The US House of Representatives has joined the Senate in killing a war powers resolution that would have forced Donald Trump to end his war on Iran. Although the vote was largely symbolic, Al Jazeera’s Patty Culhane says Democrats are using it to get Republicans on the record.
Published On 6 Mar 20266 Mar 2026
Share
New Delhi, India — Dressed in a blue Navy uniform and sleek sunglasses, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in late October, addressed a gathering of the country’s sea warriors.
He listed out the strategic significance of the Indian Ocean — the massive volumes of trade and oil that pass through it. “The Indian Navy is the guardian of the Indian Ocean,” he then said, to loud, proud chants of “Long Live Mother India” from his audience.
Less than five months later, India has been shown up as a “guardian”, unable to protect its own guest.
On Wednesday, the Iranian warship, IRIS Dena, was torpedoed by a US submarine just 44 nautical miles off (81km) southern Sri Lanka, as it was returning home from naval drills hosted by India. During the “Milan” biennial multilateral naval exercise, Indian President Droupadi Murmu had posed with sailors from the Dena.
Yet it took the Indian Navy more than a day after the Iranian warship was struck to respond formally to the attack, which US officials made clear was a sign of how the Donald Trump administration was willing and ready to expand its war against Iran.
“An American submarine sank an Iranian warship that thought it was safe in international waters,” US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said at the Pentagon on Wednesday. “Instead, it was sunk by a torpedo. Quiet death.”
Tehran is furious over the attack on its warship hundreds of miles away from home. And Iran made sure to note that the IRIS Dena warship was “a guest of India’s navy”, returning after completing the exercise it joined upon New Delhi’s invitation.
“The US has perpetrated an atrocity at sea, 2,000 miles [3,218km] away from Iran’s shores,” Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi said, referring to the sinking of the frigate. “Mark my words: The US will come to bitterly regret [the] precedent it has set.”
Now, the IRIS Dena is at the bottom of the Indian Ocean, and more than 80 Iranian sailors, who marched during joint parades and posed for selfies with Indian naval officers during their two-week visit, are dead.
What has also fallen, said retired Indian naval officers and analysts, is India’s self-image as a net security provider in the Indian Ocean. Instead, they said, the US attack on the Dena has exposed the limits of India’s power and influence in its own maritime back yard.
After participating in the naval exercises, IRIS Dena left Visakhapatnam on India’s eastern coast on February 26. It was hit in international waters, just south of Sri Lanka’s territorial waters, in the early hours of March 4, local time.
In response, Sri Lankan Navy rescuers recovered more than 80 bodies and picked up 32 survivors, reportedly including the commander and some senior officers from the warship. More than 100 men are still missing.
In a tweet welcoming the Dena to the naval drills, the Indian Navy’s Eastern Command had posted: “Her arrival … [reflects] long-standing cultural links between the two nations [Iran and India]”.
Vice Admiral Shekhar Sinha, the former vice chief of India’s naval staff, told Al Jazeera that he attended the Iranian parade at the function.
“I met and really liked them, especially their march for sailors travelling thousands of miles,” Sinha said. “It is always sad to see a ship sinking. But in a war, emotions don’t work. There’s nothing ethical in a war.”
Sinha said that the Indian Ocean — central to the strategic and energy security of the nation with the world’s largest population — was thought to be a fairly safe zone earlier. “But that is not the case, as we are learning now,” he told Al Jazeera.
“The unfolding battle [between the US and Israel on the one hand, and Iran on the other] has reached India’s back yard. New Delhi has to be concerned,” Sinha, who served in the Indian Navy for four decades, added. “The liberty we enjoyed in the Indian Ocean has apparently shrunk.”
Only on Thursday evening did the Indian Navy issue any formal statement on the attack — more than 24 hours after the Dena was hit by a torpedo.
The Navy said that it received distress signals from the Iranian ship and had decided on deploying resources to help with rescuing sailors. But by then, it said, the Sri Lankan Navy had already stepped to lead the rescue effort.
Neither New Delhi nor the Navy has criticised — even mildly — the decision by the US to sink the Iranian warship.
Military analysts and former Indian naval officers say India is caught in a classic catch-22: Was India aware of the incoming US attack in the Indian Ocean on an Iranian warship, or was it blindsided by a nuclear-submarine in its backyard?
Admiral Arun Prakash, the former chief of India’s naval staff, told Al Jazeera that if New Delhi was blindsided, “it reflects on the US-India relationship directly.”
“If it is a surprise, then that’s a great concern since we have a so-called strategic partnership with the USA.”
And if India knew about the attacks, it would be seen by many as strategically siding with the US and Israel over their war on Iran.
C Uday Bhaskar, a retired Indian Navy officer and currently the director of the Society for Policy Studies, an independent think tank based in New Delhi, said that the US sinking an Iranian warship in the Indian Ocean muddies the Indian perception of itself as a “net security provider” in the region.
Bhaskar said the incident is a “strategic embarrassment” for India and weakens New Delhi’s credibility in the Indian Ocean, while its moral standing “takes a beating” because of the Indian government’s near-silence.
In the post-colonial world order, India was a leader of the non-alignment movement, the Cold War-era neutrality posture adopted by several developing nations.
India now no longer calls its approach non-alignment, instead referring to it as “strategic autonomy”. But, in reality, it has inched closer to the United States and its allies, most importantly, Israel.
Merely two days before the US and Israel bombed Iran, Modi was in Israel, addressing the Knesset and warmly hugging Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who called his Indian counterpart a brother.
But Iran, under the late Supreme Leader Khamenei, was a friend of India as well, with New Delhi making strategic, business, and humanitarian investments in the country.
However, Modi has not said a word in condolence after Khamenei’s assassination. On Thursday, Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri visited the Iranian embassy in New Delhi to sign a memorial book. Indian governments normally deploy ministers — not bureaucrats or diplomats — for such sombre occasions.
It is against that backdrop that India’s response to the attack on the Dena has come under scrutiny.
Because the frigate was hit when it was in international waters, India had “no formal responsibility”, said Srinath Raghavan, an Indian military historian and strategic analyst.
“But the US Navy’s actions underline both the spreading geography of this war and the sharp limits of India’s ability to manage, let alone control, its fallout,” Raghavan told Al Jazeera.
Diplomatically, India has “objectively positioned itself on the side of the aggressors in this war,” he said, by “acts of commission — visit to Israel on the eve of war — and of omission, with not even [an] official condolence, let alone condemnation, of the assassination of the Iranian head of state.” Modi visited Israel on February 25-26.
Mallikarjun Kharge, the president of India’s opposition Congress party, said the Modi government had recklessly abdicated “India’s strategic and national interests”. And the government’s silence “demeans India’s core national interests and destroys our foreign policy, carefully and painstakingly built and followed by successive governments over the years.”
In addition, Raghavan highlighted that Modi has only criticised Iran’s retaliation, which threatens to drag the Gulf region to the brink of war.
“It is difficult not to conclude that India has drastically downgraded its interests in the relationship with Iran,” he said.
“All of this detracts from India’s credibility as a player in the region and will have short and long-term consequences for the equities in West Asia [as the Middle East is referred to in India],” Raghavan told Al Jazeera.
United States President Donald Trump has announced that he will replace Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem with Republican Senator Markwayne Mullin.
In a social media post on Thursday, Trump explained that he had reassigned Noem to be a special envoy for a new security initiative focused on the Western Hemisphere, dubbed the “Shield of the Americas”.
list of 3 itemsend of list
The staffing change, he added, will take effect starting March 31. It marks the first major cabinet-level shake-up of Trump’s second term so far.
Trump praised Noem upon her departure from the cabinet-level post, writing that she “has served us well, and has had numerous and spectacular results (especially on the Border!)”
But Noem has played a prominent role in some of the administration’s most controversial immigration policies, and her tenure at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has spurred questions about government spending and conflicts of interest.
The announcement that she would be leaving her post comes a day after she faced a grilling from Democrats during congressional hearings this week, with several politicians called for her resignation.
“DHS is supposed to be protecting our residents and upholding constitutional protections. But you’ve turned that on the head. You have actually turned the United States government against its own residents,” Representative Pramila Jayapal, a Democrat, said during Wednesday’s hearing.
“Yours is a case of failed leadership. Secretary, you need to resign, be fired or be impeached because you don’t have the right to lead this agency.”
The announcement of Noem’s removal also comes as DHS continues to weather a partial government shutdown.
Democrats have opposed approving new funding for the department in response to deadly shootings involving immigration agents under Noem’s leadership.
Those shootings were brought up again this week during Noem’s appearances before judiciary committees in the Senate and House of Representatives.
Democratic Representative Jamie Raskin, for instance, repeatedly accused Noem of launching a “smear campaign” against two US citizens shot dead during interactions with immigration agents: Renee Good and Alex Pretti.
“There have been three homicides in Minneapolis in 2026, and your agents committed two of them,” Raskin told Noem.
He also highlighted comments Noem made calling Good and Pretti “domestic terrorists“, despite evidence undercutting the administration’s depiction of the events leading to their deaths.
“Rather than work with state and local authorities to solve these homicides, you barred Minnesota’s investigators from the crime scenes,” Raskin said.
“It smells like a coverup, and it makes me wonder who the real domestic terrorists are.”
Noem, formerly the Republican governor of South Dakota, has also been scrutinised for a $220m advertising campaign promoting border security.
The advertising campaign shows Noem riding a horse near Mount Rushmore, a well-known national memorial in her home state.
The news outlet ProPublica previously reported that a government contract for the campaign went to a Republican consulting firm with ties to senior DHS officials.
Noem has denied any wrongdoing, stating that the bidding process was “competitive” and that the contract was “all done correctly, all done legally”.
On Thursday, before announcing the staffing change, Trump denied any connection to the advertising campaign, telling the news service Reuters that he “never knew anything about it”.
Noem played a key role in the administration’s mass deportation push, and she has frequently used rhetoric that vilified immigrants as dangerous and violent.
Though DHS’s mandate focuses on domestic security, Noem has made several international trips over the last year, including visits to Ecuador in July and November.
Trump has called a “Shield of the Americas” summit at his Mar-a-Lago estate this weekend, inviting world leaders from multiple countries to discuss regional security and combatting Chinese influence in Latin America.
Noem’s replacement as DHS head, Mullin, has served as a US senator since 2023. He was a representative in the House for a decade before that, representing Oklahoma.
Trump highlighted his membership in the Cherokee Nation, writing that Mullin would be a “fantastic advocate for our incredible Tribal Communities” as DHS leader.
“Markwayne will work tirelessly to Keep our Border Secure, Stop Migrant Crime, Murderers, and other Criminals from illegally entering our Country, End the Scourge of Illegal Drugs and, MAKE AMERICA SAFE AGAIN,” Trump said on Thursday.
The United States-Israeli war with Iran continues to rage, as Washington pledges to send more troops and military assets to the Middle East and Tehran widens its retaliatory strikes across the region.
But on Thursday, top officials under US President Donald Trump shifted focus to another military front: Latin America.
list of 3 itemsend of list
Since taking office for a second term, Trump has indicated he plans to exert US dominance over the entire Western Hemisphere. His push for control has coincided with military operations against alleged criminal networks across the region.
At Thursday’s inaugural “Americas Counter Cartel Conference”, speakers such as White House security adviser Stephen Miller assured reporters that Latin America would remain a top military priority for the US, regardless of events in the Middle East.
“We are not going to cede an inch of territory in this hemisphere to our enemies or adversaries,” Miller said, adding the US was “using hard power, military power, lethal force, to protect and defend the American homeland”.
Miller further maintained there is no “criminal justice solution” to drug cartels, which he likened to armed groups like al-Qaeda and ISIL (ISIS).
Organised crime, he concluded, “can only be defeated with military power”.
Since Trump took office last year, his administration has applied what experts describe as a “global war on terror” approach to Latin America, including by labelling drug cartels “foreign terrorist organisations”.
Figures like Miller, a key architect behind Trump’s hardline immigration policies, have championed the president’s militaristic approach, even as critics warn it raises human rights and legal concerns.
Last September, for instance, the administration began striking alleged drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean, in what rights groups have decried as extrajudicial killings.
And in early January, the US launched an extraordinary operation to abduct Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro. It has since pursued a pressure campaign against Cuba designed to weaken its communist government.
Just this week, on Wednesday, the Pentagon announced it had launched joint operations with Ecuador’s military “against Designated Terrorist Organizations” in the South American country.
The announcement indicated a new front for US military actions in the region, which officials have said could include land operations.
But the broadening scope of Trump’s military involvement in Latin America, combined with the nascent war with Iran, has raised questions about the US’s ability to sustain such intense military activity.
The “Americas Counter Cartel Conference” came as Latin American leaders arrived in South Florida to attend a regional summit hosted by Trump at his Mar-a-Lago estate.
Attendees included officials from the Trump-allied conservative governments in Argentina, Honduras and the Dominican Republic.
But despite support from several regional governments, Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth nevertheless told the audience that the US was “prepared to take on” Latin America’s cartels and “go on the offence alone, if necessary”.
“However, it is our preference — and it is the goal of this conference — that, in the interest of this neighbourhood, we all do it together,” Hegseth added.
The secretary also praised Trump’s take on the 1823 Monroe Doctrine, which sought to establish a US sphere of influence, separate from Europe, in the Western Hemisphere. Administration officials have dubbed Trump’s parallel approach the “Donroe doctrine”.
Hegseth framed the administration’s attacks on alleged drug-smuggling boats as a keystone of Trump’s effort to maintain regional influence.
The US military has carried out at least 44 aerial strikes on vessels in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean, resulting in an estimated 150 known deaths.
The identities of the victims have not been released, with several family members saying fishermen and informal workers were among those targeted.
The Pentagon chief said the approach was meant to “establish deterrence”.
“If the consequence was simply to be arrested and then released, well, that’s a consequence they’d already priced in a long time ago,” Hegseth said.
He then pointed to a “few weeks” in February in which there were no strikes on alleged drug boats.
The pause in attacks, he said, was evidence of the strategy’s success. But that break notably came as the US surged assets to the Middle East.
Neither Hegseth nor Miller specifically referred to the war with Iran, but the pair touched on themes that have been present in the administration’s messaging on the war.
Trump, for example, said Iran’s government “waged war against civilisation itself”. There have been reports, meanwhile, that US military officials have referenced the biblical “end times” as a religious underpinning for the war.
Those remarks have reflected what critics consider Trump’s embrace of Christian nationalism and his view of the Americas as a European-derived “civilisation” threatened by outside forces.
At Thursday’s conference, Miller himself referenced violence in European history as justification for the modern-day military actions in Latin America.
There were periods in European history throughout the 18th and 19th centuries during which “ruthless means were used to get rid of the people who were raping and murdering and defying established systems of order and justice,” Miller said.
He also echoed Trump’s allegation that Europe was facing “civilisational erasure” as a result of left-wing leadership and immigration.
“The reason why many Western countries are struggling today is they’ve forgotten the eternal truth and wisdoms they once followed,” Miller said.
Hegseth, meanwhile, described all the countries at Thursday’s meeting as “offsprings of Western civilisation”.
Representatives in attendance, he said, faced a test “whether our nations will be and remain Western nations with distinct characteristics, Christian nations under God, proud of our shared heritage with strong borders and prosperous people ruled not by violence and chaos but by law”.
He added that foreign “incursions” represent “existential questions” for the region, seemingly referencing the growing influence of China as an economic and political partner in the Americas.
“Covert action should not be confused with missionary work,” former United States Secretary of State Henry Kissinger declared after the sudden abandonment of Iraqi Kurds to their fate against the Iraqi government in 1975.
Half a century later, this doctrine of geopolitical expediency echoes across the Middle East. As the US and Israel encourage Kurdish militias to serve as a ground force against Iran’s central government, knowing their aspiration for “regime change” needs a ground force, history offers a severe warning.
list of 3 itemsend of list
From the mountains of Iraq in 1991 to the plains of Syria just weeks ago, Washington’s track record of using Kurdish fighters as disposable proxies suggests the current push for an Iranian Kurdish rebellion is fraught with risk.
Amid a rapidly escalating military confrontation that has seen US-Israeli air strikes assassinate top Iranian leaders, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Washington is seeking to open a new front.
Some US media reports claimed that thousands of Iranian Kurds have crossed from Iraq to launch a ground operation in northwestern Iran. That has not been verified. The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has reportedly supplied these forces with light weapons as part of a covert programme to destabilise the country.
To facilitate this, US President Donald Trump reportedly held calls with Iraqi Kurdish leaders Masoud Barzani and Bafel Talabani as well as Iranian Kurdish leader Mustafa Hijri. While the White House and Kurdish officials in Erbil denied these reports, regional analysts remained wary.
The government of northern Iraq’s semiautonomous Kurdish region on Thursday denied involvement in any plans to arm Kurdish groups and send them into Iran.
Its president, Nechirvan Barzani, said it “must not become part of any conflict or military escalation that harms the lives and security of our fellow citizens”.
“Protecting the territorial integrity of the Kurdistan Region and our constitutional achievements can only be achieved through the unity, cohesion and shared national responsibility of all political forces and components in Kurdistan,” he added.
Mahmoud Allouch, a regional affairs expert, told Al Jazeera that the current strategy is aimed not simply at an immediate government overthrow but at “dismantling Iran” by inciting separatist movements as a prelude to its collapse. “The US and Israel want to produce a separatist armed Kurdish case in Iran similar to the Kurdish case that America imposed in Syria,” Allouch warned.
Added to this volatile mix is Turkiye and how it would react to any Kurdish uprising in the region. The Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) began steps towards disarmament last summer, closing a chapter on a four-decade armed campaign against the Turkish state in a conflict that has killed more than 40,000 people. Any armed advances by Iranian Kurds could rankle Ankara.
For the Kurds, acting as the tip of the American spear has historically ended in disaster. In the 1970s, the US and Iran heavily armed Iraqi Kurdish rebels to bleed the government in Baghdad. Yet, once the shah of Iran secured a territorial concession from Iraq in 1975, he cut off the Kurds overnight with Washington’s approval. He himself was deposed in a revolution four years later.
This scenario repeated itself with devastating consequences in 1991. After then-US President George HW Bush encouraged Iraqis – both the Kurdish and Shia communities persecuted under Saddam Hussein – to rise up, the US military stood by as loyalist forces regrouped and used helicopter gunships to indiscriminately slaughter tens of thousands of civilians and rebels.
However, David Romano, a Middle East politics expert at Missouri State University, countered in a statement on his Facebook page that the aftermath of the 1991 catastrophe eventually forced the US to launch Operation Provide Comfort and a no-fly zone, which laid the groundwork for the semiautonomous Kurdish region in Iraq. “At important junctures, the Kurds have done exceedingly well as a result of cooperation with the US,” Romano wrote although he noted the opposite was true in 1975.
The dark irony of Washington asking Iranian Kurds to take up arms today is compounded by the recent collapse of Kurdish autonomy in neighbouring Syria. For years, the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) served as the primary US proxy against ISIL (ISIS) and led the way to vanquishing the armed group in 2019 after years of fighting and suffering.
Yet in January, a little more than a year after the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad, the Trump administration backed Syria’s new central government in Damascus, essentially ending support for the SDF and Kurdish autonomy.
The US envoy to Syria, Thomas Barrack, declared that the original purpose of the SDF had largely expired. Within weeks, the SDF lost 80 percent of the territory it had bled for. For the Kurds across the region watching these events unfold, the implications were profound: The US is no longer perceived as a reliable partner or supporter of minorities.
Allouch highlighted this as a primary reason for Kurdish hesitation concerning Iran today, noting that Kurdish leaders are “bleeding from yesterday’s stab” in Syria.
The US and Israel are seeking “boots on the ground” to avoid deploying their own forces. But in Erbil, the capital of the Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq, the leadership understands the severe blowback. Barzani recently emphasised to the Iranian foreign minister that the region “will not be a party to the conflicts”.
Analysts suggested that Barzani remains angered by the US dismissal of a 2017 independence referendum for the region. Romano noted that because Baghdad vociferously rejected attacking Iran, Erbil has a perfect justification to decline Washington’s requests after decades of being told by the US to remain integrated within Iraq.
The calculus is different for Iranian Kurds, known as Rojhelati. Betrayed by the Soviet Union in 1946, they have acutely suffered under successive Iranian governments and may view this as their “first and only opportunity” to change their status.
However, Allouch warned that without a solid US military commitment, which Trump has shown no desire to provide, this move could be “suicidal” against a fierce Iranian military response.
Pushing Iranian Kurds into an open conflict remains a highly volatile endeavour that has triggered an immediate reaction from Turkiye. Allouch told Al Jazeera that Ankara will coordinate with the Iranian government to crush any uprising.
“The US and the international powers realise that they cannot, in the end, impose a reality that contradicts the interests of the ‘Regional Quartet’ – Turkiye, Syria, Iran and Iraq,” Allouch said. He argued that this regional bloc applies far more pressure regarding the Kurdish issue than shifts in international policies.
Ultimately, the Kurds have consistently paid the price of changing geopolitics. As Washington seeks a cost-free rebellion with no ground deployment or losses of its own soldiers in Iran, the Kurds will weigh seductive American promises against the blood-soaked lessons of 1975, 1991 and 2026.
US and Israel bombard Iran as Israeli forces hammer Lebanon and the widening conflict causes energy prices to spike.
Published On 5 Mar 20265 Mar 2026
Share
Global energy markets remain in a state of high alert after several Gulf states suspended oil and gas production following escalating tensions in the region.
Since Saturday’s attacks by the United States and Israel, Tehran has targeted various sites in Israel and across several Gulf countries.
list of 4 itemsend of list
Initially, these Iranian attacks focused primarily on US military assets, but Gulf states have reported that Iran has since broadened its scope to target civilian infrastructure, including hotels, airports and energy facilities. Iranian officials have publicly denied targeting Gulf energy facilities, however.
The Middle East remains the world’s dominant source of hydrocarbon reserves and a major driver of crude oil and natural gas output.
Nearly half of the world’s oil reserves and exports come from the Middle East, which contains five of the seven largest oil reserves in the world.
Once refined, crude oil is used to make various products, including petrol, diesel, jet fuel and a wide range of household items such as cleaning products, plastics and even lotions.
After Venezuela, which has 303 billion barrels, Saudi Arabia holds the world’s second-largest proven crude oil reserves, estimated at 267 billion barrels.
The Middle East’s largest oil reserves:
Saudi Arabia is also the world’s top oil exporter with an estimated $187bn of crude in 2024, according to data from the Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC).
Other Middle Eastern countries with sizeable oil exports include: Oman ($28.9bn), Kuwait ($28.8bn) and Qatar ($21bn).
In addition to crude oil, the Middle East is a global powerhouse for natural gas, accounting for nearly 18 percent of global production and approximately 40 percent of the world’s proven reserves.
Natural gas is primarily used for electricity generation, industrial heating, and in chemicals and fertilisers.
The heart of Middle Eastern gas is a single, massive underwater reservoir called the South Pars/North Dome field. It is the largest gasfield in the world, and it is shared directly between Qatar and Iran.
Gas is transported either through pipelines or by tankers. When using pipelines, the gas is pressurised and moved through steel networks. When pipelines are not feasible, such as across oceans, Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) is used.
To create LNG, the gas is cooled to approximately -162C (-260F), shrinking its volume and allowing it to be safely loaded onto specialised tanker ships for global transport.
To transport oil and gas, tankers from various Gulf states must navigate the narrow waterway known as the Strait of Hormuz. Approximately one-fifth of global oil and gas passes through this strait, primarily heading to major markets in Asia, including China, Japan, South Korea and India, as well as to Europe.
Here are the facilities which have recorded damage as of Wednesday:
On Monday, one of the world’s largest oil refining complexes, the Ras Tanura oil refinery owned by Saudi Aramco, was forced to halt operations after debris from intercepted Iranian drones caused a small fire.
Saudi Aramco is one of the world’s largest companies, with a market capitalisation exceeding $1.7 trillion and revenue of $480bn. Headquartered in Dhahran, in eastern Saudi Arabia, Aramco controls 12 percent of global oil production, with a capacity of more than 12 million barrels per day (bpd).
On Wednesday, Saudi defence officials reported a second drone attempt on the facility but this was successfully intercepted with no damage or disruption to operations reported.
On Monday, Qatar’s Ministry of Defence reported that Iranian drones had targeted an energy facility in Ras Laffan belonging to QatarEnergy, the world’s largest LNG producer.
While no casualties were reported, QatarEnergy suspended the production of LNG and other products at the impacted sites.
QatarEnergy’s 81 million metric tonnes of LNG exports are mostly bound for Asian markets, including China, Japan, India, South Korea, Pakistan and other countries in the region. The halt in production hiked global gas prices to a three-year high this week.
Qatar’s Defence Ministry said the country was attacked by a second drone launched from Iran on Monday, targeting a water tank belonging to a power plant in Mesaieed, without reporting any casualties.
On Tuesday, QatarEnergy also stopped production of some downstream products like urea, polymers, methanol, aluminium and others.
On Monday, a fire broke out at Mussafah Fuel Terminal in southwest Abu Dhabi after it was struck by a drone.
On Tuesday, falling debris from a drone interception caused a fire at the Fujairah Oil Terminal along the eastern coast of the United Arab Emirates. No injuries were reported.
On Tuesday, multiple Iranian drones struck fuel tanks and a tanker at the port of Duqm, with at least one direct hit on a fuel storage tank, causing an explosion.
On the same day, a drone strike was recorded at the Port of Salalah, which handles fuel and industrial minerals.
On Monday, the Athe Nova, a Honduran-flagged tanker positioned off the coast of Khor Fakkan, UAE, was struck by Iranian drones as it was transiting the Strait of Hormuz, setting it ablaze. Despite the fire, the vessel managed to exit the chokepoint into the Gulf of Oman, and no casualties were reported.
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) claimed responsibility for the strike, identifying the Athe Nova as an “ally of the United States”.
On the same day as the attack, Iran declared the Strait of Hormuz closed, warning that any ship attempting to pass would be “set ablaze”.
Since then, several other tankers have been hit.
Although not directly targeted, the following energy sites suspended operations in response to Iranian retaliatory attacks:
Israeli offshore gasfields – Major gas production fields such as Leviathan and Tamar were shut down as a precaution following regional drone and missile launches linked to Iran.
Oil fields in semiautonomous Iraqi Kurdistan – Producers including DNO, Gulf Keystone and Dana Gas halted output as a safety measure amid the escalation.
Rumaila oilfield – Operations at Iraq’s largest oilfield – operated by BP – in southern Iraq were halted on Tuesday as a security precaution due to its proximity to the escalation zone.
Shaiel Ben-ephraim of Atlas Global Strategies explains how the US public is reacting to US-Israeli war on Iran and what shifting public opinion could mean for future US support for Israel and its position in the region.
Published On 4 Mar 20264 Mar 2026
Share
Madrid, Spain – Spain has pledged to keep opposing the war waged by the United States and Israel on Iran after President Donald Trump said Washington would cut off all commercial links with Madrid.
Trump’s rebuke on Tuesday came after Washington’s European ally refused to let the US military use its bases for missions linked to strikes on Iran.
list of 4 itemsend of list
“Spain has been terrible,” the president told reporters on Tuesday during a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, adding, “We’re going to cut off all trade with Spain. We don’t want anything to do with Spain.”
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, one of the few left-wing leaders in Europe to condemn the US-Israel attack on Iran as “unjustifiable” and “dangerous”, said in a televised nationwide address on Wednesday that Spain’s position was “no to the war”.
“This is how humanity’s great disasters start … The world cannot solve its problems with conflicts and bombs.”
His position cements Spain’s status as an outlier in Europe; Madrid has been one of the few European nations to consistently condemn Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.
At the Patron Bar in Malasana, Madrid, Gema Tamarit watched Sanchez’s address on the television in the restaurant, which turned up the volume.
“That Trump is mad. We are not afraid of him. Good for Sanchez for sticking up to him. Some more leaders in Europe should do the same,” said Tamarit, 53, a software engineer. “Of course, Iran is an awful regime, but is this the way to change things, by going to war like this?”
A series of opinion polls suggests that more than half of Spaniards oppose Trump’s foreign policy.
According to a poll published by Eurobazuka in February, 53 percent said they opposed the US president’s policies, the third highest group by nationality after the French and Belgians, with 57 percent and 62 percent, respectively.
In another poll published in January, nearly 60 percent of Spaniards said they disagreed with the US president’s operation to arrest the former Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, according to a survey published by GESOP for Prensa Iberica media group.
The Eurobazuka poll said 48 percent of Europeans considered Trump to be “an enemy of Europe”, compared with 10 percent who believed he was an ally.
Analysts said the US may not be able to inflict much commercial damage on Spain, as it is part of the European Union.
Last month, the US Supreme Court declared Trump’s threat to impose a range of tariffs worldwide as illegal.
Victor Burguete, an expert in trade and economics at the Barcelona Centre for International Affairs think tank, said the only way Trump could act against Spain would be to prove the US faced a situation of national emergency.
“It is not likely that he can prove acting against Spain is a national emergency,” he told Al Jazeera. “I think this is more a threat than a real possibility of ending trade with Spain.
The dispute erupted when the US relocated 15 aircraft, including refuelling tankers, from the Rota and Moron military bases in southern Spain on Monday after the country’s socialist government said it would not allow them to be used to attack Iran.
Trump has also referred to Spain’s refusal to raise spending on NATO from 2 to 5 percent of gross domestic product, saying “Spain has absolutely nothing that we need.”
Sanchez has provoked Trump’s anger with policies including refusing to let vessels transporting weapons to Israel dock in Spain and condemning Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Spain was among the first European nations to recognise a State of Palestine in 2024, along with Ireland, Slovenia and Norway.
“Trump is just angry because Spain has refused to raise NATO spending and condemned the technology companies connected with social media. And done this publicly,” said Burguete.
Spain last month announced it was considering banning children under 16 from accessing social media, and was studying legal action against Grok, Instagram and TikTok.
Bruguete said he believed Sanchez took this stance against the war because he opposed the “strongman politics” of Trump, but also because it played well domestically before the general elections next year.
“There is no doubt that the foreign policy of Trump is not popular in Spain,” he added.
Spain is the world’s top exporter of olive oil and sells auto parts, steel and chemicals to the US, but is less vulnerable to Trump’s threats of economic punishment than other European nations.
The US had a trade surplus with Spain for the fourth year in a row in 2025, at $4.8bn, according to US Census Bureau Data, with US exports of $26.1bn and imports of $21.3bn.
The EU said on Wednesday it expected the US to abide by a trade deal with the EU, was “ready to act” to safeguard its interests, and stood in “full solidarity” with member states, but did not name Spain.
Winner of May run-off between Republicans John Cornyn and Ken Paxton to face Democrat James Talarico.
Published On 4 Mar 20264 Mar 2026
Share
James Talarico has topped States Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett in an expensive and fiercely contested Senate Democratic primary in the United States state of Texas.
Who Talarico will face depends on a May run-off between longtime Republican Senator John Cornyn and MAGA favourite Ken Paxton – a race expected to get increasingly nasty over the coming months and that could hinge on whether or not President Donald Trump offers an endorsement.
Texas, along with North Carolina and Arkansas, on Tuesday kicked off midterm elections with control of Congress at stake and against the backdrop of the US-Israeli war with Iran.
A jubilant Talarico told supporters in Austin before the race was called: “We are not just trying to win an election. We are trying to fundamentally change our politics. And it’s working.
“This is proof that there is something happening in Texas,” he said, adding that the state “gave this country a little bit of hope”.
Crockett’s campaign said she planned to sue over voting issues in Dallas, and she spoke only briefly on Tuesday night to warn that “people have been disenfranchised.”
Cornyn, meanwhile, is seeking a fifth term but is facing a tough challenge from Paxton, the state attorney general. Cornyn hopes to avoid becoming the first Republican senator in Texas history to seek re-election and not be renominated.
The GOP contest also featured Representative Wesley Hunt, who finished a distant third and conceded. But his making it a three-way race made it tougher for any candidate to reach the 50 percent vote threshold needed to win the nomination outright and avoid the May 26 run-off.
All three campaigned on their ties to Trump, who did not make an endorsement in the race. Now both Cornyn and Paxton will again fiercely compete to curry the president’s favour.
Cornyn was facing a tough enough battle that he did not hold an election night party. Instead, in comments to reporters in Austin, he sought to make the case that a run-off win by Paxton would leave “a dead weight at the top of the ticket for Republicans”.
“I’ve worked for decades to build the Republican Party, both here in Texas and nationally,” Cornyn said. “I refuse to allow a flawed, self-centered and shameless candidate like Ken Paxton to risk everything we’ve worked so hard to build over these many years.”
Addressing supporters in Dallas, Paxton made a point of saying he felt like he had during a recent trip to Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s Florida estate.
He also proclaimed: “We proved something they’ll never understand in Washington.
“Texas is not for sale,” he said.
Democratic senators voiced alarm after a classified briefing on the US‑Israeli war with Iran, warning the Trump administration lacks clear objectives as lawmakers say they fear it could lead to a prolonged conflict and US ground troops.
Published On 4 Mar 20264 Mar 2026
Share
Lutnick’s relationship with the late financier and sex offender has come under scrutiny after files revealed closer ties than previously known.
Published On 4 Mar 20264 Mar 2026
Share
US Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick has agreed to give testimony to lawmakers about his ties to Jeffrey Epstein, the head of a committee investigating the late sex offender has said.
Lutnick, who lived next door to Epstein in New York for more than a decade, “proactively agreed” to provide a transcribed interview to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, panel chair James Comer said on Tuesday.
list of 4 itemsend of list
“I commend his demonstrated commitment to transparency and appreciate his willingness to engage with the Committee. I look forward to his testimony,” Comer, a Kentucky Republican, said on X.
Axios, which first reported the commerce secretary’s intention to testify, quoted Lutnick as saying he had done nothing wrong and he wished to “set the record straight”.
Lutnick’s relationship with Epstein, who died in 2019 while awaiting sex trafficking charges, has come under mounting scrutiny after he appeared to misrepresent the extent of his associations with the notorious financier.
In a podcast interview last year, Lutnick said he decided to “never be in the room” with Epstein again following an uncomfortable encounter at the sex offender’s Manhattan penthouse in 2005.
But files released by the Justice Department earlier this year showed that Lutnick met and communicated with Epstein for years after the reported 2005 encounter, and the commerce secretary later acknowledged that he visited the financier’s private island of Little Saint James in 2012.
Comer said on Tuesday that he had also sent letters to seven individuals seeking written testimony about their knowledge of Epstein’s crimes, including Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates, private equity investor Leon Black, and top Goldman Sachs lawyer Kathryn Ruemmler.
Gates, Black and Ruemmler have repeatedly denied wrongdoing in connection with Epstein, or having knowledge of his abuse of women and girls.
The committee’s requests for testimony come after former US President Bill Clinton and his wife, ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, appeared before lawmakers last week to answer questions about their ties to Epstein.
Bill Clinton told the committee he did nothing wrong and “saw nothing that ever gave me pause” while interacting with Epstein.
Hillary Clinton told lawmakers she had no recollection of encountering Epstein and that she never “flew on his plane or visited his island home or offices”.
China’s foreign minister tells Israel to end attacks; Russian FM Lavrov says no sign Tehran seeking nuclear bomb.
Russia and China have criticised the US and Israeli attacks on Iran, with Moscow saying it had seen no evidence that Tehran was developing nuclear weapons, and Beijing demanding an immediate halt to the joint attacks.
Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi told his Israeli counterpart, Gideon Saar, on Tuesday that the attack on Iran came as negotiations between Washington and Tehran had “made significant progress, including addressing Israel’s security concerns”, China’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
list of 4 itemsend of list
“Regrettably, this process has been interrupted by military action. China opposes any military strikes launched by Israel and the US against Iran,” Wang told the Israeli foreign minister during a phone call, according to the ministry.
“China calls for an immediate cessation of military operations to prevent the further escalation and loss of control of the conflict,” Wang said.
“Force cannot truly solve problems; instead, it will bring new problems and serious long-term consequences,” he added.
According to the Chinese Foreign Ministry, Saar agreed to a request from Wang to take “concrete measures to ensure the safety of Chinese personnel and institutions” in Iran.
The call on Tuesday with Israel and Beijing’s apparent efforts to stabilise the spiralling regional situation followed calls Wang made on Monday to discuss the conflict with the foreign ministers of Iran, Oman and France.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also criticised the US and Israel on Tuesday, saying their war on Iran could lead to the very outcome they claimed they wanted to prevent: nuclear proliferation.
Lavrov told a news conference that the logical consequence of the US and Israel’s actions could be that “forces will emerge in Iran… in favour of doing exactly what the Americans want to avoid – acquiring a nuclear bomb”.
“Because the US doesn’t attack those who have nuclear bombs,” Lavrov said.
Lavrov also said that Arab countries could now join the race to acquire nuclear weapons, given the experience of recent days and “the nuclear proliferation problem will begin to spiral out of control”.
Israel is widely seen as the Middle East region’s only nuclear-armed state, which it neither confirms nor denies.
“The seemingly paradoxical declared noble goal of starting a war to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons could stimulate completely opposite trends,” he said.
Lavrov, who said that Moscow had still seen no evidence that Iran was developing nuclear weapons, spoke with his Iranian counterpart, Abbas Araghchi, on Tuesday, and said that Russia stood ready to help find a diplomatic solution to the conflict, while rejecting the US and Israel’s use of “unprovoked military aggression” in the region.
As the US and Israel launched their first strikes on Iran on Saturday, Russia’s Foreign Ministry accused the close allies of carrying out a “premeditated and unprovoked act of armed aggression against a sovereign and independent UN member state”.
The two countries had hidden their true intention of regime change in Tehran “under the cover” of negotiations to normalise relations with Iran, the ministry said.
The US and Israel were “swiftly pushing the region toward a humanitarian, economic, and potentially even radiological disaster”, the ministry warned.
“Responsibility for the negative consequences of this manmade crisis, including an unpredictable chain reaction and spiralling violence, lies entirely with them,” the statement added.
Russia has faced its own accusations of aggression against a sovereign state after it launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, a war now in its fifth year.
WASHINGTON — The United States plunged further into conflict with Iran on Tuesday as a new round of strikes heightened fears of an expanding war in the Middle East, sending markets reeling and oil prices soaring and drawing urgent calls from European leaders for a plan forward.
President Trump acknowledged during an Oval Office appearance that the public would feel some economic pain as fighting continues to threaten areas that are critical to the world’s oil and natural gas production.
“As soon as this ends, those prices are going to drop, I believe lower than ever before,” Trump said, though he did not provide a clear time frame for when the conflict might end.
As the war stretched into its fourth day on Tuesday, Israel struck Iranian missile launch facilities and weapon factories and Iran retaliated across the Persian Gulf region, including attacks on U.S. diplomatic sites in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Dubai.
The conflict simultaneously set off alarms in the global markets, prompting stocks in Europe and Asia to plunge and the S&P 500 to drop nearly 1% after falling as much as 2.5% in early trading.
European governments were also forced to contend with the fallout, with some countries increasing their military presence in the region as their actions are closely monitored by Trump, who publicly singled out countries that he thought had been helpful in his war efforts so far.
“Spain has been terrible,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office while threatening to “cut off all trade with Spain” after he said the country had denied American forces access to its military bases.
Trump said he was “not happy with the U.K. either” and complained about not being allowed to use a military base on Diego Garcia in the Chagos Islands. Without access to that military base, Trump said American planes were forced to fly “many extra hours.”
“We were very surprised. This is not Winston Churchill that we’re dealing with,” Trump said. Churchill served as Britain’s prime minister during World War II.
As Trump threatened European allies, he sat next to German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, underscoring the fraught landscape that world leaders are navigating as American and Israeli forces work to destroy Iran’s missile capabilities and nuclear program and eye a potential change in government.
During their meeting, Trump said Germany has allowed the United States to use its air bases. Beyond that help, Trump said, “we’re not asking them to put boots on the ground or anything.”
When asked by reporters how Germany intended to help in the conflict, Merz said he wanted to focus on talking to Trump about what comes “the day after” the war ends.
“We are on the same page in terms of getting this terrible regime in Iran away and we will talk about the day after, what will happen then, if they are out,” Merz said.
Trump did not have much to say yet on what will come next and was unclear on who will lead the Iranian government, saying that U.S. and Israeli military operations had killed the people who he thought could have filled the leadership vacuum.
“Most of the people we had in mind are dead,” Trump said. “Now, we have another group, but they may be dead also based on reports so I guess you have a third wave coming in and pretty soon we’re not going to know anybody.”
His remarks were a startling acknowledgment in part because minutes earlier he said the worst-case scenario in his mind was that the military operation would take place and “then somebody takes over who is as bad as the previous person.”
“That could happen,” Trump said.
Asked if Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, son of the former shah, is someone he would like to run the country, Trump said he is a “very nice person,” but did not say for sure whether he is his choice.
The president and his top aides have offered varying explanations when asked about regime change, drawing criticism from Democrats and some conservatives who are demanding to know why Americans are being dragged into a war with no clear end in sight.
On Saturday, when U.S. and Israeli forces first struck Iran, Trump said overthrowing Iran’s theocratic regime was part of his rationale. But on Monday, he emphasized that Iran’s missiles posed a threat to the United States, and therefore theattack was carried out to eradicate its missile capability and nuclear program.
After briefing lawmakers Monday afternoon, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters that the United States launched a “preemptive” attack on Iran because officials knew Israel was going to strike the country — a move that he said would have put U.S. forces at risk and led to even more U.S. casualties. As of Tuesday, six American troops have been killed in combat.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), after being briefed by Trump administration officials on Monday afternoon, said, “Israel was determined to act in their own defense, with or without American support.”
“If Israel fired upon Iran, and took action against Iran to take out the missiles, then they would have immediately retaliated against U.S. personnel and assets,” Johnson told reporters.
Trump disputed the suggestion that Israel’s plans to attack Iran prompted him to launch the strikes, saying it was the other way around.
“If anything, I might have forced Israel’s hand,” Trump said Tuesday. “But Israel was ready, and we were ready, and we’ve had a very, very powerful impact because virtually everything they have has been knocked out.”
But it was unclear how far along the U.S. military is in accomplishing its mission.
In a letter Monday, Trump told Congress that while the “United States desires a quick and enduring peace, it is not possible at this time to know the full scope and duration of military operations that may be necessary.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) warned in a speech on the Senate floor that the administration’s murky strategy is not good for the country.
“History teaches us a simple lesson: Wars without a clear objective do not stay small. They get bigger, they get bloodier, they get longer, they get more expensive,” Schumer said. “This is not a defensive war. This is not a necessary war. This is a war of choice.”
Tuesday saw yet another expansion of the war when Israeli troops blitzed into Lebanon in a bid to dislodge the Iran-backed Shiite militant group Hezbollah.
The ground invasion comes one day after Hezbollah lobbed rockets and drones at an Israeli military position across the border; an attack, the group said, that was vengeance for the killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and a response to Israel’s near-daily violations of a ceasefire brokered by the U.S. in November 2024.
The attack sparked a massive Israeli assault on dozens of villages and towns in southern Lebanon, as well as on the southern suburbs of the Lebanese capital, Beirut. The strikes killed 40 people, wounded 246 others and saw tens of thousands forced to leave their homes and scramble for shelter in Beirut and elsewhere, according to Lebanese authorities.
The Lebanese army said Tuesday that it was withdrawing from positions in southern Lebanon ahead of a ground incursion by Israeli troops. The Israeli military’s Arabic-language spokesman then issued a warning to residents of some 80 towns and villages in that region to “immediately evacuate your homes” and move northward.
Hezbollah, meanwhile, maintained a defiant stance and continued rocket and drone launches into Israel.
“The era of patience has ended, and we have no option but to return to resistance,” said Mahmoud Qatari, who chairs Hezbollah’s Political Council. “If Israel wants an open war, so be it.”
The invasion comes more than a year after Israel occupied parts of southern Lebanon in 2024. After the ceasefire came into effect, Israel withdrew from most parts of the country save for five positions near the border. Yet in the 15 months since the ceasefire was signed, it has proved to be more notional for Lebanon, with Israeli warplanes and troops conducting well over 10,000 truce violations, according to the U.N.
Israel says its actions are to stop Hezbollah from reconstituting itself near the border, but the result has meant residents of border towns and villages in southern Lebanon have been unable to return home.
Israel’s military spokesman, Brigadier Gen. Effie Defrin, said in a statement that troops were “creating a buffer” inside Lebanon between residents in northern Israel “and any threat.”
As the conflict has escalated, some 1,600 Americans stranded across the region have requested assistance and the Trump administration is trying to help evacuate them, Rubio said. But the effort has faced challenges because Iranian missiles have struck many Mideast airports.
“We know we are going to be able to help them,” Rubio said. “It is going to take a little time because we do not control the airspace closures.”
Ceballos reported from Washington, Bulos from Khartoum, Sudan.
Washington, DC – On Monday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio provided a looping justification for the US launching a war against Iran: Israel was planning to strike Iran, which would have prompted Tehran to strike the US assets in the region, requiring Washington to launch preemptive strikes on Iran.
Even as the administration of US President Donald Trump has sought to roll back claims made by several officials in recent days, they have continued to spark dismay across the political spectrum.
list of 3 itemsend of list
Rubio’s statement was particularly notable, given the assessment by many Iran analysts that the US-Israel war, which has led to regional retaliation from Iran, serves the interests not of Washington, but of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Washington is seen as having outsized leverage over Israel, to which it has provided more than $300bn in military aid since 1948, including $21bn during Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
Trump, when asked about Rubio’s statement on Tuesday, appeared to offer a different characterisation, saying he launched the war because he “thought we were going to have a situation where we were going to be attacked”.
“They [Iran] were getting ready to attack Israel. They were gonna attack others,” he said.
The US president has spent the days since launching the initial strikes on Saturday arguing that the holistic threat posed by Iran justified the US-Israeli strikes, a position that experts say likely stands in contravention of both US and international law. The administration has provided scant evidence of a planned attack on US assets or that either Iran’s nuclear or ballistic programmes offered an immediate threat.
Rubio on Monday also sought to distance himself from his statements, claiming his words had been taken out of context.
Rubio had, in earlier comments, pointed to the broader threat posed by Iran, including its ballistic missile and drone capacity. But then he turned to what he called the question of “why now?”
“We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action,” he told reporters. “We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties.”
The shifting messaging on Tuesday was unlikely to allay the condemnation from Trump critics and supporters alike, including several influential figures within Trump’s Make America Great Again (MAGA) base.
Kelly Grieco, a senior fellow at the Stimson Center, told Al Jazeera that “what he’s basically publicly acknowledging would be that the United States was entrapped by the Israelis”.
“The notion that the Israelis were going to do it anyway, and so we had to do it as well – if that’s the case, then there’s a really serious conversation to be had here in the United States about US and Israeli interests, and where those are aligned and where they diverge,” Grieco said.
Kenneth Roth, a former executive director of Human Rights Watch, in a post on X, questioned: “Why is it in America’s interest to arm and fund Israel to draw America into an unnecessary war?”
In an earlier post, he said Rubio’s logic “isn’t even close to a legal rationale” for launching the war.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), meanwhile, called Rubio’s words on Monday a “stunning admission”.
In a statement, it said Rubio had revealed “what was clear from the start: the United States did not attack Iran because Iran posed an imminent threat to our nation. We attacked under pressure from Israel for Israel’s benefit”.
The organisation called on Congress to pass war powers resolutions to rein in Trump’s ability to wage war.
Lawmakers have pledged to introduce the legislation in both the House of Representatives and Senate this week, although it is likely to face an uphill battle amid Republican opposition.
Trump’s party maintains razor-thin majorities in both chambers, and most Republican lawmakers have rallied behind the war and the reasons the administration has given for launching attacks.
War powers resolutions would require a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override a presidential veto, although advocates have long argued they offer an opportunity for lawmakers to put their stance on the record.
In a statement on Tuesday, progressive US Senator Bernie Sanders was among the lawmakers condemning the administration’s war.
“Netanyahu wanted war with Iran. Trump just gave it to him,” Sanders said.
The Israeli prime minister has, for more than two decades, called for the toppling of Iran’s government, and has been a leading opponent to diplomacy related to Iran’s nuclear programme.
During that time, Netanyahu has repeatedly pushed claims that Iran was on the immediate precipice of developing a nuclear weapon.
“American foreign and military policy must be determined by the American people,” Sanders wrote. “Not the right-wing extremist Netanyahu government.”
Thomas Massie, a Republican representative who has spearheaded the war powers push, connected Rubio’s statement to Trump’s “America First” pledges to prioritise domestic issues in the US.
“Before it’s over, the price of gas, groceries, and virtually everything else is going to go up,” Massie posted on X. “The only winners in [the US] are defence company shareholders.”
Several influential figures in Trump’s MAGA base said Rubio’s statements were further inflaming the growing discontent over the war.
Daily Wire podcaster Matt Walsh said Rubio was “flat out telling us that we’re in a war with Iran because Israel forced our hand. This is basically the worst possible thing he could have said.”
Responding to Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson’s reiteration of Rubio’s claims, former congressman and Trump attorney general nominee Matt Gaetz said: “In making these statements, which are undeniably true, America looks like such a supplicant.”
Pro-Trump brothers Keith and Kevin Hodge, who run the influential pro-Trump X account HodgeTwins, with 3.5 million followers, also decried the administration’s actions.
“We did not vote for send[ing] Americans to die for Israel’s wars,” they posted on Tuesday. “We won’t stay silent about this.”
Ali Harb contributed reporting.
US officials confirmed the US didn’t attack Iran because of an ‘imminent threat’ but because Israel was planning to strike anyway. Al Jazeera’s Nada Qaddourah breaks down the Trump administration’s justifications for starting the war and examines whether they hold up.
Published On 3 Mar 20263 Mar 2026
Share
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended joint US-Israeli strikes on Iran, saying “the world will be safer” if Tehran doesn’t have access to nuclear weapons. He says President Trump made the decision to strike because Iran was ‘playing’ the US in negotiations.
Published On 3 Mar 20263 Mar 2026
Share
US Navy ‘will begin escorting’ oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway, if necessary, US President Trump says.
Published On 3 Mar 20263 Mar 2026
Share
President Donald Trump has announced that the United States government will offer insurance to ships in the Gulf after Iran largely succeeded in shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, sending oil prices soaring.
The US president added that the US military will accompany ships through Hormuz if necessary.
list of 3 itemsend of list
“Effective IMMEDIATELY, I have ordered the United States Development Finance Corporation (DFC) to provide, at a very reasonable price, political risk insurance and guarantees for the Financial Security of ALL Maritime Trade, especially Energy, traveling through the Gulf,” Trump wrote in a social media post on Tuesday.
DFC is the US government’s development finance agency. Its mission is to “advance US foreign policy and strengthen national security by mobilising private capital” across the world.
Trump added that the discounted risk insurance will be available for all shipping lanes.
“If necessary, the United States Navy will begin escorting tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, as soon as possible,” he wrote.
“No matter what, the United States will ensure the FREE FLOW of ENERGY to the WORLD.”
The Strait of Hormuz is a vital trade artery that connects the Gulf to the Indian Ocean. Around 20 percent of the world’s oil flows through it.
The price of oil has shot up by more than 15 percent since the US and Israel launched strikes on Tehran that started a war with Iran three days ago.
Costs are expected to rise even higher as oil supplies decrease as a result of Iran’s closure of the strait, as well as attacks on energy instalments in the Gulf.
Some insurance companies were reported to have cut back coverage amid the Iranian attacks.
Although the US is largely self-sufficient with its oil production, an uptick in prices globally could hike the cost for Americans at the gas or petrol pump, and could boost inflation.
The average price of one gallon of gas (3.8 liter) in the US jumped more than 11 cents overnight to $3.11 on Tuesday, according to the AAA Gas Prices website.
Earlier on Tuesday, Trump stressed that the attack on Iran “had to happen” despite its human cost and the strain it is putting on the energy market.
“We have a little high oil prices for a little while, but as soon as this ends, those prices are going to drop – I believe – lower than even before,” he told reporters.
Opinion polls show that the attack on Iran is unpopular among the US public. Increasing economic costs from the war could further diminish support for the war, months ahead of the US midterm elecitons.
US and Israeli strikes against Iran, which have sparked a regional war, likely violate the UN Charter’s prohibition on aggression and lack any valid legal justification, experts say.
“This is not lawful self-defence against an armed attack by Iran, and the UN Security Council has not authorised it,” the United Nations special rapporteur on the promotion of human rights and “counterterrorism”, Ben Saul, told Al Jazeera.
list of 3 itemsend of list
“Preventive disarmament, counterterrorism and regime change constitute the international crime of aggression. All responsible governments should condemn this lawlessness from two countries who excel in shredding the international legal order.”
The administration of United States President Donald Trump did not seek authorisation from the UN Security Council – or even from domestic lawmakers in Congress – for the war.
And Iran did not attack the US or Israel prior to the strikes that killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and several other senior officials, as well as hundreds of civilians.
Yusra Suedi, assistant professor in International law at the University of Manchester, said there are grounds to believe that the attacks against Iran amount to a crime of aggression.
“This was an act of use of force that was unjustified,” Suedi told Al Jazeera.
International law is a set of treaties, conventions and universally accepted rules that govern relations between countries.
The Trump administration has argued that Iran posed a threat to the US with its missile programme and nuclear programme, arguing that military action was necessary.
But the UN Charter prohibits unprovoked attacks against other countries.
“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations,” the founding document of the UN says.
Rebecca Ingber, a professor at Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University who previously served as an adviser to the US Department of State, said that the prohibition of the use of force is a “bedrock” principle of international law that allows for only limited exceptions.
“States may not use force against the territorial integrity of other states except in two narrow circumstances — when authorised by the UN Security Council or in self-defence against an armed attack,” said Ingber.
Suedi said one instance in which the use of force can be legal is when a country seeks to thwart an imminent attack by another state.
Trump has said that the goal of the war is to “defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime”.
But Suedi cast doubt over that assertion.
“Imminence in international law is really understood to be something that is instant, something that is overwhelming, something that leaves really no other choice but to act first, something that is pretty much happening now,” Suedi said.
She noted that Trump himself had said repeatedly that the June 2025 US attacks on Iran “obliterated” the country’s nuclear programme, and that Tehran and Washington were holding talks when the war broke out on Saturday.
“There really was no evidence of an imminent threat, and that the attack was a pre-emptive strike,” Suedi told Al Jazeera.
“If it’s pre-emptive, it means that you are acting to counter something that is in the future, hypothetical, speculative, and that is not imminent, but that’s exactly what happened here. That is illegal under international law.”
US officials, including Trump, have said that Iran was building a ballistic missile arsenal to protect its nuclear programme and later build a nuclear bomb.
Trump has also said that he is seeking “freedom” for the Iranian people, as the US president’s aides have described the regime in Tehran as brutal.
In January, Iran responded to a wave of anti-government protests with a heavy security crackdown. The violence killed thousands of people.
Trump encouraged the demonstrators to take over government buildings at that time, promising them that “help is on the way”.
Experts say a humanitarian intervention to help protesters in Iran would have required UN Security Council authorisation to cross the legal threshold.
“The rationales have been scattershot,” Brian Finucane, a senior adviser for the US programme at the International Crisis Group, said of the US justifications for the strikes.
“Certainly none of them amount to a serious international legal argument.”
Beyond the possible breaches of the UN Charter, the US-Israeli attacks risk violating provisions of international humanitarian law that are meant to shield civilians from war.
An Israeli or US attack on a girls’ school in the southern Iranian city of Minab on Saturday killed at least 165 people, local officials have said.
“Civilians are already paying the price for this military escalation,” Annie Shiel, US Director at Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC), told Al Jazeera in an email.
“We are seeing deeply alarming reports of attacks on schools and critical civilian infrastructure in Iran and across the region, with devastating casualties, including many children. These strikes risk igniting a wider regional catastrophe.”
The strikes on Iran are the latest instance yet of Trump’s reliance on the brute force of the US military power to promote his global agenda.
During Trump’s second term, the US has threatened to use military force to seize the Danish territory of Greenland, killed at least 150 people in a campaign targeting alleged drug trafficking vessels in Latin America, and abducted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in a military attack that killed at least 80 people.
The legality of all of these policies has been questioned domestically and internationally, with UN experts saying that the boat strikes amount to extrajudicial killings.
Trump told The New York Times in January that he is driven by his own morality.
“I don’t need international law. I’m not looking to hurt people,” the US president said at that time.
In recent years, both Democratic and Republican US administrations have also continued to send Israel billions of dollars of weapons despite the Israeli military’s genocidal war on Gaza, which has been documented by rights groups and UN experts.
Ingber, the law professor, said that the use of wanton military force has contributed to a sense of impunity for powerful states and has degraded the international law system that has sought to place some constraints on conflict since the end of World War II.
“The prohibition on the use of force is a relatively recent innovation in the span of things. This rule is policed through the actions and reactions of states, and it feels fragile right now,” she said. “Do we want to go back to a world where states could use force as a tool of policy?”
Iran itself has lashed out against countries across the region in response to the US strikes, launching missiles and drones at military bases as well as civilian targets – including airports, hotels and energy installations.
“In the context of war, from the moment that the first strike was launched, the rules of warfare apply, and they’re very clear that civilian objects and spaces cannot be targeted,” Suedi said.
She said Iran also appears to have violated international law with its response.
Suedi told Al Jazeera that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Israel’s brutal assault on Gaza have been showing the “unravelling fragility” of international law.
The war on Iran “is a next episode in that very worrying trend”, she said.
“We’re going to cut off all trade with Spain.” Donald Trump targeted Spain in an Oval Office tirade, complaining about Madrid’s refusal to let its bases be used for attacks on Iran. He also joined the German chancellor in saying Spain doesn’t spend enough on its military.
Published On 3 Mar 20263 Mar 2026
Share
Despite promising to end United States involvement in costly and destructive foreign wars, President Donald Trump, together with Israel, has launched a massive military assault on Iran, targeting its leadership and nuclear and missile infrastructure.
Much like his predecessors, Trump has relied on military force to pursue US strategic interests, continuing a pattern that has defined US foreign policy for more than two decades.
Since the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and the US capital, the US has engaged in three full-scale wars and bombed at least 10 countries in operations ranging from drone strikes to invasions, often multiple times within a single year.
The graphic below shows all the countries the US has bombed since 2001.
These may not include all military strikes, particularly covert or special operations.
In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks, President George W Bush launched what he called a “war on terror”, a global military campaign that reshaped US foreign policy and triggered wars, invasions and air strikes across numerous countries.
According to an analysis by Brown University’s Watson Institute of International & Public Affairs, US-led wars since 2001 have directly caused the deaths of about 940,000 people across Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and other conflict zones.
This does not include indirect deaths, namely those caused by loss of access to food, healthcare or war-related diseases.
The US has spent an estimated $5.8 trillion funding its more than two decades of conflict.
This includes $2.1 trillion spent by the Department of Defense (DOD), $1.1 trillion by Homeland Security, $884bn to increase the DOD base budget, $465bn on veterans’ medical care and an additional $1 trillion in interest payments on loans taken out to fund the wars.
In addition to the $5.8 trillion already spent, the US is expected to have to lay out at least another $2.2 trillion for veterans’ care over the next 30 years.
This would bring the total estimated cost of US wars since 2001 to $8 trillion.
The first and most direct response to 9/11 was the invasion of Afghanistan to dismantle al-Qaeda and remove the Taliban from power.
On October 7, 2001, the US launched Operation Enduring Freedom.
The initial invasion succeeded in toppling the Taliban regime within just a few weeks. However, armed resistance groups mounted a prolonged resistance against US and coalition forces.
The war went on to become the longest conflict in US history, spanning four presidencies and lasting 20 years until the final withdrawal in 2021, after which the Taliban regained control of Afghanistan.
An estimated 241,000 people died as a direct result of the war, according to an analysis from Brown University’s Costs of War project. Hundreds of thousands more people, mostly civilians, died due to hunger, disease and injuries caused by the war.
At least 3,586 soldiers from the US and its NATO allies were killed in the war, which is estimated to have cost $2.26 trillion for the US, according to the Cost of War project.
On March 20, 2003, Bush launched a second war, this time in Iraq, claiming that President Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction – a claim that proved to be false.
On May 1, 2003, Bush declared “mission accomplished” and the end of major combat operations in Iraq.
However, the subsequent years were defined by violence from armed groups and a power vacuum that fuelled the rise of ISIL (ISIS).
In 2008, Bush agreed to withdraw US combat troops, a process completed in 2011 under President Barack Obama.
Although not declared wars, the US has also expanded its air and drone campaigns.
Beginning in the mid-2000s, the CIA launched drone strikes inside Pakistan’s tribal areas along the Afghan border, targeting al-Qaeda and Taliban figures believed to be operating there. These strikes marked the early expansion of remote warfare.
Obama dramatically expanded the drone strikes in Pakistan, particularly in the early years of his presidency.
At the same time, the US conducted air strikes in Somalia against suspected al-Qaeda affiliates, later targeting fighters linked to al-Shabab as that armed group grew in strength.
In Yemen, US forces carried out missile and drone strikes against al-Qaeda leaders.
In 2011 during an uprising against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, the US joined a NATO-led intervention in Libya. American forces launched air and missile strikes to enforce a no-fly zone.
Gaddafi was overthrown and killed, and Libya descended into prolonged instability and factional fighting.
From 2014 onwards, the US intervened in the Syrian war with the stated goal of defeating ISIL. Building on its campaign in Iraq, the US conducted sustained air strikes in Syria while supporting local partner forces on the ground.
In Iraq, US forces advised Iraqi troops, fought ISIL remnants and tried to counter Iranian influence, highlighted by a Trump-ordered 2020 strike that killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani.
Former US defense official Michael Mulroy breaks down the US justification for striking Iran, while some US officials say there were no immediate threats.
Published On 3 Mar 20263 Mar 2026
Share