turn

Washington is attempting something remarkable in Venezuela. After spending more than two decades confronting the geopolitical ambitions of chavismo, the US is now helping to rebuild the industry that made those ambitions possible. 

Through a combination of military pressure and the promise of renewed oil production, foreign investment, and access to international markets, the Trump administration is seeking to secure the cooperation of Delcy Rodríguez’s interim government. But there is a paradox at the heart of that strategy: if it succeeds, Washington could end up restoring the very instrument of geopolitical power that Hugo Chávez once used against it.

The danger is not that Rodríguez is preparing to revive Chávez’s revolutionary foreign policy tomorrow. It is that the economic recovery of a government does not necessarily entail its political transformation. A regime that cooperates with Washington under military pressure and out of economic necessity may behave quite differently once those constraints diminish.

Understanding this risk requires revisiting a frequently misunderstood aspect of Chávez’s legacy. His oil diplomacy was not simply a collection of expensive ideological adventures, but a part of a coherent grand strategy that achieved much of what it set out to accomplish, even as it undermined the economic foundations of the Venezuelan state.

Revolutionary oil

That is the central argument of Petróleo y revolución: La geopolítica de Venezuela bajo Hugo Chávez y su desafío a Estados Unidos, a new book by Venezuelan political analyst Martín Rodríguez Rodríguez. Drawing on diplomatic documents, petroleum industry intelligence, and historical research, Rodríguez reconstructs how Chávez transformed Venezuela’s oil wealth into the principal instrument of an ambitious strategy to challenge American influence in the hemisphere.

Chávez did not invent petroleum diplomacy. Venezuelan governments had long understood that the country’s position in international energy markets provided diplomatic leverage beyond what its economic or military weight might otherwise suggest. But while previous governments generally employed that leverage to advance Venezuela’s commercial interests and international standing, Chávez subordinated it to the objectives of his revolution.

Rodríguez traces the development of this grand strategy through Chávez’s consolidation of power, the political takeover of PDVSA, the revitalization of OPEC, and the construction of an international network designed to diminish Washington’s influence.

New relationships with China, Russia and Iran allowed Chávez to position himself as a participant in an emerging multipolar order.

The Caracas-Havana alliance formed the backbone of this strategy. Cuba provided political experience, ideological affinity, and a regional partner with its own long history of confrontation with Washington. Venezuela supplied the resources that allowed the relationship to acquire a significance neither country could have achieved on its own. ALBA and Petrocaribe extended that logic across the Caribbean and Central America. By providing oil under preferential financing arrangements, Chávez cultivated governments whose diplomatic support helped complicate American efforts to isolate Caracas, while he established relationships that continued to provide diplomatic support to his successors even as Washington intensified its pressure.

The strategy extended beyond the hemisphere. China offered financing and an alternative market for Venezuelan crude. Russia provided military equipment and diplomatic backing. Iran became an ideologically compatible partner in Chávez’s confrontation with the United States. Together, these relationships allowed Venezuela to position itself as a participant in an emerging multipolar order.

Rodríguez’s contribution is to examine these initiatives not as disconnected episodes of revolutionary diplomacy but as instruments of a larger grand strategy. Chávez understood that control over petroleum resources could compensate, at least partially, for Venezuela’s limited military and economic weight. 

Rodríguez documents how repeated threats to interrupt oil shipments to the United States collided with transportation costs, refinery infrastructure, and commercial interdependence. In 2004, roughly two-thirds of Venezuela’s crude exports still went to the American market. Redirecting those shipments was neither as simple nor as economical as Chávez suggested.

Chávez succeeded in expanding the international influence of his revolution while weakening Venezuela’s capacity to sustain that influence. 

The relationship with China was similarly contradictory. Diversification reduced Venezuela’s exclusive dependence on the American market, but oil-backed financing arrangements created new obligations and dependencies. In attempting to escape one relationship, Chávez risked exchanging it for another.

More consequentially, the politicization of PDVSA, the deterioration of its technical capacity, and the subordination of commercial decisions to revolutionary priorities progressively undermined the industry that financed the strategy.

Chávez succeeded in expanding the international influence of his revolution while weakening Venezuela’s capacity to sustain that influence. His geopolitical accomplishments were real, even if their durability was limited. The success of a revolutionary project, Rodríguez demonstrates, should not be confused with the success of the state whose resources made it possible.

The 2026 irony

The Trump administration’s approach to Venezuela rests, at least in part, on a plausible proposition: a government facing American military pressure while benefiting from economic cooperation will have strong incentives to preserve its accommodation with Washington. Restoring oil production can create jobs, attract investment, increase revenues, and provide the economic stability necessary for a political transition.

There is nothing inherently misguided about pursuing economic recovery. Venezuela desperately needs to rebuild its petroleum industry, and a recovery that excludes American capital, technology, and markets would be considerably more difficult. Military coercion and economic incentives can secure compliance without necessarily producing lasting political change, but economic cooperation and political transformation are not interchangeable.

The administration is dealing with a government whose leading figures emerged from the same political movement that Chávez built. Delcy Rodríguez is not Chávez. She lacks his charisma, his popular mandate, and the extraordinary international circumstances that made his ambitions possible. Yet the institutions and networks of power through which chavismo governs have not necessarily changed simply because its relationship with Washington has.

The distinction becomes especially important when considering what a successful recovery would accomplish. Increased production would not merely strengthen Venezuela’s economy. It would increase the resources available to the government, expand its international commercial relationships, and potentially reduce its dependence on American support.

A weakened chavismo has good reasons to accommodate Washington. A revitalized chavismo might have more options.

These developments could support a democratic transition. But without corresponding institutional and political changes, they could also strengthen the governing establishment and give it greater room to maneuver. A weakened chavismo has good reasons to accommodate Washington. A revitalized chavismo might have more options. 

Of course, the circumstances are not those of the early 2000s. The United States possesses considerable military and economic leverage, as well as influence over Venezuela’s access to investment, technology, financial services, and energy markets. Chávez’s successors also face constraints that he never encountered. A return to his confrontational foreign policy is neither inevitable nor necessarily desirable to the current leadership.

But those differences do not eliminate the underlying question. What political and institutional changes must accompany Venezuela’s economic recovery to ensure that the resources generated by its petroleum industry serve the country rather than the preservation of a particular governing movement?

Chávez’s grand strategy demonstrated that Venezuela’s oil wealth could be used to challenge American influence, even without the economic or military power to confront Washington directly. His successors inherited the alliances, institutions, and political networks that strategy helped establish, although the deterioration of the petroleum industry progressively deprived them of the resources needed to sustain it.

None of this means that a recovered Venezuelan oil industry would inevitably produce a renewed confrontation with the United States. It does mean that Washington should be careful not to mistake cooperation obtained through coercion and economic necessity for a lasting change in the interests of those governing Venezuela.

Oct. 31, 2026 2:31 PM PT

A federal immigration officer charged with aggravated assault after he ran over a Mexican man with his car in Houston will turn himself in on Monday, according to his attorney.

Mario Alberto Morales, a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer, struck Miguel Parra Hernandez, a 48-year-old construction worker, with his unmarked SUV on Oct. 10, as he chased Parra Hernandez through a parking lot. A grand jury indicted Morales on Friday on a felony charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

Morales is planning to turn himself in at a courthouse sometime Monday, his attorney, David Lindenmuth, told the Associated Press. Lindenmuth previously told the AP that the incident was “clearly just an accident” and that local officials had “invented a crime out of thin air.”

Parra Hernandez broke his leg and is recovering at a rehabilitation facility while in federal custody, Harris County Dist. Atty. Sean Teare told reporters Friday.

ICE has said Parra Hernandez ran in front of Morales’ car.

Previously released surveillance camera video shows Morales’ vehicle drive over a median and strike Parra Hernandez as he runs away.

Teare played video from Morales’ body camera on Friday that showed the agent making sharp turns with his steering wheel. He then stops and exits the vehicle and turns toward Parra Hernandez, who is lying on the ground, screaming.

“I was coming in, and I hit him with the car,” Morales can be heard saying after another ICE agent arrives.

Parra Hernandez told deputies that he fled the traffic stop when Morales started pulling on a mask, and Morales “threw the car” at him, according to a Harris County Sheriff’s Office incident report reviewed by the AP. Morales told deputies that he did not brake before he hit Parra Hernandez, but that he did not intentionally strike him, according to the report.

ICE said after the incident that the target of the operation was a man named Jose Mendoza-Cervantes, who the agency said was seen getting into a car with Parra Hernandez. Mendoza-Cervantes’ daughter told the immigrants’ rights group FIEL that her father has been dead for nearly a decade.

Morales is among a small group of federal agents who have been criminally charged for wounding people during the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration crackdown. ICE agent Christian Castro pleaded not guilty last month to charges that he lied to the FBI after he shot and wounded a Venezuelan man as immigration agents swept Minneapolis earlier this year.

Many other ICE shootings, including some that were fatal, have not resulted in charges for the agents involved.

Morales, 34, has served as an ICE agent for a little over a year, according to Lindenmuth.

Teare said Friday that authorities have a “significant amount of information” on Morales, and that, in his experience, law enforcement agencies would not hire someone with his background. He did not elaborate.

Morales was charged with a misdemeanor in 2013 for stealing four DVDs, according to Harris County court records. Those charges were dismissed after he paid a $270 fine and struck a plea deal.

Morales unsuccessfully ran to represent Texas’ 34th Congressional District in this year’s election cycle under the name “Bam Morales,” which Lindenmuth confirmed. Morales served in the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division and later as a corrections officer and law enforcement officer, he wrote in a Ballotpedia candidate survey. He wrote that his top priorities were veterans’ rights, economic issues and service guided by the Christian principles of “compassion, integrity, service, and accountability.” He listed illegal immigration as one of the country’s greatest challenges.

Morales also wrote in the survey that he was endorsed by an organization called Make America Godlier Again.

Morales appeared at a 2024 Christian conference held by televangelist Johnson Suleman. In video of the conference, Morales appears to act as a Spanish translator as Suleman serves free food and “extends his touch of love to migrants.”

“I want to pray for the immigrants,” Suleman said, as Morales translated those words into Spanish. “I bless you. May the Lord grant your request and open your doors.”

Mayes-Osterman and Brook write for the Associated Press.

ATLANTA — Two years after Kamala Harris lost the presidential election to Donald Trump, she still delights Democratic donors and activists with jabs against him, saying the Republican is “callous, corrupt and incompetent” and calling him the “decorator in chief” for his White House renovations and gold adornments.

The former vice president also has plenty to say about what her party, the electorate and the country should do next as she also considers whether to run again.

“This is the moment where we turn that anger into action,” Harris said more than once during a busy schedule in the final stretch of the midterm campaign.

Harris campaigned for candidates across seven states, ending with a recent two-day visit to Georgia. It was, in part, the kind of nostalgic tour seen from Barack Obama and Bill Clinton — two-term presidents whose last campaigns are behind them — and the barnstorming from potential future contenders such as Govs. Gavin Newsom of California and Andy Beshear of Kentucky and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.

As the first Black woman elected to nationwide office, Harris urged fellow Black Americans to “honor the ancestors” with their votes. She also said she has become unapologetically “transactional” by demanding more from politicians.

Harris, a U.S. senator and attorney general from California before joining Joe Biden on the 2020 ticket, also pushed fellow Democrats to govern aggressively and she called for “structural work” that she said was necessary to reinvigorate American democracy: Supreme Court expansion, statehood for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, and reconsideration of the electoral college.

“I think she’s hitting all the right notes,” said Melinda Johnson, a retired nurse who attended a Fulton County Democratic Party fundraising gala that Harris headlined in Atlanta.

Harris made it to early presidential primary states, including Nevada, New Hampshire and Michigan. She also went to Mississippi, not exactly a hotbed of presidential politics, on behalf of U.S. Senate candidate Scott Colom.

“The South is in play,” she said. “When Democrats invest in the South, we can win in the South.”

In Georgia, Harris delved into civil rights history as she accused the U.S. Supreme Court of “backdoor racism” with its decision to gut the Voting Rights Act and allow Republicans to redraw boundaries for congressional districts that now elect nonwhite lawmakers.

“Ruthlessness” is key, she said at the Democratic dinner in Atlanta. “Not ruthlessness in the sense of cruelty … but in our willingness to use our power to deliver on our commitments.” Democrats, she said, “can no longer let process stand in the way of progress.”

Throughout her stops, Harris nodded implicitly to her loss to Trump.

“You know we’ve been spending the last year and a half, so many of us, going through a range of emotions,” she told students. “Anger, depression, sadness, frustration, a sense of helplessness and powerlessness.”

Warning that Trump could try to meddle in Tuesday’s election, she echoed one of the president’s mantras to encourage people to vote.

“In this case,” she said at Atlanta’s Elizabeth Baptist Church, “we just need to turn out in really large numbers that would be too big to rig.”

Barrow writes for the Associated Press.

EXCLUSIVE: The Celebrity Traitors is heating up with the semi-final airing tonight, but a former star believes that one of the Traitors will have to turn on another, in a huge twist

A former star of The Traitors has predicted a major twist. Tonight’s episode will see at least one Faithful banished from the castle, in yet another devastating blow for the Faithful.

So far, only two Traitors have been banished from Ardross Castle, leaving the team of Faithful shrinking by the day. In yet another twist, the Faithful unknowingly branded the three Traitors – Maya Jama, James Acaster and King Kenny the most trustworthy stars.

But what they didn’t know was that Kenny was later given a chilling double vote for the roundtable, after he and his fellow Traitors worked out who their next victims would be. This series has seen Maya come out on top, with many of her banished and murdered co-stars believing that she could potentially win the programme.

To see more of the stories you love from The Mirror and to find them easily in Google, make us your preferred source. Free and easy to do, just click on the link here to find more from The Mirror at the top of your feed.

Former contestant Andrew Jenkins, who appeared on series two of the BBC show, also believes that Maya could go all the way. “Maya Jama has 100 per cent got what it takes, and all of them, to be honest,” he said. He went on to add: “The three traitors have all got a good case because they’ve all been voted the most trustworthy, so they’re all doing really well.”

However, Andrew believes the Traitors will turn on one another before tomorrow night’s final. He commented: “I think the biggest obstacle is going to be that they turn against each other. I think one of them will have to turn against the other one. But they’ve got no heat on them from any of the faithful. So I think Maya Jama is playing a really good game.”

But after James A refused to take part in a task which would benefit the Traitors last week, Andrew says he empathises with the comedian. Both James and Andrew started off on the show as Faithful, before being recruited by The Traitors. “You’re trying to play so many games,” he said.

Speaking in connection with Buzz Bingo, Andrew went on to add: “You’re trying to take the heat off you, you’re trying to be part of a team, and it’s hard trying to juggle it all. So I do understand. I can see it from both sides of the fence. And yeah, he probably has put a bit of a target on his back now. Do Maya and King Kenny trust him now? So he could be hung out to dry now.”

This year has also seen increased paranoia in the castle, with EastEnders hardman Ross Kemp initially fearing he’d been murdered after a co-star merely touched him. However, he was later murdered in plain sight by James A and Maya, who bored him so much he yawned.

“It’s hard,” Andrew said of the paranoia inside the castle, adding: “It is really hard. You get paranoid because you’ve seen previous series. You know how other people have been murdered, so you’re going to suspect things. Nobody wants to drink from any cups; nobody wants to do anything. You get really paranoid.”

Tonight will disclose whether the brutal roundtable voted in favour of Joanne McNally or Sharon Rooney being banished from the castle, as the Faithful and Traitors once again go head to head ahead of tomorrow’s final.

The Traitors airs on BBC One and BBC iPlayer at 8pm.

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Threads.

Al-Bureij, Gaza Strip – A Sack of Flour, an 11-minute documentary by the emerging filmmaker Mona Abu Qass, draws on her personal experience to examine Israel’s use of starvation against Palestinians in Gaza during Israel’s genocidal war on the enclave.

The film is one of five documentaries by Palestinian women screened Monday at the opening of the second Gaza International Women’s Film Festival, which also marked the official launch of the Gaza Cinema Academy.

The event took place at the site of the al-Nakheel Hall in al-Bureij, central Gaza, under the slogan “Women Creating Life from Death”. The hall is destroyed, like the majority of buildings in Gaza, after three years of Israel’s war, which has killed more than 74,000 Palestinians.

The film captures Palestinians’ struggle to find food in Gaza, the dangers at aid distribution points and the lives lost while trying to obtain flour.

Through Abu Qass’s own experiences, A Sack of Flour explores how the trauma of hunger continues to affect families even after food becomes available again.

Those experiences have renewed relevance as Israeli restrictions on goods entering Gaza and cuts to food assistance have caused shortages and fears of a return to famine.

“The idea for the film stems from a personal experience and a true story,” Abu Qass told Al Jazeera. “It documents daily life in Gaza, weighed down by bombardment, destruction, siege, hunger, and loss.”

“I want to capture details that reveal suffering and people’s determination to hold on to their life,” she added. “I seek to show reality as people experience it and help viewers understand what the war has done to their relationships, dreams, and hopes.”

Highlighting struggles of the disabled

Another film, Beyond Silence, by emerging filmmaker and journalist Raghda al-Buhaisi, explores wartime struggles in Gaza for people with disabilities through the story of a deaf artist who never learned to read, write or communicate through sign language. His art studio in southern Gaza’s Rafah was destroyed by Israel, and his parents and several family members were killed.

After being displaced to Deir el-Balah in central Gaza, another family took him in and set up a modest studio by the roadside. His paintings reflect loss and displacement, expressing what words cannot through colour and line.

“I want to highlight the additional challenges people with disabilities face during war, including displacement, family loss, and the destruction of livelihoods,” al-Buhaisi told Al Jazeera. “Art can cross barriers of language and silence, turning an individual experience of pain into a visual message that conveys Gaza’s suffering to the world.”

Alongside those films were three others by emerging Palestinian women filmmakers – Soso: The Lifeline, Remnants of Light, and Dandana. The films document life in Gaza and the suffering brought by war.

Soso: The Lifeline follows an orphaned child and his donkey, who help people survive in Gaza. Remnants of Light follows a filmmaker struggling with the loss of her family and home, while Dandana tells the story of a mother whose eight children were killed, and who turns to Palestinian songs with her surviving family to cope with her grief.

The five documentaries were produced through a filmmaking diploma programme that began in March and brought together 25 young Palestinian women.

Preserving Gaza’s stories

Festival director Ezzedine Shallah said the films draw on experiences women and girls lived through during the war, offering visual testimony to daily life and giving women space to tell their stories in their own voices.

“Though their subjects differ, the films turn individual pain into broader human stories, revealing war’s psychological and social scars,” he told Al Jazeera. “They preserve stories that might otherwise never reach the screen, transforming suffering into cinematic testimony and bringing Gaza’s stories to audiences beyond its borders.”

The festival, which runs until October 31, features 73 films from 24 countries and offers a broader platform for filmmakers from Gaza and beyond.

But even with events like the festival, filmmaking in Gaza comes with formidable challenges. The destruction of cultural institutions, scarce equipment, limited funding, power and internet outages, and the pressures of war and displacement have severely restricted opportunities for film production. Women filmmakers also struggle to access training, production opportunities and international festivals.

Filmmaker Rima Mahmoud, a co-founder of the festival, said that war and the Israeli siege on Gaza – which predates 2023 – have hindered young women’s filmmaking, pushing some to use simple methods, self-fund projects and document Gaza’s reality even with the difficulties.

“Despite limited resources, these films deserve international exposure,” Mahmoud said. “Their makers need technical and financial support, translation, and partnerships with festivals and platforms.”

Resisting attempts at erasure

Palestinian filmmaker Mai Masri, based in Lebanon and another co-founder of the festival, said the films help young women tell their own stories, resist erasure and preserve collective memory, while building skills and accessing work in Gaza or through digital platforms.

The academy has also developed a filmmaking diploma in cooperation with al-Quds Open University and accredited by the Palestinian Ministry of Education.

Masri said that the academy is also now trying to help directors reach international festivals.

“We are seeking agreements with distributors to screen these films in educational and cultural institutions outside Palestine, and through international platforms and festivals focused on women’s and human rights,” she said.

“This would bring the voices of Palestinian women to a global audience, shed light on their human experiences and artistic creativity, strengthen the presence of Palestinian cinema internationally, and open new horizons for young female directors to reach global screening platforms and film festivals,” Masri added.

As the threat of a new war with the United States looms, the Front of Islamic Revolution Stability, a hardline political faction also known as the Paydari Front, has asked the Iranian parliament and the Supreme National Security Council to initiate a withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

This move has been interpreted as a call for Iran to develop nuclear weapons, with the Paydari Front saying these military endeavours should happen “as quickly as possible”.

It is the latest bold and defiant message by Iran’s hardliners against Washington, after the US and Israel launched a war on Iran on February 28 on the pretext that Tehran was trying to develop nuclear weapons.

The war has seen the Strait of Hormuz largely closed to shipping, massive damage to Iranian and Arab infrastructure in missile and air strikes, and huge disruptions to global energy supplies.

The past eight months have also marked an ongoing existential power struggle between moderates and centrists, such as President Masoud Pezeshkian, who generally favour talks with the US, and hardliners in the Paydari Front who do not.

Ultimately, the moderate camp wants a swift end to the conflict to save Iran’s crumbling economy. Hardliners believe Washington only understands the language of force, so the war should continue until the US capitulates to Iran’s demands.

The domestic rivalry can be seen in the public squares of major Iranian cities, where for the past 200 days supporters of the hardline faction have rallied at night.

Initially, these gatherings were a way for people to express public support for the government and protest the unprovoked US war on Iran. Over time, they have evolved into highly organised political rallies where activists can publicly express their strong opposition to moderates’ efforts to end the war through diplomatic channels.

The hardliners’ slogans include “No compromise, no surrender – the fight against America” and “Negotiating with the enemy is a betrayal of the homeland”.

They also protested against President Pezeshkian’s return to Tehran from the UN General Assembly in September, where he condemned the US war but also extolled the virtues of diplomacy. The pickets were viewed as a way for their “anti-negotiation” message to be heard by the president.

This bloc has considerable power beyond these activist circles. Hardliners have a strong presence in Tehran’s municipal government, the parliament, among religious preachers and eulogists, and academia and the media.

Amirhossein Sabeti, a member of parliament aligned with the Paydari Front, said in a statement that negotiations with the US will not begin unless Washington’s siege on Iran’s southern ports or sanctions end.

“The enemy’s objective of destroying Iran has not changed. It is simply waiting for the right moment to launch another surprise attack. Those who thought negotiations could prevent war, or that the United States would lift sanctions through negotiations, did not understand how the world works and were deluding themselves,” he said. “The only language the world understands is the language of power.”

The political faction to which Sabeti belongs has filed a motion in the Iranian parliament to impeach Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, following his visit to New York for the United Nations General Assembly. Iran’s parliament is also considering a law to criminalise interviews with foreign media outlets, which would be another win for hardliners.

But as the impeachment motion against Iran’s foreign minister moves through parliament, the political camp supporting the government continues to advocate for a diplomatic solution to the current conflict.

Davood Heshmati, a journalist considered close to Pezeshkian, said there are signs that US forces have foregone the grand ambition of overthrowing the Iranian government and have instead opted for more modest aims, which makes a diplomatic solution more likely.

“There are several ways to achieve those other goals, one of which is war. But, in any case, to prevent a war, all alternatives to military action must first be tested. Negotiations and a diplomatic agreement are among those alternatives, and they should always take precedence over war,” Heshmati told Al Jazeera.

“Those who say the Strait of Hormuz must not be reopened are people who believe the war must not end. From the perspective of Iran’s anti-negotiation camp, the war between Iran and the United States has no end. What they do not explain is what outcome they expect from this war. They seem to believe that, after several rounds of fighting, the United States will simply walk away from the conflict. But that idea does not appear to be consistent with the logic of what we are witnessing.”

He indicated that for any war to end, there needs to be an understanding with the US that respects Iran’s territorial integrity.

“Those in Iran who support negotiations argue that a balance of power does not necessarily have to be achieved through war, although, given everything that has happened along the diplomatic path, the distrust that exists is understandable,” he said.

Political analyst Negar Mortazavi argues that hardline groups are a powerful domestic force, but they currently have limited influence over Iran’s foreign policy.

“Iran’s hardliners are not a marginal political force. They are a well-organised and deeply entrenched part of [Iran’s] political establishment. Their strength lies in their ability to mobilise supporters, shape political discourse, pressure the government, and raise the political cost of diplomacy,” she said.

“But political influence should not be confused with ultimate decision-making authority. Decisions about war, peace, and negotiations are made at the highest levels of Iran’s leadership and national security establishment.”

Hardliners can continue to confront negotiators, threaten impeachments against those who propose talks with the US, and try to obstruct diplomatic endeavours, she said. But they cannot prevent an agreement being reached if it is backed by the country’s main powerholders, including Supreme Leader Mujtaba Khamenei and the Supreme National Security Council.

“The [hardliners] are powerful enough to complicate diplomacy, but not necessarily powerful enough to stop it. [They] are a highly visible and vocal political force, but they are not calling the shots,” Mortazavi told Al Jazeera.

“Throughout the war, Tehran has kept the door open to diplomacy, and the decision at the highest levels of leadership has been to pursue negotiations with the United States and seek an agreement. The hardliners have been unable to stop that. The real test of their power is that they could not stop the JCPOA [nuclear agreement] under [former President Barack] Obama, and they could not stop the more recent MoU [memorandum of understanding] with Trump. Ultimately, the decisions were made above their heads.”

Street rallies and television programmes opposing a peaceful solution to the US-Israeli war against Iran will continue. But the delay in scheduling the foreign minister’s impeachment hearing, alongside continued diplomatic engagement with mediators to end the war, suggests that the moderates are still a force to be reckoned with.

Perhaps the biggest changes at United have been off the pitch.

Olid explained that her side had navigated a “transitional period” and had taken part in big discussions following their 5-0 drubbing by Chelsea.

Players needed to find confidence and Olid admitted the “honest conversations” had to come up with a solution.

“The first two games were good learning for us to connect as a team and for me to know what the players needed from me,” said Olid. “The players also know what I needed. It was about trying to find that balance.

“I feel now we are connected. That doesn’t mean we won’t have more [of those] less good days, but I think we have that understanding of each other.”

Their form at the start of the season impacted individuals with vice-captain Ella Toone missing out on England selection for the first time under Sarina Wiegman.

She responded by scoring in their 3-1 win at Charlton on Sunday, while summer signing Andrea Medina has grown to become a crucial member of the squad.

The international break proved to be a valuable time for Olid to readjust to her new role, reflect on what needed to change and to spend time on the training pitch.

England defender and United captain Maya le Tissier was among those to return with renewed energy having impressed for her country during the break.

The backroom staff positions were also confirmed and Olid has been able to build a group she hopes can lead United to success going forward.

Fellow Spaniard Jose Herrera joined as assistant coach, alongside Gavin Beith, who worked with Olid at former club Hearts.

Speaking about the international break, Olid said: “I had time to re-organise everything, the roles for the new staff and how we are going to work together.

“This break, for me, was amazing. It was like a new start. It was about keeping the good energy from the last matches but then having a new start.”

Now, having been on a winning run, Olid hopes the proposition of a Manchester derby on Sunday will prove to be added motivation for her players.

“I always think that before big games, you want to give confidence to the players and at the same time, you try to motivate them with the opposition,” she told BBC.

“It’s a derby. I think the players are always motivated, but against City, there has to be something else, no?”

To many observers, the Manchester United left-back situation was one that could have been anticipated and should have been addressed in the summer.

The fact United spoke to Manchester City about Algeria international Rayan Ait-Nouri on deadline day suggests they did view it as a potential issue.

After starting all 38 Premier League games last term and the first three this, Shaw has played only twice since, and the number of games missed could reach double figures before the 31-year-old returns.

When Diogo Dalot lined up at left-back against Leeds, he became the fifth different player to start there for United in six games.

Aside from Shaw, none of the quintet could be regarded as a natural left-back.

However, after it was suggested Martinez’s post-match outburst following the defeat by Atletico Madrid was partly down to 20-year-old Ayden Heaven playing at left-back, sources did point out the youngster played more often in that role than in the centre during his youth days at Arsenal.

It was also suggested in the summer that United’s coaching team did not believe 19-year-old Harry Amass, who was Shaw’s stand-in during pre-season, was yet at the right level.

Amass’ single appearance so far this season, as a substitute for the final 18 minutes against Sabah, backs up that view, although Carrick has countered it.

“He’s right in contention,” Carrick said.

“At some point, young players need an opportunity. It’s just finding the right time.

“Sometimes it’s because there’s an unfortunate thing happened to somebody else. Sometimes it’s just you’re doing so well we have to give you a chance.

“All the young players are in a similar boat. There’s maybe four, five, or six of them trying to make that next step in terms of getting into the team and trying to start games, and Harry’s definitely one of them.”

Paris, France – France is counting the cost of a day of unrest after hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets nationwide, in the largest mobilisation since protests over education reforms and the cost of living began last month.

At Place de la Republique, in the heart of the French capital, people on Sunday surveyed the previous day’s destruction in dismay: smashed windows, gutted buildings, looted shops.

“I find it unacceptable – absolutely unacceptable,” said Rabah, who has been living in Paris for more than 70 years. “Back in the day, we also demonstrated, but peacefully,” he said.

Staring at the burned skeleton of what used to be a newspaper stand, 56-year-old Claire was also shaken. “I love Paris so much, and seeing it like this makes me furious,” she said. “It’s absolutely appalling. I’m actually quite overcome with emotion.”

Nearby, the statue of Marianne, the symbol of the French Republic, was covered in graffiti. “Those who sow misery reap anger,” read one inscription.

The student-led protests began in mid-September, caused by grievances ranging from overcrowded classrooms and teacher shortages to systemic inequality and a lack of opportunity.

The movement quickly spilled out of the schoolyards and into the streets, tapping into broader social and economic anxieties.

On Saturday, these complaints converged in a mobilisation that saw a nationwide turnout of 550,000 people, according to authorities; unions and organisers put the estimate at 800,000.

But while the vast majority of demonstrators rallied peacefully, the scale of the violent unrest threatened to eclipse their message. In Paris, there was also heavy use of tear gas and stun grenades by the police, including before the start of the march, which set the tone for a tense day.

“I marched from the 10th arrondissement town hall to Place de Clichy. I was there from start to finish, and it was very peaceful – just all kinds of people, all of them nonviolent,” said Stephanie, a 23-year-old Parisian student.

“But once again, the violence was so spectacular that the actual message – the reasons behind the protesters’ grievances – was never conveyed,” she said.

Macron to address nation

French President Emmanuel Macron, whose second and final term ends next year, will give a televised address to the nation at 18:00 GMT on Sunday after meeting government ministers, his office announced.

Interior Minister Laurent Nunez said nearly 1,800 people had been arrested – almost half of them in Paris – and more than 500 police officers, gendarmes and firefighters had been injured in the unrest.

“Protesting is a fundamental right. Causing disorder through violence and in a concerted manner is not,” he said on Sunday.

During Saturday’s protest in Paris, Al Jazeera saw groups of black-clad, masked young men smashing shop windows with what appeared to be golf clubs before fleeing with bags of stolen goods.

In Marseille, France’s second-largest city, dozens of shops were looted and a group of people broke into the city hall before being forced out.

“Students and others have real claims they want to air which no one is listening to now because idiots are smashing everything,” said Benoit Payan, the city’s mayor.

In Limoges, footage showed flames engulfing the city hall as the fire spread through the historic building. Public buildings were also damaged in Bordeaux and other cities.

Police conduct has also come under scrutiny. France’s police inspectorate, the IGPN, had opened 36 investigations into alleged police violence since the high-school protests began, according to figures released by the Ministry of the Interior on October 13. The figure predates Saturday’s demonstrations.

Human rights lawyers have described some of their clients’ injuries as comparable to those seen in conflict zones. These include a minor who has lost his hand, another with his jaw smashed and a third pupil who lost sight in one eye.

“There is an increasingly systematic use of crowd-control measures that would normally be reserved for much more serious situations,” said Christophe Calvao, president of the Paris Young Lawyers’ Union. “This only serves to inflame tensions and make people even angrier.”

The government now faces the challenge of responding to widespread social discontent while trying to pass a budget aimed at bringing France’s public finances under control.

Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu wants to reduce the country’s deficit through spending restraint and tax measures – a move that will likely deepen public anger. Cuts to France’s generous welfare system have traditionally faced strong public resistance.

All of this takes place in a highly toxic political environment as parties harden their positions ahead of next year’s presidential election.

Jean-Luc Melenchon, the leader of the left-wing France Unbowed party and potential presidential contender who has sought to appeal to young voters, accused the government of fuelling the unrest.

“In Paris, aberrant leadership has opened the door to chaos. Those in charge no longer know what to do; the rank and file are afraid and are running wild,” he said.

Lecornu hit back. “This is YOUR political responsibility,” said the prime minister on social media, accusing far-left groups of orchestrating the violence.