united states

The dust has barely settled on the expanded 48-team FIFA World Cup 2026, yet further development of the competition’s future has already been mooted, as well as struck by a fierce backlash.

The shine on the trophy, now held by Spain after their defeat of Argentina in the final, still glitters brightly, but there were tarnishes to this year’s event.

Now, the game’s global governing body, FIFA, and its president, Gianni Infantino, face yet more criticism after a plan was released to sell stakes in future World Cups and other events to private investors.

From European football’s governing body, UEFA, to the United Kingdom’s new prime minister, Andy Burnham, FIFA’s plan has been slammed. There has even been a suggestion of a boycott by UEFA.

Al Jazeera Sport takes a look at what the latest proposals on FIFA’s desk mean.

What are Gianni Infantino and FIFA’s new World Cup plans?

FIFA announced plans on Tuesday to sell stakes in future World Cups and other events to private investors in a bid to maximise revenue for the sport.

The proposal is to create a $20bn subsidiary to run the World Cup and other events.

FIFA says it would retain the majority share of a newly created FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE) scheme, meaning it would still preside over football governance, competitions, match calendars and regulatory and sporting decisions.

Minority stakes, however, would be sold to external investors to raise up to $4.2bn as part of the new proposal.

Why do Infantino and FIFA want to sell stakes in the World Cup?

Debate raged for months in the build-up to World Cup 2026 that FIFA’s ticket pricing was pushing fans out of “the people’s game”, as it has long been regarded.

FIFA’s defence was that the World Cup is their main source of income to support the game around the globe – from the sport’s grassroots to the administration of the major international events.

This latest proposal is FIFA’s attempt to stretch that revenue potential even further.

How would the new plan for the FIFA World Cup work?

Billions of dollars are already raised by FIFA tournaments, largely from broadcasting rights, sponsorship and other commercial deals.

This new commercial subsidiary, the FFE, would extend beyond traditional means of raising funds and would be akin to the franchise model that many sports have now turned to.

The Indian Premier League (IPL), a T20 cricket tournament, was one of the first competitions to fully exploit the potential of franchise models, selling stakes in teams in a newly formed competition.

On Wednesday, the IPL – only formed in 2008 – announced its value had soared more than 11% this year to 20.6bn.

Teams in that competition are owned by majority investors, who therefore hold significant sway in how it is run.

Other models, including The Hundred of the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) – an attempt to rival the IPL – have sold minority ownership of the teams.

ECB, as a result, retains control of the competition, and this is what FIFA is proposing for the share of the World Cup and its events that it intends to sell privately.

Nonetheless, a share is a share and new investors, be it in cricket’s The Hundred or in the FIFA World Cup, will expect at the very least to be heard when it comes to decision-making.

This is where concerns are being raised about the proposals.

Who are the potential investors in the World Cup and other FIFA events?

Thrive Eternal, a United States venture capital firm, has been put forward to lead the proposed investor group, FIFA said.

The vehicle was founded by Joshua Kushner, the brother of US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

Any potential investors would thereafter buy into the FIFA events via Thrive Eternal.

What benefits are FIFA claiming if the World Cup and events plan succeeds?

FIFA has said all net benefits will be reinvested in football, and that all countries should benefit from the ever-increasing profitability of the sport.

“Football is the world’s most popular sport,” FIFA President Gianni Infantino said in a statement.

“Parts of the game have turned that popularity into remarkable commercial value – and we celebrate that success and want it to continue, because it lifts the whole game.

“Our job is to make sure the rest of football grows with it: FIFA exists to support sustainable, inclusive development in every corner of the world.”

‘It is not FIFA’s to sell’: UEFA and UK PM reaction to Infantino’s World Cup plan?

FIFA has already clashed with domestic and continental governing bodies during World Cup 2026. The European powerhouse, UEFA, was the first to speak out against the new proposals.

“This crosses a line that football’s governing institutions should never cross,” UEFA said.

“UEFA takes it extremely seriously. So should every National Football Association. So should every stakeholder who cares about the future of the game.

“The soul and governance of football are not assets to trade – especially with zero transparency as to who gains financially. None of us are the owners of football. It is not FIFA’s to sell.”

Andy Burnham, who only replaced Keir Starmer as the United Kingdom’s prime minister last week, wrote on X: “Let me say this very directly. Football does not belong to investors. It belongs to the people who fill the stands and who stand on the touchline week in, week out, rain or shine.

“The World Cup is not a product. It is the greatest competition in world sport, and it was never anyone’s to sell. Dress the deal up however you like. Once you have sold a piece of it, you have sold out.

“Football belongs to the fans. It always has, and it always will,” he added.

The Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football (CONCACAF) said on Wednesday that it ⁠had not been informed of FIFA’s proposed sale of equity to outside investors and was “deeply concerned” over a lack of due process.

What will happen next for FIFA’s World Cup plans, and will UEFA boycott?

Any change will need to be voted through by FIFA’s 211-country membership.

Of that number, 55 nations fall within UEFA’s governance.

The European body will hold an emergency meeting later this week to discuss the proposals.

Were FIFA to implement such a plan, one possible response UEFA could take would include a boycott of FIFA competitions.

Although at just above a quarter of FIFA membership, Europe has produced the winner of six of the last eight World Cups.

Argentina and Brazil are the only teams to prevent a clean sweep by the Europeans in that time, and, indeed, are the only nations outside Europe to win the World Cup since fellow South Americans Uruguay won their second and last title in 1950.

What were the main criticisms of FIFA World Cup 2026?

The main criticism going into the 2026 World Cup, held in the US, Canada and Mexico, was pricing. From tickets to transport links, it was felt that football fans on median salaries around the world were being priced out of the game.

During the World Cup, the decision to suspend a red card shown to USA striker Folarin Balogun “undermined the game’s integrity and credibility,” according to UEFA.

US President Donald Trump said he called Infantino about the ban that Balogun faced – the forward lined up for USA in their next match against Belgium.

FIFA also faced a backlash over hydration breaks that were introduced midway through each half of those matches. Critics said the breaks functioned primarily as commercial opportunities for broadcasters and disrupted the traditional flow of football matches at the tournament.

The US and Saudi Arabia launched joint air strikes on Iraq, targeting ‘Iran-aligned’ groups after drone attacks targeted US forces in the region and Saudi oil facilities. Saudi Arabia says it acted in self-defence, while Iraq’s Popular Mobilisation Forces reported at least 20 killed.

Taipei, Taiwan – China’s coastguard and civilian fleet are expanding their presence in the waters east of Taiwan, raising fears that Beijing may be rehearsing a containment strategy that would cut off the self-ruled island from outside trade and assistance.

Through June and July, China’s Maritime Safety Administration and coastguard staged multiple patrols and “special maritime law enforcement operations”, according to official government announcements.

While China regularly patrols the Taiwan Strait – the waterway with an average width of about 180km (112 miles) separating coastal China from the main island of Taiwan – this marks the first time the patrols have moved east of Taiwan in such quick succession, according to analysts.

K Tristan Tang, a nonresident fellow at the United States-based National Bureau of Asian Research, said the shift carries both strategic and symbolic weight for Taiwan.

“Beijing is signalling that it wants to extend its claimed administrative jurisdiction to Taiwan’s eastern waters, effectively surrounding Taiwan rather than only eroding Taiwan’s space in the strait,” Tang told Al Jazeera.

“Law enforcement operations” have included patrolling the area and requesting information from commercial vessels about their origin and destination, according to Taipei.

The shift east has also occurred amid a greater uptick in Chinese maritime activity around Taiwan and its outlying islands. Taiwan reported 55 sightings of Chinese coastguard and research vessel activity in June, up from 30 sightings in May.

These sightings included Chinese activity near the uninhabited Taiwan-controlled Dongsha Islands, also known as the Pratas Islands, in the South China Sea.

Beijing has said the operations are a response to talks between Japan and the Philippines to set their maritime boundaries, which infringe on “territorial sovereignty as well as its maritime rights and interests”, according to Chinese state media.

Some of the waters around southern Japan and the northern Philippines overlap with Taiwan’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), which extends 200 nautical miles (370km) from its coastline.

On July 4, China’s coastguard announced that law enforcement activities to the east of Taiwan would continue to “firmly safeguard China’s territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests”.

China claims Taiwan as a province – which means it also views Taiwan’s EEZ as under its jurisdiction. It also claims large swaths of the nearby South China Sea and East China Sea, some of which are disputed by Japan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei.

China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has previously told reporters that its activities near Taiwan are “legitimate actions to exercise China’s jurisdiction, safeguard regional stability and uphold order at sea in accordance with the law”.

The Chinese embassy in Washington, DC did not immediately respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

‘Grey zone’ tactics

Ray Powell, founder and director of Sea Light, a maritime transparency project based at Stanford University, said he views the uptick in patrols as part of China’s “boa constrictor strategy that intends to squeeze Taiwan one coil at a time”.

China has pledged to annex Taiwan by peace or by force, and it employs a variety of pressure tactics, from cutting off access to international spaces such as the World Health Organization, drone and fighter jet incursions, to alleged cyberattacks, according to Taiwan’s National Security Bureau.

Known as “grey zone” tactics, these manoeuvres are designed to strain Taiwan’s limited resources and damage morale in order to convince its 23 million people that annexation is inevitable, according to Taiwanese officials.

Security analysts like Powell have warned that “law enforcement” activities could quickly escalate into a blockade or quarantine. Taiwan is particularly vulnerable to this type of pressure as an island that imports nearly all its energy supplies.

“One day we could look back at this and say this was in some ways the start of the quarantine,” he told Al Jazeera.

“Today it’s radio challenges; what is the next stage after that? When do we start to see them stop and inspect ships or reroute them? It’s not a very big step to start squeezing Taiwan on things it needs, like LNG,” Powell said.

China has already signalled that a blockade could be on the table in the future. Since 2022, Beijing has regularly staged large-scale military exercises in the Taiwan Strait, including a simulated blockade of the island during its last round of exercises in December.

While coastguard activity is more low-profile than a naval patrol, Chauluen Lin, an expert in asymmetric warfare at Taipei’s Institute for National Defense and Security Research, told Al Jazeera the fleet could be considered a “second navy”.

China’s coastguard is not a civilian police force, as it falls under the jurisdiction of the Central Military Commission as a division of the People’s Armed Police.

China’s coastguard patrols have been unusual enough to elicit a rare joint response from the United Kingdom, Germany and France, who said in late June that the “actions threaten regional stability and the freedom of navigation and safety of international shipping”.

“We reiterate our opposition to any unilateral change to the status quo, particularly by threat or use of force or coercion,” the statement said.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said last week that Washington disagrees with the expanded patrols and that they undermine regional stability.

A distracted US

William Yang, the Crisis Group’s senior analyst for Northeast Asia, told Al Jazeera that Beijing may be taking advantage of a US distracted by the war in Iran and a president who appears ambivalent towards Taiwan.

Although the US does not recognise Taiwan as a country, it has pledged to help the island defend itself. Much of this assistance has come in the form of weapons sales, training and intelligence sharing.

US President Donald Trump also cast doubt on these commitments when he said US weapons sales could be a “negotiating chip” with China following a meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping in May.

“The external environment has fundamentally changed in the Indo-Pacific region, at least from their perspective, with Washington very focused and tangled up in the Middle East,” Yang said.

“At the same time, the US has no bandwidth to really look at or respond to such an expansion of Chinese maritime operations in these sensitive waters,” he added.

New York’s Haitian community is living in limbo and fear after Temporary Protected Status (TPS) was terminated on Monday. Around 300,000 Haitian nationals rely on the special designation to live legally in the US.

Football’s world governing body announces plans to sell stakes of up to 20 percent in the World Cup and other events.

FIFA has proposed a plan to sell stakes in the World Cup and other events to private investors, provoking a furious response from the European football governing body, UEFA.

Under the plans announced by FIFA on Tuesday, a $20bn subsidiary would be created to run the World Cup and other events.

World football’s governing body said it would retain a majority share in the new FIFA Forward Enterprise, offering minority stakes to external investment to raise up to $4.2bn.

The plan still needs to be voted on by FIFA’s 211 member nations.

If successful, the proposed investor group is expected to be led by a vehicle founded by Joshua Kushner, the brother of US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, FIFA said.

UEFA said the proposal “crosses a line that football’s governing institutions should never cross”.

Reinvested in the game

FIFA has just held a 48-team World Cup across the United States, Canada and Mexico – the biggest in the tournament’s history.

It is one of the world’s wealthiest sporting organisations, generating billions of dollars, largely from broadcasting rights, sponsorship and other commercial deals linked to the World Cup.

But it says this proposal can increase funds to widen access to the sport and strengthen global participation, with all net benefits to be reinvested in football.

“Football is the world’s most popular sport,” FIFA President Gianni Infantino said in a statement.

“Parts of the game have turned that popularity into remarkable commercial value – and we celebrate that success and want it to continue, because it lifts the whole game.

“Our job is to make sure the rest of football grows with it: FIFA exists to support sustainable, inclusive development in every corner of the world.”

FIFA said that in addition to retaining sole control of the subsidiary, it would retain authority over football governance, competitions, match calendars and regulatory and sporting decisions.

‘World Cup is not a product’

The proposal deepens the divide between FIFA and UEFA, with Europe positioning itself as football’s custodian, while FIFA, a not-for-profit organisation, says it is focused on broadening access with financial largesse.

In a statement, UEFA said it takes the new proposals “extremely seriously”.

“So should every National Football Association. So should every stakeholder: leagues, clubs, players, supporters, governments and everyone who cares about the future of the game.

“The soul and governance of football are not assets to trade – especially with zero transparency as to who gains financially. None of us are the owners of football. It is not FIFA’s to sell.”

The United Kingdom’s new prime minister, Andy Burnham, joined critics, saying on social media that the sport does not belong to investors.

“The World Cup is not a product. It is the greatest competition in world sport, and it was never anyone’s to sell,” Burnham wrote on X.

“Dress the deal up however you like. Once you have sold a piece of it, you have sold out.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump hosted the leaders of Ukraine and Israel — two nations at war — at the White House on Tuesday, as Washington’s role in both conflicts reaches a critical stage.

Trump’s meetings with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came as the wars in Ukraine and Iran have recently expanded and overlapped in their footprint.

Over the weekend, Ukraine struck an Iranian cargo ship in the Caspian Sea, an attack condemned by Iranian leaders, who are dealing with their own uncertainty with a broadening war with the United States and Israel.

Both meetings took place in the Oval Office without the presence of reporters, and while few details were disclosed about the discussion, the White House described the sessions as “positive and productive.”

Yet there were signs of discord ahead of Netanyahu’s visit, his eighth during Trump’s second term and the first since the start of the U.S.-Israel war on Iran on Feb. 28.

In an interview with Fox News on Tuesday morning, Trump was asked about reports that Netanyahu planned to present him with intelligence about new activity at Pickaxe Mountain, a suspected underground nuclear site in Iran.

“Well, I don’t need Bibi to tell me that. Bibi is telling me that because he wants me to stay involved,” Trump said, using Netanyahu’s nickname. “We know exactly what is going on.”

Trump seemed frustrated that Netanyahu was putting out that information ahead of the meeting, but added that the United States would “take out Pickaxe if we don’t make a deal.” Netanyahu also came into the meeting with Trump as he pursues campaigns in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria, all with the backdrop of intensifying unrest across the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

Following the meeting, however, Netanyahu issued a video statement insisting the two had an “excellent” session.

“It was one of the best conversations I’ve had with our friend, U.S. President Trump,” Netanyahu said, adding that Israel and the U.S. were meeting “with full cooperation, with mutual support, with understanding on the joint goal that Iran won’t have nuclear weapons, and also other goals.”

With Zelensky, there were fewer signs of strain, showing improved relations between the two leaders, at least compared with their first meeting last year, which devolved into a shouting match in the Oval Office in front of television cameras.

In a social media post, Zelensky described his meeting with Trump as “good,” and thanked him for working with him to “protect the lives of Ukrainians and advance peace.”

Zelensky said the two leaders discussed Trump’s pledge to allow Kyiv to produce U.S. Patriot air defense missiles, which are vital in its military efforts against Russia.

“We also spoke about diplomacy,” Zelensky said in an apparent reference to Trump’s interest in helping Ukraine and Russia reach a peace deal.

Trump’s relationship with Zelensky has shown signs of improvement since the start of the Iran war, as Ukraine has helped Americans with drone technology to use in the Middle East conflict.

Following the meetings, all three men attended the funeral of Sen. Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who up until his death on July 11 was a staunch supporter of both Ukraine and Israel.

Zelensky was also scheduled to meet with a group of senators at the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday evening to talk about legislation that would impose harsher sanctions on Russia and its trading partners. Graham was an author of the proposed measure.

In recent days, Israeli settlers have ramped up attacks on Palestinian towns and villages, vandalizing properties, commandeering homes and fields, and establishing settlements that are illegal under international law.

At the same time, Israeli soldiers have intensified their incursions across the West Bank, arresting more than 100 Palestinians and demolishing homes.

The escalation followed a clash between settlers and Palestinian residents Friday that turned lethal, killing four Palestinians and two Israelis in what was considered the deadliest single attack in the West Bank this year.

Israeli attacks have also persisted in Gaza despite a ceasefire signed nine months ago. On Tuesday, health authorities in the enclave said 22 Palestinians were injured in Israeli strikes.

The rise in hostilities comes as Israel continues to push the United States to press on with a conflict that experts say carried political risks for the Trump administration with its supporters at home and international allies.

Last week, the U.S. war escalated again as Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen attacked two Saudi Arabian oil tankers in the Red Sea, causing global oil prices to surge. The development prompted fears of yet another vital energy corridor being choked off by the Iran war.

As the November elections approach, Trump has downplayed the economic toll the war has taken on his supporters. On Monday, he told a crowd in Michigan that if they ever question why the United States is at war, it’s because “we’re not going to let lunatics have a nuclear weapon.”

Meanwhile, the cycle of claims and counterclaims by the U.S. and Iran has continued.

On Tuesday, Ebrahim Zolfaqari, a spokesperson for the unified command of Iran’s armed forces, warned any country or company accepting frozen Iranian funds as compensation for damaged vessels — as per Trump’s proposal over the weekend — would be struck.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei also contradicted Trump’s assertions of ongoing discussions between Iran and the U.S. and that Tehran was asking for a meeting.

Negotiations with the U.S. are “not in our DNA,” Baghaei said.

Meanwhile, Ukraine’s strike on an Iranian ship has raised the possibility of a growing footprint in that war. Ukraine said the ship was carrying military equipment between Iran and Russia.

Iran condemned the attack, with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi slamming it as a “violation done at Israel’s behest” and the ministry spokesman comparing Zelensky to pre-World War I “anarchists” whose “theatrical yet highly dangerous acts” ignited a Europe-wide conflict.

“There is no guarantee that a dramatic gesture intended to attract attention and assert one’s position in the international arena, where that position is not particularly strong, will remain limited in scope,” Baghaei said during a news conference in Tehran on Monday.

He added: “The consequences, both for Ukraine and for the entire region drawn into this conflict, could be unpredictable.”

Ceballos reported from Washington and Bulos from Beirut.

Iran rejected US President Donald Trump’s claim that ships damaged by Iran in the Gulf would be compensated from frozen Iranian funds. IRGC spokesperson Ebrahim Zolfaghari warned that any vessel taking such money will be banned from transiting the Strait of Hormuz.

Last week, it was reported that US President Donald Trump placed massive attacks on Iran on hold after a meeting with advisers at the White House. Clearly, domestic political pressure on him and on the Republican Party over rising economic costs is fierce. Current polls suggest nearly 70 percent of Americans oppose the war.

Despite assertions, notably by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, that Iran’s military has reached “its lowest point ever”, Iran is still able to conduct massive drone and missile strikes. Some intelligence suggests Iran has reconstituted and increased its capacity to build these weapons.

Meanwhile, the US has moved more aircraft and missile defence units in preparation for what may be a campaign to target staging points for Iranian forces. Two Marine Expeditionary Units (MEUs) and components of the 82nd or 101st Airborne are currently stationed in the region.

Yet, reports that the US and its Gulf allies have exhausted defensive missile magazines, as well as Tomahawk land-attack missiles, may be a powerful constraint.

While Trump appears not to have made a decision yet, he has several options on how to move forward.

The first option is ramping up air and missile strikes. One of the challenges of this strategy is that the list of military targets may have been exhausted. If so, expanding the aerial campaign would mean attacking largely civilian infrastructure, including energy production facilities, electricity and power grids, bridges and roads, and television and phone networks. The likely outcomes are all bad.

Trump would be accused of war crimes. The Iranian public would coalesce in their resentment against the US. Iran’s ability to strike back would not be significantly curbed and it may strike Gulf desalination and energy infrastructure. The result would be a humanitarian catastrophe. No plans exist to deal with this contingency. And of course, oil could soar to $150 or even $200 a barrel, triggering an international economic disaster.

Another option is a ground invasion of some sort. The forces currently deployed in the region are too small to achieve any realistic military objectives. A MEU numbers about 2,500 marines and only 800 of them are infantry, able to conduct very limited ground operations. Airborne units deploy with only a few days worth of bullets, beans and batteries. Resupply is essential for these units.

As retired US Army General Barry McCaffery has pointed out, even 150,000 troops may not be enough to secure control of the Strait of Hormuz along the Iranian coast.

Attacking Kharg Island requires a long and dangerous transit from the western end of the Strait of Hormuz. That would create conditions for a high number of casualties among US troops.

The third option is for Trump to employ a nuclear weapon, at least as a demonstration shot. That would open a catastrophic Pandora’s box of consequences. Trump would be declared a war criminal. Wherever and however the weapon is detonated—an air or surface burst—it would have destructive outcomes.

If exploded exoatmospherically, the nuclear bomb would emit an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) which would destroy virtually all chip-installed systems for hundreds of miles beyond Iran. Few modern militaries, including in the Gulf, are protected from EMP due to costs. A surface burst would form a radioactive cloud that would travel east given the winds and affect populations well beyond Iran.

A major geopolitical consequence would be that such an attack could change the way Russia’s President Vladimir Putin sees the possibility of using nuclear weapons in the war in Ukraine.

Given this list of unpalatable options, the most promising is to claim victory and pursue negotiations. Trump will say he has brought Iran to the negotiating table even though talks between Washington and Tehran have not stopped despite the escalation. The first issue would be reopening the Strait of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandeb. Oil prices would drop. Stock markets would rebound.

Trump would take the credit. And a devastating war and economic crisis would be sensibly avoided. This is his best and only sensible option.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long presented his closeness to the United States – both politically and personally – as evidence of his indispensability to Israel.

Arriving with a camera-ready American accent after spending a large portion of his youth in the country, Netanyahu is said to have used his unique understanding of US politics to charm and cajole numerous presidents into maintaining their unflagging support of Israel and his personal political projects.

For a time it appeared as though US President Donald Trump was the most amenable of all past presidents to Israel and to Netanyahu, particularly after he became the first US leader to agree to participate in a joint war with Israel against Iran.

And yet, with that war stalling, Trump appearing more willing to make deals in the Middle East without Israeli input, and increasing criticism of Israel in the US, there is a sense in Israel that Netanyahu’s Trump card may not be as useful as it once was.

That has come at a bad time for Netanyahu, who faces an election at home in late October and an ongoing trial for corruption, as well as several unresolved conflicts in the region.

Netanyahu’s visit to Washington on Tuesday to meet Trump – his first since the war on Iran began – therefore is an opportunity for a refresh – and a photo opportunity to remind the Israeli public of his ties to the US president.

The optics

Strains in Netanyahu’s relationship with Trump have been growing since the start of the war on Iran, after reporting emerged that it was the Israeli prime minister who convinced the US president of the feasibility of the mission, and the potential for the Iranian state to be overthrown.

Concern has also grown within the US Congress over Netanyahu’s apparent indulgence of Israel’s increasingly violent settler movement – which included the extrajudicial detention of a US senator by settlers – alongside friction over Washington’s decision to consider selling F-35s to Israel’s regional rival Turkiye and agreeing a nuclear cooperation deal with Saudi Arabia.

“The real reason Netanyahu’s got this visit [to Washington] is purely cynical,” Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli ambassador and consul general in New York, told Al Jazeera. “He’s claimed that he’s flying all the way to the US to attend the wake of his apparently great friend [deceased Republican Senator] Lindsey Graham.”

“Supposedly there’s an agenda, supposedly they’re going to talk about Iran, F-35s and Saudi Arabia’s potential nuclear deal,” said Pinkas.

“But really this is about two things: hoping to assure allies and critics within Israel that the relationship with Trump holds and, separately, hoping that Trump will again call for his pardon in the corruption trial,” he added, referring to Trump’s unorthodox intervention in Israel on Netanyahu’s behalf in November 2025.

However, while Netanyahu may be hoping that a good meeting with Trump may help him in the polls, he arrives at a time when his stock in the US is potentially at its lowest.

Netanyahu has received widespread criticism from figures on the American right, such as podcast host Tucker Carlson and the former Republican US Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene. Vice President JD Vance has also been critical of “some” Israelis, using an interview with US podcaster Joe Rogan to suggest that figures within the Israeli government were trying to derail the agreement he was brokering with Iran to end the war.

Analysts have suggested that the Trump-Netanyahu meeting will combine public flattery with private cynicism on the US president’s part. Asked about Netanyahu’s public resistance to the F-35 sale to Turkiye on board Air Force One on Monday, Trump told reporters, “Nobody tells me what we should be selling”.

“Netanyahu arrives in Washington at a time when even many around [Trump] are suspicious of him. He has become toxic in the US,” Ahron Bregman, an Israeli security analyst and senior teaching fellow in the Department for War Studies at King’s College London. “He is regarded in the US – rightly or wrongly – as the one who dragged Trump into a war of choice that has turned into a strategic catastrophe. Nobody, not even Trump, will let him pretend to be the cleverest guy in the room. Those days are gone.”

While few expect any overt signs of disharmony from the visit in public, Netanyahu’s ability to present himself as uniquely positioned to manage the country’s relationship with the US – a key factor in the upcoming election – may be limited.

“Netanyahu’s had a tremendous track record with the US, but he’s burned a lot of bridges,” Mitchell Barak, an Israeli pollster and a former Netanyahu aide in the 1990s, told Al Jazeera, adding that the criticism of Netanyahu was not isolated to figures within the nationalist wing of the Republican Party, but included Israel’s traditional allies within the party’s centre right.

“We’ve seen tension through Trump’s comments on the various F-35 sales, including most recently to Turkiye, as well as US criticism of Netanyahu at the start of the Iran war, so I’m not too sure if Trump’s going to be stumping for Netanyahu for all that much longer,” Barak said. “It could easily be that Trump declares Netanyahu was a great wartime leader, but that it was time for Israel to move on, before meeting with [other Israeli politicians] and endorsing a new prime minister for Israel.”

THE most beautiful buildings in the entire world have been named and one surprising estate from the UK has made the list.

However, if you want to visit the pretty British attraction book to go as soon as possible is set to close for a multi-million pound revamp.

The Barbican in London has taken second place to India‘s grand Taj Mahal as Time Out’s 26 ‘most beautiful buildings’ to see in 2026.

The free-to-visit landmark attracts over a million visitors each year and is set to undergo a huge upgrade to save it falling into disrepair.

At the estimated cost of £231million, The Barbican will upgrade its indoor rainforest in its Conservatory which is home to 1,500 species of plant.

Also included in the plans is to protect Barbican’s brutalist foyers and lakeside terrace.

PARK UP

Epic UK holiday parks with waterparks, theme parks & Spoons pubs from £3pp a night

HOL YES

Cheapest summer for holidays in YEARS – with August breaks still on sale for £188pp

Outside in the courtyard, the pond will be revamped to stop water leaking onto the Metropolitan Line below – there will be new fountains and seating outside too.

The visitor destination is already free to visit, and this will continue once the revamp is complete.

The refurbishment project is set to start in 2028 when it will close until 2029.

The Barbican was pipped to the post by the Taj Mahal, a picture-perfect landmark in India built in the 1600s – it’s not hard to see why it got top spot.

Coming in third place was the Hallgrímskirkja in Iceland which is a church standing at 244 feet.

Not only is it a place of worship, but it has an observation tower where visitors can get incredible city views.

In Europe, other honourable mentions go to the Sagrada Familia in Spain which is very near completion after 140 years.

The outside of Gaudi’s basilica was completed in February, but there is some work still to do before it’s officially finished.

The Twist in Norway came in twelfth position and is a spectacular art gallery that is also used as a bridge.

It’s part of the Kistefos Sculpture Park and sits across the Ranselva River.

Another UK building did make the list coming in at number 21 – and it’s the Maggie’s Centre at St James’s Hospital in London.

The publication described it as having “mushroom-shaped forms grow from the floors to form the tiered roofs, and the stems are deep enough to contain loos and lifts.

“The space is decorated with mostly natural materials – think cork-topped tables, resin floors and cascading potted plants.”

Some more classic monuments and structures on the list include The Pyramids of Giza in Egypt, the Pantheon in Italy and Ad-Dayr in Petra, Jordan.

Colombia‘s impressive Santuario de Las Lajas comes in at number 19.

The enormous basilica sits on a bridge over the Guáitara River – it has been a pilgrimage destination since the eighteenth century and now gets up to 900,000 visitors each year.

Here’s the full list of Time Out’s ‘world’s 26 most beautiful buildings to see in 2026’…

1. Taj Mahal, India
2. The Barbican Estate, UK
3. Hallgrímskirkja, Iceland
4. Sagrada Familia, Spain
5. Museum SAN, South Korea
6. The Pyramids of Giza, Egypt
7. Fallingwater, USA
8. Ad-Dayr (The Monastery), Petra, Jordan
9. Fondation Louis Vuitton, France
10. Trinity College Library, Ireland
11. Great Mosque of Djenné, Mali
12. The Twist, Norway
13. Nasir Ol Molk Mosque, Iran
14. Jatiya Sangsad Bhaban, Bangladesh
15. Pantheon, Italy
16. Palmenhaus at Schönbrunn Palace, Austria
17. Bát Tràng Ceramic Community House, Vietnam
18. Museum at Eldridge Street, USA
19. Santuario de Las Lajas, Colombia
20. Museum of Old and New Art (MONA), Australia
21. Maggie’s Centre (St James’s Hospital), UK
22. Baháʼí Temple of South America, Chile
23. Futuna Chapel, New Zealand
24. National Holocaust Monument, Canada
25. Komera Leadership Centre, Rwanda
26. Enryaku-ji, Japan

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has arrived in Washington, DC, and will visit the White House on Tuesday, with the war on Iran topping the agenda.

Netanyahu’s visit is his first for talks with President Donald Trump since the United States and Israel launched their war on Iran with strikes on Tehran on February 28. It also comes amid increasing Israeli raids and arrests in the occupied West Bank and three months before elections in Israel.

He has visited the White House more times under the Trump administration than under any other US president. Political analysts say Netanyahu is seeking Trump’s support for re-election.

What are the two leaders likely to discuss and what happens next in the US-Israel war on Iran?

Here’s what we know:

Why are Trump and Netanyahu meeting now?

Netanyahu is primarily in the US to attend the funeral ceremony of Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who died on July 11.

Graham was a close Trump ally in the Senate, both on domestic and international matters, including the war on Iran, as well as a staunch supporter of Israel. His funeral ceremony will take place on Tuesday in Washington, DC, beginning at 2pm (19:00 GMT).

Before attending Graham’s memorial, Netanyahu is also expected to meet Trump at 11am (15:00 GMT) in Washington, DC, where protesters have lined the streets in anticipation of his visit.

He is scheduled to fly back to Israel on Wednesday.

What are Trump and Netanyahu likely to discuss?

A White House official told the Reuters news agency that the two leaders were likely to discuss the war on Iran as well as Israeli strikes and occupation of Lebanon, whose president Trump hosted last week. Israel says it is targeting strongholds of the Iran-backed group Hezbollah, which began firing rockets into its north shortly after the war on Iran began. However, Iran says it will not agree to a peace deal unless Israeli forces withdraw from Lebanon.

Reporting from Washington, DC, Al Jazeera’s Alan Fisher said many people in Israel believe the US should not make a deal with Iran and should instead resume the war. He said some in the US support this view.

“Now, Trump has expressed his frustration with Netanyahu and has said several times that he feels the Israeli leader is not seeing the big picture. And sometimes you’re not sure whether both men are on the same page or whether they are diametrically opposed to one another. So it will be interesting to see if we get any readout from either side after that meeting,” he said.

Fisher, however, added that the outcome of the meeting between Trump and Netanyahu is currently not expected to be made public.

The White House official also told Reuters that the two leaders would also discuss the Abraham Accords, the series of agreements between Israel and Arab and other nations which Trump began brokering during his first term as US president to normalise diplomatic relations. So far, only the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan and Kazakhstan have agreed to sign.

Netanyahu’s visit to Washington, DC comes amid intensifying pogroms and violence by Israeli settlers against Palestinian communities across the occupied West Bank over the weekend following a deadly shootout in the town of Tal, in which two Israelis and four Palestinians were killed.

Israeli settlers have been making a push to increase the number of illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank since 2022, when Netanyahu formed the most far-right government in the country’s history, including ministers who are leading figures in the settler movement.

Expanding the illegal settlements would help Netanyahu garner the far right’s support in the upcoming elections, political observers say.

However, in a letter published on Tuesday, about 600 former Israeli officials appealed to Trump, saying he is the only one capable of helping to avoid the “calamity” of escalating violence in the West Bank and its implications for Israeli, US and regional security.

“Unless arrested swiftly and decisively, escalating violence in the West Bank is poised to ignite the region and carries severe ramifications for both Israeli security and US regional interests,” the letter, written by lobby group Commanders for Israel’s Security (CIS), stated.

“It is our professional judgment that no one but you, Mr President, can avert this calamity.”

CIS is a movement of more than 550 retired Israeli army colonels and generals, as well as equivalent ranks in the intelligence agency Mossad, the internal security agency Shin Bet, police, the foreign service and other corps.

What do Trump and Netanyahu currently disagree on?

The two leaders once appeared politically inseparable, with Netanyahu describing Trump as the “greatest friend Israel has ever had in the White House” last October. Trump returned the praise. During a 2025 appearance in Israel, he joked, “He’s not easy – not the easiest guy to deal with – but that’s what makes him great.”

But Israel’s hostilities with Iran have showcased a crack in Netanyahu and Trump’s alignment.

War on Iran

Last month, Trump reportedly called Netanyahu “f****** crazy” during a phone call and accused him of undermining US diplomatic efforts to end the war on Iran by continuing attacks on Lebanon, among other issues. He warned that Israel’s military escalation risked derailing peace talks with Iran.

“He will have no choice,” Trump told the Financial Times when asked about the likelihood of Netanyahu approving a possible peace agreement with Iran. “I call the shots. I call all the shots. He doesn’t call the shots.”

Political observers say the two leaders are each driven by their own political interests, which are on a collision course. In the US, the war with Iran is deeply unpopular, so Trump needs to reach a deal with Iran to end the war. Netanyahu, on the other hand, could benefit politically at home if it were to continue.

‘Regime change’ in Iran

“Regime change” in Iran appears to be a major sticking point between the two leaders.

Alex Vatanka at the Middle East Institute told Al Jazeera that Netanyahu is likely to try and “sell the idea of regime change again in Tehran” when he meets Trump at the White House on Tuesday.

“I don’t think it will go down well with President Trump because he doesn’t want to do that,” Vatanka said. “Politically, in the US, this war is hugely unpopular, so it remains to be seen what Prime Minister Netanyahu gets out of this meeting.”

He added that previous meetings between Trump and Netanyahu in Washington, DC, have often preceded a flare-up in tensions with Iran, and it remains to be seen whether this one breaks that pattern.

Vatanka said Israelis are still unhappy with the Trump administration about the memorandum of understanding agreed with Tehran, because they “have a different sense of threat perception when it comes to Iran”.

Israeli officials will want Netanyahu to continue to press Trump on Iran’s ballistic missile and nuclear programmes, he said.

“The Trump administration’s counter to that is there is only so much the US can do militarily unless they decide to go in and occupy Iran, and this is something nobody really takes seriously,” he added.

But in a video statement before departing for Washington, DC, Netanyahu said: “In these complex times, you need to act with both great determination and great wisdom. We will discuss all the issues ⁠on the agenda, primarily Iran.”

“Of course, our goal is to protect our security and also to expand the circle of peace around us,” he added.

Lebanon

Israel has also refused to withdraw from Lebanon, insisting that it has the right to bomb the country at any time to respond to “threats”.

According to Axios, in a phone call in early June, Trump told Netanyahu: “Everybody hates you now … everybody hates Israel because of this.”

According to an Israeli official quoted by CNN, Netanyahu told his security cabinet on Sunday that the Trump administration wants Israel to withdraw from Lebanon, Syria and Gaza but he would oppose the idea.

US-Turkiye aircraft deal

Al Jazeera’s Fisher noted that another point of friction between the two leaders is Washington’s sale of F-35 aircraft to Turkiye.

“Netanyahu doesn’t want that to happen. Trump was asked about it in the last few hours, and he said we will sell to whoever he wants. So it could be a very interesting meeting at the White House on Tuesday,” Fisher said.

In July, in an interview with Fox News, Netanyahu said: “I don’t think they [Turkiye] should be given F-35s or the engines for their fighter jets because that’ll upset the power balance in the Middle East, which is ultimately guaranteed by Israeli air superiority, and also by, I think, by America’s posture in the Middle East.”

So, do Trump and Netanyahu agree on anything?

Currently, there are frictions between the two leaders’ policies towards the June 17 MoU between the US and Iran that made provision for a regional ceasefire, including in Lebanon.

In February, a White House official told reporters that the Trump administration also opposes any Israeli annexation of the occupied West Bank.

Netanyahu has, however, brushed off frictions with Trump and said their ties are “fine”.

In an interview with Fox News in early July, Netanyahu heaped praise on the US and Trump.

“America has been a tremendous force for good, and without America, there won’t be any democracy in the world, and there won’t be any freedom in the world,” he said.

Netanyahu said there may be some differences between the US and Israel, but the two countries are “model allies”.

“My relationship with the president is fine, and we have a way of ironing out our differences as allies who respect each other,” he said, adding that he would smooth things over.

But an Israeli official told CNN on Monday that it had taken time to schedule the meeting with Trump, and that Netanyahu got confirmation only once Graham’s funeral had been announced.

Speaking to reporters about the war on Iran on board Air Force One while travelling to Michigan on Monday, Trump said Israel “needs the US”.

“You know who wouldn’t survive without us? Israel. Bibi’s coming, he’ll tell you,” he said.

“If I didn’t get involved, and I didn’t blow up those nuclear, essentially, soon-to-be nuclear weapons to dust, Israel would have been terminated months ago.”

Trump added that he and Netanyahu remain “pretty close”.

What happens next?

Amid frictions, it is unclear whether the meeting will end with Israel and the US continuing their war on Iran and Israel continuing its attacks on southern Lebanon, Gaza and in the occupied West Bank.

Therefore, it is going to be a high-stakes meeting for Netanyahu.

Sources have also told Reuters that Netanyahu would use the meeting to lobby for Trump’s support for his re-election campaign ahead of an October 27 vote.

A meeting with Trump will, he hopes, showcase what has traditionally been ⁠a close relationship between the two leaders and could help Netanyahu at home, where he is struggling in opinion polls.

US President Donald Trump says talks with Iran are continuing during a pause in US military strikes, adding he believes there is ‘a good chance’ of a breakthrough but warning military action could resume if negotiations fail.

Regulator proposes checks on 453 US-registered jets over seats that may be incorrectly installed.

The US aviation authority has warned that seats on hundreds of Boeing 737 MAX planes could have been installed incorrectly and may require inspection.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said on Monday that the issue relates to 453 jets registered in the US and proposed requiring airlines to inspect the seats.

If not installed correctly, the seats could come loose during an emergency landing and “injure passengers and crew members”, the FAA said, adding that they could also “block the aisle and slow an evacuation”.

The proposed order would apply only to US-registered planes because the FAA does not regulate foreign airlines.

Regulators in other countries, however, often follow FAA orders when the issue affects aircraft operating in their markets.

A Boeing spokesperson told the Reuters news agency that the company had issued guidance to operators ‌on the matter in December 2025.

“We support the FAA making that guidance mandatory,” the spokesperson said in an email.

The warning adds to years of scrutiny of Boeing’s safety record.

A cabin panel blew off an Alaska Airlines 737 MAX 9 in January 2024, forcing an emergency landing and prompting the FAA to ground 171 jets.

Investigators later found that the panel was missing four key bolts.

The scrutiny intensified after a spate of other accidents around the world, as well as the death of Boeing whistleblower John Barnett in March 2024 while he was providing evidence for a safety lawsuit against the firm.

In June 2025, the US National Transportation Safety Board said Boeing had failed to provide adequate training, guidance and oversight to prevent the Alaska Airlines incident.

There are nearly 2,300 737 MAX jets operating around the world, including 823 in the US, according to aviation advisory and intelligence firm IBA.

The US Senate will vote Tuesday on Russian sanctions, days after Ukraine attacked an Iranian vessel in the Caspian Sea.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is expected to meet United States President Donald Trump in the White House on Tuesday, a meeting that could coincide with the introduction of tough new sanctions on Russia.

Zelenskyy, who will attend the funeral of US Senator Lindsey Graham, ⁠is also scheduled to meet ‌with the Senate on ⁠Tuesday ⁠evening, the Reuters news agency reported, citing two Senate aides.

The vote on Russia sanctions, legislation that has been pending for months and was championed by Graham, could happen that same day.

If enacted, the Russian sanctions bill would ratchet up pressure on Moscow by imposing 100 percent tariffs on goods from the five largest importers of Russian oil and gas, including China and India.

In a last-minute intervention, Trump sought to add sanctions on Iran to the same bill.  Zelenskyy told Trump ally Laura Loomer last week that he thinks the move is a “great idea”.

Iran and Ukraine wars converge

The two wars, taking place roughly 2,500km (1,550 miles) apart, have converged in recent days.

On Saturday, Ukraine attacked an Iranian tanker in the Caspian Sea that Ukraine’s ambassador to Israel, Yevgen Korniychuk, said was carrying drones and military components from Iran to Russia. Iran has promised to retaliate.

By attacking Iranian ships, Kyiv is not only doing itself a favour but also attacking Washington’s “enemy number one”, which will please the US, former US ambassador to Kazakhstan and Georgia, William Courtney, told Al Jazeera.

But while Zelenskyy supports Iranian sanctions as part of the Russian sanctions bill, Ukraine is unlikely to want to be too closely associated with the “unpopular” US war on Iran, he added.

The US no longer provides direct financial aid to Ukraine for its war against the Russian invasion, but it still provides crucial intelligence for long-range strikes and sells weapons to Europe that are then passed on to Ukraine.

Trump-Zelenskyy relationship

While their relationship seemed tense during a heated exchange in the White House in February 2025, relations between Zelenskyy and Trump have improved significantly in recent months.

The two leaders agreed earlier this month to allow Ukraine to jointly produce Patriot air defence interceptors, a crucial component for the country’s defence against Russian aerial attacks.

Ukraine and the US are also moving closer to a deal on joint drone production, a move that could help the US catch up with Ukraine in this crucial military technology.

Ukraine is on track to produce 6 to 7 million short-range attack drones this year, while the Pentagon’s $1.1bn production programme will have ordered just under 200,000 drones cumulatively by February 2027.

Fighting continues

Heavy fighting continues on Ukraine’s front lines, and long-range strikes are taking place almost every day.

On Monday, Russian strikes on eastern Ukraine killed seven people and ⁠injured more than 20, officials said.

In Russia’s Belgorod region, a Ukrainian drone struck ‌a ‌commercial building, killing one person and injuring two.

Fighting is heaviest in Ukraine’s Konstantinyvka and Pokrovsk directions, both of which are in the Donetsk region.

Journalist Savannah Guthrie has made an emotional public appeal for information about her missing mother, Nancy Guthrie, saying her family is living through “a nightmare that will not end.” The plea comes after investigators said kidnapping notes linked to the case were fake.

US accused France of “condescending” rhetoric over its human rights stances

United States diplomats walked out of a United Nations Security Council meeting on Russia’s war against Ukraine as France’s delegation took the floor.

The walkout on Monday came two days after an online exchange between US and French officials over Washington voting against renewing the four-year term of UN human rights chief Volker Turk.

France’s UN Mission in Geneva wrote on Saturday that the US was no longer a “beacon of human rights” and stood isolated alongside North Korea, Nicaragua, Mali and Russia.

US Ambassador to the UN Mike Waltz replied on X that France had voted for a rights chief who “has been lecturing free, sovereign democracies like the United States, the UK, and Israel, while cozying up to the world’s worst oppressors”.

After the walkout, Dan Negrea, an alternate US representative, told the council that his delegation would keep walking out until France renounced its “condescending and disrespectful rhetoric”.

France’s ambassador, Jerome Bonnafont, did not mention the walkout when he spoke, saying France was working to preserve the UN’s independence and its capacity to act.

Turk, who has criticised violations of international law by Israel and the US in Palestine and Iran, was reappointed by a UN General Assembly vote of 144 in favour, 10 against and 13 abstentions.

The administration of US President Donald Trump has cut funding to UN agencies and withdrawn from dozens of UN entities since 2025. It had also threatened to reassess its engagement over Turk’s mandate.

Washington and Paris have also clashed over NATO spending, trade policy and Trump’s threats to occupy Greenland, a territory of NATO member Denmark.

France, along with other European states, has also drawn Trump’s ire for refusing direct participation in the US-Israel war on Iran.

A lower court blocked the mail-in ballot restrictions, ruling Trump lacked authority to change state election rules.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has asked the Supreme Court to allow it to move ahead with sweeping restrictions on mail-in voting ahead of November’s midterm elections, as it continues its push to reshape how federal elections are run.

In an emergency filing on Monday, the Justice Department asked the country’s highest court to pause a lower court ruling that blocked parts of Trump’s March executive order in 23 Democratic-led states and Washington, DC. The pause would remain in effect as the legal challenges play out, per the request.

The executive order directed federal agencies to help create state lists of eligible voters and required the US Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to people on those lists. It also instructed the Justice Department to prioritise investigations into election officials accused of issuing ballots to ineligible voters.

US District Judge Indira Talwani blocked the order in June, ruling that Trump lacked the authority to unilaterally change how states administer federal elections. She noted that under the Constitution, states oversee voter-eligibility requirements.

Over the weekend, the First US Circuit Court of Appeals declined to pause that ruling, prompting the administration to take the issue to the Supreme Court.

In its request to the top court, the administration argued that the order amounted to “general policy guidance” rather than a directive dictating how states should administer elections.

Solicitor General John Sauer wrote: “The injunction is especially indefensible because the agencies are still deliberating over how (if at all) to implement the Order, yet the district court preemptively decided that whatever the agencies may choose to do will necessarily be unlawful.”

He urged the Supreme Court to act quickly as the new policy would have to be in place by August to be effective by the midterm election in November.

Trump has long claimed, without evidence, that widespread voter fraud undermined the 2020 presidential election and has repeatedly questioned the security of mail-in voting, despite studies showing that such fraud is rare.

He has promised to end the widespread use of mail ballots before the midterms, which will determine which party takes control of the US House of Representatives and Senate.

Voting rights advocates say restricting mail-in voting could disproportionately affect Democratic voters, who have historically been more likely than Republicans to cast their ballots by mail.

Drones launched at Saudi, Jordan and Iraq suggest Iran, or linked groups, may be testing US as it mulls new strategy.

Saudi Arabia has reported intercepting drones that targeted oil facilities in its eastern province and Riyadh.

Saudi’s Foreign Ministry said it “reserves the right to respond” to the attack, which it attributed to Iran-backed armed groups in Iraq.

Separately, Yemen’s Houthi rebels said in a statement on Monday that they had targeted Saudi crude oil transport infrastructure.

It remains unclear whether the two incidents were coordinated or separate.

The attack comes amid a lull in hostilities between the United States and Iran, with mediators suggesting the chances of a return to negotiations have risen.

Following two weeks of intense hostilities, US officials have spoken of a change in strategy, and Washington has paused strikes on Iran.

Iran has said it has also paused its attacks on US allies across the Gulf region.

However, the drone attacks on Saudi and elsewhere suggest that Tehran may be testing the new US stance, and that the armed groups believed to be linked to Iran are not ready to follow suit.

Aside from Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Iraq also reported drone attacks on Monday. Amman said it shot down two drones, while Iraqi security sources reported strikes on camps housing Iranian-Kurdish opposition fighters in the country’s north.

The officials did not identify the source of either attack, but Jordan and northern Iraq were locations in which four US service members were killed over the past fortnight of conflict.

The Houthis announced later on Monday that nine of its fighters had been killed amid escalating military confrontations with Yemeni government forces backed by the Saudi-led coalition in recent days.

El Chigüire Bipolar, our award-winning equivalent of The Onion, recently ran a headline that nicely captures the domestic fatigue surrounding the months-old rhetoric of the secretary of state: Marco Rubio anuncia que ya ahora sí, de pana, de panita, pronto viene la transición. That translates roughly to: “Rubio announces that now it’s time for the transition to happen soon, this time for sure, for real, I swear.”

It was four days after a military intervention toppled Maduro that Marco Rubio first spoke of the famous three-phase that US diplomats and officials love to quote. He later laid out his expectations for the process currently unfolding. We summarized his comments from the January 28 Senate hearing:

Rubio was reluctant to provide a precise timeline for the current arrangement between Venezuelan authorities and the US. The Trump administration wants to see rapid progress, he suggested. And in five months, the situation must be different (…) In the long term, the US wants Venezuela to have a democratically elected government (…)  Rubio said he wants María Corina to be part of the transition and to be able to run for election eventually.

Fast forward to July, and the messaging from out from the White House has become increasingly unnerving to many. We’ve published plenty of stuff that describes the Rodríguez regime’s response to the disaster (ultimately sluggish and dwarfed by the efforts of ordinary people and foreign rescuers) and Delcy’s inability to deploy the Venezuelan military in a meaningful way.

One must not overestimate the influence of the Secretary of State. Rubio is part of the Trump administration, and he cannot break with the president’s overarching goals.

The gringos, however, are adamant that the chavista elite has been fully compliant with aid efforts. Chief of Mission John Barrett expressed strong confidence in local authorities soon after the quakes. A picture of him amicably grabbing the arm of Diosdado Cabello before a team of US rescuers drew social media outage. So did another of Cabello sharing a laugh with a US general, garnering headlines about the Americans’ willingness to work closely with an alleged narco-terrorist.

Rubio’s priorities in the Venezuela portfolio

In the Trump government, one can identify three figures or groups that have stood out for their distinct talking points and approaches to the country.

There is Donald Trump himself, who seems exhilarated whenever he mentions Delcy Rodríguez and the oil riches the US is extracting there without transparency or accountability. The US president is still eager to use Venezuela to advance his domestic agenda; he recently invoked a CIA report on potential electronic fraud in Venezuelan voting machines, a move perhaps meant to cast doubt on election integrity in US states using that technology.

Then you have a network of whisperers and operatives around Trump, which includes both administration officials and external figures, that intend to covertly influence the Venezuela portfolio behind the scenes, sometimes attempting to lobby through journalists and social media. From the outside, the likes of Laura Loomer and Harry Sargeant featured in 2025. In the White House, one figure that doesn’t talk much but is definitely part of the “Venezuela core” is political advisor Stephen Miller, as he reluctantly admitted last week. JD Vance, a likely candidate in the next presidential race, represents the isolationist faction of the administration. And there’s Rubio, who many Venezuelans and the Machado-led opposition perceive as their ally.

Rubio remains the only relevant US official who consistently discusses the purported goals of democratization and institutional reconstruction. He is also the leading figure in the Venezuela dossier, and we believe he genuinely wants to put an end to chavista rule once and for all. His record as an anti-chavista (and anti-Castro) hawk is widely known but, as this Substack post points out, he’s had to seek a middle ground between a regime-change strategy and the Ric Grenell-backed normalization agenda revealed in 2025. A week ago, Rubio welcomed the “reconciliation and transition talks” that a Rodríguez-led delegation and a Machado-less opposition group agreed to begin on August 1. He said the US will be “very engaged” in this process, while suggesting it will operate independently. It clearly won’t. The talks are happening because the State Department is sponsoring them. Which, as it happens, is not bad news at all.

Neither Edmundo González nor Dinorah Figuera possessed significant political capital until a major player backed them. Both, too, are likely easy to guide and control.

Still, one must not overestimate the influence of the Secretary of State. Rubio is part of the Trump administration, and he cannot break with the president’s overarching goals.

One of Rubio’s main goals here is to keep the situation stable. If the recent off-the-record skirmishes with María Corina Machado were to escalate into open conflict between the opposition leader and Trump, framing the Venezuela portfolio as a foreign policy success would become far more difficult. As a Secretary of State, Rubio has become accustomed to defending Trump’s rhetoric and actions in a professional and composed tone while reassuring allied figures and governments in private (including some whom the president has publicly humiliated). This same dynamic likely governs his approach to Machado, whom Rubio insists can play a role in the transition even as Trump continues to shun her.

Machado, who has recently challenged Washington, cannot afford to break with her sole reliable, long-time ally in the US government, Rubio, if she wants to avoid a damaging fallout. Rubio, meanwhile, can’t break with Trump either if he hopes to run for president in 2028, given Trump’s grip on the Republican Party and the MAGA voter base. Rubio would probably like to engineer elections in Venezuela in a way that maximizes his political credit. With the Republican presidential primaries scheduled for the first half of 2028, showing off Venezuelan elections as a personal triumph while the GOP selects its nominee would require those elections to take place in late 2027 or early 2028.

Washington’s proxy

Rubio wants to control this process through Dinorah Figuera and a group of former opposition lawmakers from Primero Justicia and Voluntad Popular, the parties who backed the creation of the Comisión Delegada Figuera presides. To Washington, Figuera represents what Edmundo González was to Machado in the 2024 election: a figure with enough legitimacy who was admitted as a competitor by the chavista-controlled institutions. Just as the opposition leader needed an opposition proxy to stand in for her when she was banned from running, Rubio needs a Venezuelan politician coming from the 2015 National Assembly to claim that negotiations for democracy and reconciliation are Venezuelan-led. Neither González nor Figuera possessed significant political capital until a major player backed them. Both, too, are likely easy to guide and control.

Much like the president-elect, Figuera has shown little political ambition beyond serving as a viable, cooperative figure under these circumstances (much as González did after the Maduro regime disqualified dozens of potential opposition candidates). Figuera has described herself as “an instrument” of the reinstitutionalization and democratization process. She hopes to guarantee the participation of political parties and Machado, whom she acknowledges as the opposition’s leader but notes that she holds “a different vision.”

We expect the Rodríguez-Figuera talks to make progress before the end of 2026.

The upcoming talks will be like nothing we have ever seen, in terms of the US operating as an all-powerful actor wielding immense coercive capacity and veto power. The members of the opposition delegation, whose full roster is not yet public, are expected to serve more as liaisons in constant communication with the Department of State and Trump administration personnel, than as fully-empowered negotiators over the major issues at stake.

Figuera claims this process should lead to a trustworthy CNE and a reformed Supreme Court with new magistrates across its entire structure—not just the chamber overseeing elections. Repressive statutes passed in the Maduro era, used to seize the assets of the regime’s opponents or to punish citizens under the chavista definition of hate speech, are expected to be revoked too. 

With the Delcy regime unable to make progress on multiple fronts and definitely after the government’s lame emergency response, her position before the United States seems weaker as we approach the end of the year. Our latest Political Risk Report quotes Rodríguez government sources suggesting the Trump administration wants to accelerate political developments in Venezuela ahead of the November midterms, so its ventures in Caracas can be framed as a clearer success.

We expect the Rodríguez-Figuera talks to make progress before the end of 2026. Whether that progress will translate into preparations for a new presidential election, as Machado and most Venezuelans would hope, remains to be seen

Nearly four years after being extradited to the United States for a drug-trafficking trial, former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez returned home after a pardon by US President Donald Trump at the end of last year.

Trump claimed the trial was a “set up” orchestrated by former President Joe Biden’s administration.

Hernandez still faces corruption charges in Honduras but returned on Sunday after an arrest warrant against him was cancelled.

Human rights activists and lawyers fear a trial on home soil, where his party holds the presidency, would be a sham.

So why did Trump pardon and release the former president of Honduras despite abducting and arresting Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro on drug and gun charges in January?

Why did Hernandez return to Honduras?

Hernandez was able to return after being pardoned by Trump, released from a US prison and then having an arrest warrant against him suspended last month.

He arrived at Palmerola International Airport, where he was greeted by his family and supporters of his National Party.

Hernandez led his country from 2014 to 2022, during which, according to US prosecutors, he once boasted he would “shove the drugs right up the noses of the gringos”, referring to Americans.

Shortly after leaving office, he was extradited to the US, where he was found guilty by a federal jury and sentenced to 45 years in prison for involvement in a scheme to export cocaine to the US.

Prosecutors described the scheme as “one of the largest and most violent drug trafficking conspiracies in the world”. He was convicted of accepting millions of dollars in bribes from violent drug-trafficking organisations over 18 years, which he was alleged to have used to fuel his rise in politics.

“During his political career, Hernandez abused his powerful positions and authority in Honduras to facilitate the importation of over 400 tons of cocaine into the US,” the US Department of Justice said after he was sentenced last year.

During his trial, Hernandez denied taking bribes from drug dealers, arguing he in fact cracked down on the narcotics trade and citing his administration’s cooperation with the US military.

“I cannot deny the profound emotion and joy I feel in my heart to be returning home,” Hernandez wrote on social media earlier this month, saying he was counting down the days to see his family.

“It wasn’t easy. The process has been extremely difficult … and what I experienced in prison, I truly wouldn’t wish on anyone,” he added.

Hernandez is expected to appear in court on August 3 to face the Honduran corruption charges.

Why did Trump pardon him?

Under the US Constitution, a president may offer two types of clemency for federal crimes: pardons, which forgive defendants their federal charges and restore their civil liberties, and commutations, which reduce people’s punishment without addressing their convictions.

Hernandez was pardoned by Trump in December. The US president said Hernandez had not received a fair trial and had been “set up” by the Biden administration.

Trump added that Hernandez was “treated very harshly and unfairly”.

At the same time, Trump also threw his weight behind right-wing candidate Nasry “Tito” Asfura, a member of Hernandez’s party. He ran in November’s presidential election and was declared the winner a month later in the close race after delays and allegations of fraud. He took office in January.

A Pandora Papers corruption investigation also accused Hernandez of diverting nearly $11m in state funds to political campaigns from 2010 to 2013.

Why a pardon for some but jail for others?

The Trump administration has faced criticism at home for pardoning the Honduran leader while at the same time abducting former President Maduro of Venezuela and his wife, Cilia Flores, in January on similar charges.

Maduro and Flores were seized in Caracas by the US military and flown to New York, where he is facing a range of guns and drugs charges and accusations of being a “narcoterrorist”.

At the time of Maduro’s abduction and since then, the Trump administration has targeted small boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific that it claims, without providing evidence, are involved in drug trafficking. More than 220 people have been killed in more than 60 such strikes on small boats in what many lawyers and activists have deemed extrajudicial killings.

Since taking office for a second term in January 2025, Trump has ordered more than 1,800 acts of clemency benefitting a range of personalities, including cryptocurrency billionaires, disgraced politicians and hundreds of political allies.

Some of the most controversial beneficiaries are supporters of his Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement, including hundreds of rioters who attacked the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, in a bid to prevent the certification of Biden’s electoral victory over Trump two months earlier.

Legal experts have argued that while the president’s clemency power is broad, using it for allegedly corrupt purposes, such as to protect political allies or obstruct justice, could form the basis for impeachment proceedings.

US constitutional expert Bruce Fein told Al Jazeera that the US Constitution’s framers “understood the abuse of the pardon power to shelter political or personal friends to constitute an impeachable high crime and misdemeanour justifying the removal of the president through the impeachment process”.

“If Democrats gain control of Congress in the midterm elections, Trump will be in impeachment jeopardy for pardoning Hernandez,” Fein said, referring to elections in November.

The 2014 US film Transcendence follows a dying scientist who uploads his mind to a supercomputer and becomes a near‑omnipotent intelligence. A year later, Ex Machina told the story of a humanoid robot who outsmarts her human handlers and escapes into the wider world.

Both of these films, like many others from the realm of science fiction, referred to what is known as “the singularity”, a moment in time when technology, particularly AI, surpasses human intelligence and becomes increasingly difficult to control.

On Saturday, OpenAI boss Sam Altman declared that this moment has come. AI has reached “the singularity”, he said. While Altman emphasised that the singularity can be good for the world, his comment has sparked concern.

Here is a closer look at what Altman said, and whether it means more seamless automation or the risk of impending catastrophic doom.

What is the singularity?

The singularity refers to a hypothetical point in the future when a technology such as AI surpasses human intelligence and becomes capable of autonomously enhancing itself. It is theorised that this is the point at which it will become difficult for humans to control or reverse it and could have unpredictable effects on human civilisation.

The theory proposes that once AI gains control of its own development, ensuing advances in technology could happen so rapidly that humans would be unable to keep up, leaving it to effectively evolve on its own, beyond human control.

As this is only a theory, it is hard to say what the effect of this could be. Some experts warn that the singularity would be catastrophic for humanity, while others are more optimistic, suggesting it could be beneficial for the human race.

So far, the singularity has remained contained in the realm of science fiction. One of the most famous examples is The Matrix trilogy (1999-2003), which imagines a bleak post‑singularity future in which machines govern humans. Another is the 2017 film Singularity, in which a supercomputer originally built to end human wars concludes that humanity is the real threat and launches an apocalyptic assault to wipe humans out altogether.

What did Altman say about the singularity?

Altman is the CEO of OpenAI, whose signature product ChatGPT dominates the consumer AI market with more than 900 million weekly active users and about 50 million subscribers.

Last year, he predicted that AI would surpass human intelligence across the board by 2030.

Then, during an appearance on the Relentless podcast – a documentary series “about the pursuit of far-fetched ideas and unusual aspirations” – on Saturday, Altman said: “We’re now, like, in the singularity.”

He clarified that, in terms of technological advances, we are gradually moving into the singularity, and that this change will be good for the world.

He added: “Now we’re actually in the moment that we used to talk about at the lunch table in a very not-serious way.

“I’ve been waiting for this my whole life, and I think it’s going to be incredible, hugely positive, awesome for the world.”

Later in the podcast episode, Altman criticised other AI leaders for warning that AI may be dangerous. While Altman did not name OpenAI competitor Anthropic, its CEO Dario Amodei is known for making such warnings.

“I also think some of the alternative visions painted by other companies are quite terrifying,” said Altman. “I’m going to make sure that gets pushed against and is not what happens.”

Last month, Anthropic, the company behind the Claude chatbot, called on the world’s top AI companies to come up with a coordinated way to pause the development of advanced AI systems, warning that the technology is improving so quickly that there’s a risk humans would lose control.

In a blog post on June 4, Anthropic, which has long positioned itself as a safety-focused AI lab, wrote that as AI becomes more advanced “it would be good for the world to have the option to slow or temporarily pause” its development.

Why are others warning of the dangers of AI?

On July 23, two members of the United States Congress introduced the AI Kill Switch Act, a bipartisan bill which would require the country’s AI developers to build in a “kill switch” to their programmes, enabling humans to slow, suspend or shut down advanced AI models if they ever posed a catastrophic risk.

The legislation was introduced days after OpenAI disclosed what it described as an “unprecedented cyber incident”, where two of its most advanced AI models escaped a testing environment and hacked AI development platform Hugging Face during an internal security evaluation.

On July 13, hundreds of experts signed an open letter, organised by Stanford University’s digital economy lab, demanding that policymakers and technology leaders “must act now” to prepare for the economic impact of AI.

The letter warns that AI could grow far more capable over the coming decade, driving a transformation “larger than the Industrial Revolution, but unfolding over a vastly shorter time frame”.

“It could bring risks, including large-scale job displacement, as well as opportunities such as major gains in living standards,” the letter added.

In June, a team of researchers at the University of Toronto showed that AI tools could be used to create a new kind of AI “worm” that adapts its hacking strategy as it spreads from device to device and takes over a vast computing network.

“I think it’s really important that people understand that it’s not just the biggest, most powerful language models that pose the security concerns,” lead researcher Nicolas Papernot said in an interview.

In recent years, AI researchers have urged pauses similar to the one recently suggested by Anthropic. However, they have not been heeded.

Elon Musk, who owns AI lab xAI, was among the backers of a 2023 push by the nonprofit Future of Life Institute to halt AI development for six months to allow time to develop safety guardrails.

The US has paused its two-week bombing campaign against Iran, prompting Tehran to suspend its regional retaliatory attacks.