were damaged in the attacks.

The Russian foreign ministry statement on Monday labelled the Staroblisk attack as a “flagrant disregard for international humanitarian law”, and “yet another blatant demonstration of the Nazi and terrorist nature of the Kyiv regime”.

What has Ukraine said?

Ukraine’s ⁠military has denied responsibility for the strike on the student dorm, saying it had struck ‌an elite drone command unit.

Since then, Russia has also heavily targeted Kyiv and its surrounding areas with massive missile and drone attacks. resulting in at least four people killed and more than 60 injured overnight Tuesday and Wednesday.

On Monday, Ukrainian officials also reported that strikes killed several people in the eastern Kharkiv and Donetsk regions.

So how significant are Russia’s latest threats?

While both Russia and Ukraine have repeatedly launched attacks on one another’s cities, this was the first time Moscow had issued a direct warning to foreigners in Ukraine.

Commenting on this threat, Ukraine’s Foreign ⁠Minister Andrii Sybiha urged allies not to give in to “‌Russian blackmail”.

French Ambassador Gael Veyssiere noted that people in Kyiv were going about their daily lives on Monday, after the weekend’s strikes.

“It’s ⁠a way to demonstrate resilience, and I think it’s extremely important that we, around the world, we would ⁠support that,” Veyssiere told the Reuters news agency.

According to Philip Bednarczyk, the German Marshall Fund of the United States’ Warsaw office director, Russia’s latest threat comes after “its attempts to break Ukraine’s will to fight over the course of the coldest winter during this war failed”.

“It is becoming clear that their war aims are not being met on the front lines, and conversely, Ukraine has taken an upper hand. Russia needs to change tactics and the narrative somehow, and this warning is an attempt to do so,” he told Al Jazeera.

What is the status of diplomacy in peace talks?

Russia and Ukraine have been holding peace talks since the war began in February 2022, but with little or no concrete outcomes.

When Donald Trump became the president of the US for the second time in January 2025, he promised to end Russia’s war in Ukraine.

He has since met both Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy in separate meetings to discuss ending the war, but so far these efforts have not borne fruit.

The truce talks have largely stalled due to Russia’s insistence on keeping territory it has seized from Ukraine.

On May 22, US State Secretary Marco Rubio said that while trilateral talks had been unsuccessful, the United States was ready to organise a new round of peace talks.

But Washington has also been occupied with its war on Iran, which broke out on February 28, and analysts say EU nations might have to play a bigger part in peace talks between Moscow and Kyiv.

“Unfortunately, US attention from this administration was not able to bring peace, and it looks that attention has gone towards other parts of the world, like Iran,” Bednarczyk said.

“Europe will have to take up that role, and I believe is capable of doing so, but it is extremely important to have American backing.”

But he was also sceptical about how serious Russia is right now about peace. “After all, this is their war of choice,” he said.

Ruben Chorlton-Owen says lots of people are being caught out and paying a heavy price for it

A British traveller is warning anyone heading to Tenerife this half-term to watch out for several “tourist traps” that ensnare visitors every year. Ruben Chorlton-Owen frequently posts his travel advice and tips with his 105,000 followers on Instagram (@rube).

The 24-year-old, from Abersoch, North Wales, has recently been to the popular Canary Island destination. However, while there, he noticed a few things that raised concerns. And now, he is alerting people to several common “tourist traps” that catch holidaymakers out annually, as detailed in a video amassing more than 8,000 views.

If you find yourself requiring a pharmacy, watch out for “fake” establishments selling the same product at inflated prices. He said: “They’re real shops, but they have the same LED signage (as a pharmacy) but in blue colour (rather than green).

“So it’s not entirely illegal and many tourists fall for it. People later find out the product hasn’t worked as it’s not an actual medical product.

“It’s important to find a proper ‘farmacia’ that sells actual drugs to help with any pains or issues. Fake ones also don’t really have a lot in there and also heavily charge way too much for things like sun cream or paracetamol. They’re just tourist shops really.” He also advised Brits to be careful about how they withdraw money once they arrive.

“Make sure you try and get your cash before you come here,” Ruben told creatorzine.com. “Because the local currency exchanges or these ATMs will charge you a high markup and you’ll be getting a very bad deal for your money.”

READ MORE: Brits told to not dry clothes outside during current hot spellREAD MORE: Teacher ‘miserable’ in UK now pays just £100 for flat with pool in ‘really wholesome’ country

While he praises the destination for being “affordable” and “friendly”, there are still risks to be mindful of. He said: “Make sure you use the licensed taxis.

“Not only are they genuine, but they’re also much more affordable than the Uber app. And you’ll also get charged four times the price that it should be.”

Ruben also issued a stark warning for anyone heading back to their accommodation late at night or after a day of drinking in the sun. He recommends giving a wide berth to any shabby-looking areas and narrow alleyways. He said: “It’s full of pickpockets.

“It can be quite dangerous, so just make sure you stay vigilant and you’re not having too much – or use the licensed taxi to get home when it’s late at night.”

And for those fancying a cold beer or cocktail on the beach, Ruben suggests thinking twice, as it could land you with a whopping fine. He said: “If you do like to drink, make sure you don’t do it down the beach. The fines are now a minimum of €750 to €3,000.

“Make sure you just stick to the bars, your hotel room, your Airbnb. Don’t be taking any glass bottles at all down the beach, it really isn’t worth the risk.”

Sometimes it seems as though the only thing that stands between a functioning democracy and a full-on Trump autocracy is a thin, black-robed line.

Although the Supreme Court, in general, and conservative appellate courts, in particular, have bowed and granted President Trump permission to do pretty much anything he wants, they haven’t thoroughly capitulated to his endless grasping for ever more power. (The way invertebrate congressional Republicans have.)

At the lower-court level, judges have repeatedly ruled in ways intended to check Trump, most notably when it comes to violating civil and constitutional rights in pursuit of his indiscriminate immigration dragnet.

The tendency to slow-walk his administration’s response to those rulings — and ignore others that Trump thinks he can safely snub — only contribute to the perception of presidential lawlessness and a sense that our judicial system is being strained to something approaching a breaking point.

Go ahead, if you’d like, and dismiss those concerns as just so much overwrought hand-wringing, or the mindless anti-Trump blathering of your friendly political columnist. A new survey of legal experts — including federal judges, top-tier lawyers and scores of professors from some of the country’s leading law schools — finds widespread concern about the brittle state of our legal system.

And it’s not just the fears of a lot of shaggy-thinking liberals.

“The nation is strong as is its commitment to the rule of law,” said one appellate judge, a Republican appointee. “The current president presents the greatest threat in decades.”

The survey was conducted by Bright Line Watch, a nonpartisan academic group that monitors the health and resilience of American democracy, in conjunction with the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA’s School of Law.

Conducted between mid-February and early March, the poll anonymously surveyed 21 federal judges, 113 lawyers, 193 law professors, 652 political scientists and a nationally representative sample of 2,750 Americans.

What leapt out to UCLA’s Rick Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project, was that “across the ideological spectrum and across judges, lawyers and law professors, there was considerable agreement that the rule of law in the U.S. is under tremendous stress.” That consensus, he said, suggests “a real risk to democracy.”

Most legal experts agreed that Trump is using executive power excessively, with a majority doubting the conservative-leaning Supreme Court would handle cases involving the Trump administration impartially. The experts also expressed concern about politicized law enforcement — Trump seeking to persecute his perceived enemies — executive branch overreach, and the failure of Congress or the Supreme Court to do more to rein in the rogue president.

Eight in 10 of those surveyed said federal officials fail to comply with court orders somewhat or very often, and nearly 9 in 10 said political appointees in Trump’s Justice Department mislead federal judges somewhat or very often.

Talk about contempt of court — not to mention our vital system of checks and balances.

There was, unsurprisingly, a split among conservatives and liberals who took part in the survey. (The study defined legal conservatives as those saying the Supreme Court should base rulings on its understanding of what the Constitution meant as originally written. Liberals, who made up most of the respondents, were defined as those saying the court should base its rulings on what the Constitution means in current times.)

Conservatives, for instance, were more likely than liberals to see former President Biden as a greater threat to the rule of law than Trump. Liberals were more likely than conservatives to see evidence of Trump politicizing the Justice Department.

There were also differences between legal experts — those most intimately involved in the judicial system — and the public at large. The experts were more concerned about Trump’s excesses and threats to the rule of law, which, Hasen said, stands to reason.

The legal system is not something most people encounter daily in the same way they do, say, gasoline prices or the cost of groceries. “Yet,” Hasen said, “it’s one of these background things that really matters.”

Why?

Hasen put it this way: “Imagine that a person had a dispute with their neighbor and it ended up in small claims court before a judge and the judge made the decision not based on the merits of the case but based on whether he was friends with one of the parties, or didn’t like people who were similar to one of the parties.”

Now imagine that kind of corrupted, perverted system of justice writ large.

If, for instance, “people know that the government can successfully seek retribution from people who criticize it, people will be less likely to criticize the government,” Hasen said, leaving the country worse off by muzzling those who would hold their elected leaders to account.

Or if, say, rioters overran the U.S. Capitol and tried to steal an election and, instead of being punished, received cash payouts from the federal government, what incentive would there be to follow the law?

Happily — and who couldn’t use a bit of good cheer right about now — all is not lost.

People “can demand that their elected representatives take steps to assure that the rule of law will be followed,” Hasen said, and can insist “that the government [not] play favorites or seek retribution against perceived enemies.”

That’s the power people have, come election time. That’s why voting matters.

There are lots of things riding on the outcome in November, not least the sanctity and integrity of our legal system.

Bear that in mind when you cast your ballot.

The travel industry is on edge after Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin reiterated his threat to withdraw U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers from airports in so-called sanctuary cities in a move that could jeopardize international flights.

The U.S. Travel Assn. said that Mullin confirmed he is considering withdrawing the officers in a meeting where the trade group was pressing its concerns about other proposals the Trump administration is considering that could hamper travel. The travel association and major airlines quickly condemned the idea, and even Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said it doesn’t make sense to him.

“U.S. Travel believes such a move would have devastating consequences for the travel industry and communities that depend on international visitation,” the industry group said Friday in a statement.

Details of the meeting were first reported by the Atlantic.

Duffy said at a congressional hearing this week that he wasn’t familiar with Mullin’s remarks, and he’d like to learn more about the context and maybe ask Mullin a question about what he meant. But Duffy said it would be a bad idea to start restricting travel based on political views. After all, he acknowledged, at some point Democrats will be in charge and “you will all switch spots at one point — hopefully not too soon, Mr. Chairman.”

“We have people from around the world and around the country that need to be able to fly into all different kinds of places. We shouldn’t shut down air travel in a state that doesn’t agree with our politics,” Duffy said.

So it’s not clear how much support this idea has within the administration, though President Trump has previously threatened to withhold funding from sanctuary cities.

There is no strict definition for sanctuary policies or sanctuary cities, but the terms generally refer to jurisdictions that limit cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. And courts have rejected the idea of pulling funding from them in the past.

In Trump’s first term in office, in 2017, courts struck down his effort to cut funding to the cities.

It’s not clear exactly which cities and airports Mullin might target, but the Justice Department last year published a list of three dozen states, cities and counties that it considers to be sanctuary jurisdictions. They include California, Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego County.

The Airlines for America trade group was quick to say the idea would hurt the economy and disrupt travel.

“Reducing CBP staffing at major airports would have a devastating effect on the airline and tourism industries, causing a significant operational disruption to carriers, travelers and the flow of international cargo.”

Funk and Yamat write for the Associated Press.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says Cuba poses a national security threat to the US.

United States President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have issued new threats of military action against Cuba.

Rubio told reporters late on Thursday that Cuba has been a national security threat for years because of its ties to US adversaries Russia and China, while Trump said he is likely to be the president to finally take action.

The Trump administration, with Cuban-American Rubio at the forefront, has been raising the pressure on the communist-led island in an apparent bid to institute “regime change,” including a fuel blockade that has put the Cuban economy on the edge of collapse.

The push has accelerated in recent days, with the US indicting Cuba’s former President Raul Castro and gathering military forces in the Caribbean.

Rejecting suggestions of “nation building,” Rubio told reporters the issue is one of “national security”. He added that while a negotiated agreement is the US “preference”, the path of diplomacy with Cuba is “not high”.

“Their economic system doesn’t work. It’s broken, and you can’t fix it with the current political system that’s in place,” Rubio said.

Over the years, Cuba has gotten used to “buying time and waiting us out,” Rubio said. “They’re not going to be able to wait us out or buy time. We’re very serious, we’re very focused.”

Separately, President Donald Trump told reporters that US presidents have considered intervening in Cuba for decades, but that it looks like he will be “the one that does it”, adding that he would be “happy” to do so.

In response, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez lambasted Rubio for falsely labelling Cuba a threat.

“The US secretary of state lies once again to instigate a military aggression that would provoke the shedding of Cuban and American blood,” Rodriguez said.

Raised tension

Since returning to office, Trump has slapped Cuba with numerous sanctions, implemented a fuel blockade and overseen a military build-up in the region.

The renewed threats on Thursday came amid rising tensions between the countries.

The US indicted Cuba’s former President Raul Castro on Wednesday, in connection with the 1996 downing of a plane.

On Thursday, Adys Lastres Morera – sister of a high-ranking executive of the Grupo de Administracion Empresarial SA (GAESA) conglomerate, which is controlled by Cuba’s military and controls large swaths of the economy – was arrested.

More sanctions were imposed on the Cuban government in the past week. The US military announced that several navy ships, including an aircraft carrier, had arrived in the Caribbean on Wednesday to take part in maritime exercises with partners in Latin America.

Rubio has noted that Cuba had earlier tentatively accepted an offer of $100m in aid in return for reforms. But he said it was unclear if the US would accept Cuba’s terms, as Washington insists on circumventing the military-backed conglomerate GAESA.

Analysts caution that Trump and Rubio are eyeing a similar course of action in Cuba to the regime change manufactured in Venezuela. Left-wing President Nicolas Maduro and his wife were kidnapped in a military operation in January. They were taken to the US, where Maduro was charged with “narcoterrorism”.

Rubio insists that Cuba poses a serious national security threat to the US because of its security and intelligence ties with China and Russia.

Both countries have criticised the US pressure on the island.

China said on Friday it “firmly supports” Cuba and urged the US to de-escalate tensions and “stop threatening force”.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said: “We believe that under no circumstances should such methods – which border on violence – be used against either former or current heads of state.”

Hotel operators avoid a ‘very real threat’ by signing a deal with 25,000 workers as the city hosts the 2026 tournament.

New York City hotel operators and ⁠unions have reached an eight-year labour deal covering about 25,000 workers, averting a strike over wages, workloads and staffing levels that had threatened to disrupt the city ⁠before the FIFA World Cup, said the head of the Hotel Association of New York City.

Vijay Dandapani, the association’s president and chief executive, said on Tuesday that the mood among owners was “overall positive” after weeks of negotiations, though the industry made significant concessions.

“We came ‌a long way from where things were,” Dandapani said.

The United States will cohost the tournament with Canada and Mexico from June 11 to July 19.

While FIFA, football’s global governing body and tournament organiser, was not involved in the talks, the prospect of an influx of fans raised the stakes.

A union campaign had warned of a possible strike and urged visitors to avoid affected hotels.

The potential walkout was a “very real threat”, Dandapani said, noting recent labour actions in US cities including Los Angeles and ⁠Boston.

Dandapani said a figure of about $200,000 reflected compensation at the end of the agreement, not at the outset.

Hotel owners entered the talks aiming to preserve profitability, arguing New York’s lodging market has not ⁠fully recovered from the pandemic. Occupancy remains below 2019 levels, and inflation-adjusted room rates have yet to catch up, he ⁠said.

He also cited broader pressures, including the US-Israel war on Iran, tariffs and visa issues.

The deal follows the withdrawal of a proposed city measure that operators said would have sharply raised labour costs by limiting room attendants’ workloads and requiring double pay beyond certain ‌thresholds. Owners estimated it could have lifted wage costs by about 40 percent.

The new pact will still add costs, though operators expect tourism demand and major events to ‌support ‌revenue.

United States President Donald Trump has reiterated his threats against Iran, as negotiations to end the conflict between the two countries continue to flounder.

In a Sunday morning post on his platform Truth Social, Trump warned that time was running short before a fresh wave of US military action might be launched.

“For Iran, the Clock is Ticking, and they better get moving, FAST, or there won’t be anything left of them,” Trump wrote in the short, two-sentence message. “TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE!”

The post was the latest example of Trump using violent rhetoric against Iran as his administration struggles to achieve its goals in the war.

Just a day earlier, Trump had posted an AI-generated image of himself atop a military ship, labelled, “It was the calm before the storm.”

The conflict began on February 28, when Israel and the US jointly attacked Iran.

Since then, Trump has put forward a range of objectives for the resulting war, including dismantling Iran’s missile arsenal, severing its relations with regional allies, and ending its nuclear enrichment programme.

On April 7, Trump coupled those demands with a social media post suggesting wholesale destruction in Iran. Critics have likened the post to a call for genocide.

“A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will,” Trump wrote.

Within hours of the post, the US and Iran agreed to a ceasefire that has been in place ever since, though both sides have accused each other of violations.

The US president had previously threatened to attack the country’s civilian infrastructure, including its power plants and bridges, which legal experts warn could amount to a violation of the Geneva Convention.

Separately, in a May interview with Fox News, Trump said Iranian officials will “be blown off the face of the earth” if they attack US vessels.

Iran has denounced such rhetoric and rejected Trump’s demands as excessive.

Mehr, a news agency sponsored by the Iranian government, issued a statement on Sunday saying that the US has offered “no tangible concessions” in its latest proposals.

It also accused the US of seeking to “obtain concessions that it failed to obtain during the war”, a strategy that “will lead to an impasse in the negotiations”.

Separately, a spokesperson for Iran’s armed forces, Abolfazl Shakarchi, was quoted as warning the US against further threats.

“Repeating any folly to compensate for America’s disgrace in the Third Imposed War against Iran will result in nothing but receiving more crushing and severe blows,” he told Mehr.

Reporting from Tehran, Al Jazeera correspondent Almigdad Alruhaid said that the Iranian government has indicated that violent rhetoric from the US will not be tolerated.

“From what we understand, this kind of language is not acceptable here in Tehran. They are projecting defiance rather than [giving] an immediate response to this kind of rhetoric,” Alruhaid said.

He added that the increasingly hostile remarks from both sides signal that the ceasefire could be at imminent risk of shattering.

“Behind all of this rhetoric, there is awareness that the diplomatic window right now is narrowing,” Alruhaid said.

“We do know that there is hard language, hard messaging from both sides — that the finger’s on the trigger on both sides.”

But Adam Clements, a foreign policy analyst, told Al Jazeera there could be a “domestic element” to Trump’s hardline rhetoric, including his latest flurry of messages.

“Of course, Iran would have to take it seriously,” Clements said of Sunday’s post.

“At the same time as well, President Trump is known for his bombastic tweets, his bombastic statements, perhaps for domestic audiences.”

Clements added that it will be critical to watch whether Trump’s statements are echoed by his officials in the coming days, and whether they are also matched by increased military activity.

“ The White House press office has been known to post these type of strange memes, or AI-generated memes and cartoons in the past,” he explained.

“So I think it’s necessary here to sometimes look past some of the political noise, some of the things for show, and really try to pay attention to these clear signals.”

May 11 (UPI) — British Prime Minister Keir Starmer pledged a bigger, bolder, more optimistic direction for Britain, with a much closer relationship with the European Union at its heart, as he fought to hold onto his job on Monday following a disastrous showing by his party in elections.

In a speech in London, Starmer acknowledged making mistakes, but said he would prove wrong those who doubt his ability to deliver solutions to the country’s problems, saying Labour needed to bring “a bigger response” than they had believed was necessary when they came into office.

“Incremental change won’t cut it on growth, defense, Europe, energy. We need a bigger response than we anticipated in 2024 because these are not ordinary times, and this is a political challenge, just as much as it’s a party challenge,” he said.

While insisting his government had got “the big political choices right” on issues such as not getting involved in the Iran war and “investment in public services,” Starmer promised to do much more on apprenticeships, technical excellence colleges and special educational needs to guarantee a job, training or internship to every young unemployed Briton.

He also promised the most significant overhaul of ties with the EU since Britain officially left the bloc in 2021.

“This Labour government will be defined by rebuilding our relationship with Europe, by having Britain at the heart of Europe, standing shoulder to shoulder with the countries that most share our interests, our values and our enemies. That is the right choice for Britain,” he said.

Taking questions from reporters afterward, he kicked the question of rejoining the EU single market or customs union down the road to beyond the next election — but did not rule either out.

Starmer vowed he would see off any attempt to topple him after Nigel Farage’s Reform UK made historic gains in English council elections and parliamentary elections in Wales and Scotland, at Labour’s expense, and warned those who wanted him out that it could clear the way for Farage.

“We are not just facing dangerous times, but dangerous opponents, very dangerous opponents,” he said, saying Labour was the only thing preventing the country from going down a very dark path.”

“This is nothing less than a battle for the soul of our nation, and I want to be crystal clear about how we will win, because we cannot win as a weaker version of Reform or the Greens. We can only win as a stronger version of Labour, a mainstream party of power, not protest,” Starmer said.

Starmer had faced possible internal party challenges from senior party figures seeking to replace him and wider calls to set a timetable for his departure after the party’s disastrous performance.

However, the BBC said Starmer’s speech appeared to have defused the immediate threat to Starmer of a contest for the leadership of the party — and therefore the prime ministership — with backbench MP Catherine West criticizing his speech as “too little, too late” but backing down from her threat to force a leadership election today.

However, she said she still wanted him gone by September.

“The results last Thursday show that the PM has failed to inspire hope. What is best for the party and country now is for an orderly transition. I am hereby giving notice to No. 10 that I am collecting names of Labour MPs to call on the Prime Minister to set a timetable for the election of a new leader in September,” she wrote in a post on X.

West said she had the backing of 10 of the 81 MPs required under party rules to formally kick off a challenge by an MP. If and once a nomination receives sufficient backing, that would likely trigger a full-blown race for the leadership.

Assuming he does not resign, as sitting prime minister, Starmer is an automatic candidate in any leadership election if he so wishes. Former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn fought and won a contest to remove him in 2016, consolidating his authority, although he was leader of the opposition only and not prime minister.

While Labour leaders have resigned under pressure from the party, the cabinet or the public, none has been removed in a formal leadership challenge in post-war Britain.

West is not seeking to replace Starmer herself.