US & Canada

Iran has kept up attacks on neighbouring Gulf states and Israel, despite intense US and Israeli bombing, with senior Iranian figures assassinated.

The Strait of Hormuz remains effectively closed – limiting the transit of vital energy supplies.

So what’s Iran’s strategy, and what are its options?

Presenter: Nick Clark

Guests:

Foad Izadi – Professor in the Faculty of World Studies, University of Tehran

Mehran Kamrava – Professor at Georgetown University in Qatar and director of the Iranian Studies Unit, Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies

Elijah Magnier – Military and political analyst who specialises in wars in the Middle East

A California jury found ⁠Alphabet’s Google and Meta liable for $3m in damages in a landmark social media addiction lawsuit that accused the companies of being legally responsible for the addictive design of their platforms.

The decision was handed down by a Los Angeles-based jury on Wednesday after more than 40 hours of deliberation across nine days, and more than a month after jurors heard opening statements in the trial.

Among those who testified in the case were Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Instagram head Adam Mosseri, although YouTube chief executive Neal Mohan was not called to testify.

The plaintiff in the case, referred to as KGM or Kaley, was awarded $3m in damages. The 20-year-old said she became addicted to social media at a young age, which exacerbated her mental health issues. She began using YouTube at age six and Meta-owned Instagram at age nine.

Kaley’s legal team alleged that the social media giants used designed features intended to hook young users, including notifications and autoplay features.

“Today’s verdict is a historic moment — for Kaley and for the thousands of children and families who have been waiting for this day. She showed extraordinary courage in bringing this case and telling her story in open court. A jury of Kaley’s peers heard the evidence, heard what Meta and YouTube knew and when they knew it, and held them accountable for their conduct. Today’s verdict belongs to Kaley,” lawyers for the plaintiff said in a statement shared with Al Jazeera.

Jurors were instructed not to consider the content of the posts and videos Kaley saw on the platforms. That is because tech companies are shielded from legal responsibility for user-posted content under Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act.

Meta consistently argued that Kaley had struggled with her mental health separate from her social media use, often pointing to her turbulent home life. Meta also said, “not one of her therapists identified social media as the cause” of her mental health issues in a statement following closing arguments. But the plaintiffs did not have to prove that social media caused Kaley’s struggles — only that it was a “substantial factor” in causing her harm.

YouTube focused less on Kaley’s medical records and mental health history and more on her use of the platform itself. The company argued that YouTube is not a form of social media, but rather a video platform, akin to television, and pointed to her declining use as she got older.

According to company data, she spent about one minute per day on average watching YouTube Shorts since its inception. YouTube Shorts, which launched in 2020, is the platform’s section for short-form, vertical videos that include the “infinite scroll” feature that the plaintiffs argued was addictive.

“We disagree with the verdict and plan to appeal. This case misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site,” Jose Castaneda, a spokesperson for Google, told Al Jazeera.

Meta did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

Snap and TikTok were previously named in the suit but settled with the plaintiff for undisclosed terms before the trial began.

Shifting momentum

The verdict is the latest in a wave of lawsuits targeting social media companies. There is a looming federal social media addiction case slated to begin in June in Oakland, California.

On Tuesday in New Mexico, a jury found that Meta violated state law by misleading users about the safety of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, and by enabling child sexual exploitation on those platforms.

This case has been closely watched by legal experts, who say the verdict will shape future litigation.

“The fact the jury found Meta and Google liable represents that these cases have real exposure to the social media giants, and are going to frame how future litigation will proceed. Although this case will certainly be appealed, I would not be surprised if Meta and Google are already making changes within their platform to reflect the real exposure, and hopefully, the states will start to enact laws regulating social media in a manner congruent with the ruling,” entertainment lawyer Tre Lovell told Al Jazeera.

Professor Eric Goldman, associate dean for research at the Santa Clara University School of Law, echoed Lovell’s assessment.

“The Los Angeles jury verdict is the first of three bellwether trials in Los Angeles, with more bellwether trials to follow in summer, in the federal case. As such, today’s verdict is just one datapoint about liability and damages. The other trials could reach divergent outcomes, so this jury verdict isn’t the final word on any matter.”

Despite the ruling, Meta’s stock has not taken a hit, as it came the same day CEO Mark Zuckerberg was appointed to a new White House advisory council. The stock is up 0.7 percent. Alphabet’s stock, however, is trending downward in midday trading on the heels of the verdict, down 1 percent.

A high-ranking diplomatic source has confirmed that Iran received a 15-point plan from the United States aimed at ending the US-Israeli war on the country.

But the source told Al Jazeera on Wednesday that Tehran described the US proposal as “extremely maximalist and unreasonable”.

“It is not beautiful even on paper,” the source added, calling the plan deceptive and misleading in its presentation.

The comments come as US President Donald Trump has claimed – despite Iranian denials – that negotiations are under way between Washington and Tehran to reach an agreement to end the nearly one-month conflict.

The source explained that Iran has a clear understanding of what conditions it requires for a ceasefire and what it will reject.

The source also stated that there have been no direct Iran-United States talks since the war began – however, messages have been exchanged through a number of mediators.

The response from Iran came hours after sources confirmed to Al Jazeera that Pakistan had shared the US’ ceasefire demands with Iran.

Mediators are pushing for possible in-person talks between the Iranians and the Americans, as early as Friday in Pakistan, Egyptian and Pakistani officials said on Wednesday.

According to Al Jazeera’s Osama Bin Javaid, Pakistan is in a unique position as a mediator because it has a Shia minority, and relatively good ties with Iran including cross-border trade.

It also has a defence agreement with Saudi Arabia, and a Sunni majority that is closely aligned with the Gulf states, he said. Pakistan’s military leader also has a relationship with Trump, Javaid added.

“So, all of this puts Pakistan in a unique position to act between these two sides: it has no US bases on its soil, so Iran cannot accuse it of being used by the United States, and it is a state that has historically tried to mend relations between these actors,” he said.

⁠Egypt’s ⁠Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty, meanwhile, said Cairo was ready ⁠to host any meetings related to Iran as long as ‌it serves de-escalation.

Abdelatty said in a news conference that Egypt supported ⁠Trump’s initiative to ⁠negotiate with Iran.

On Iran’s response to ⁠the US plan, ⁠he said “we ⁠have to continue our efforts, it’s all about ‌diplomacy and negotiations”.

Turkiye has also been been trying to position itself as a possible mediator, with Harun Armagan, a vice chairman for foreign affairs in Turkiye’s ruling AK Party, telling the Reuters news agency that Ankara has been “playing a role passing messages” between Tehran and Washington.

Iran counters with own conditions to end war

Iranian state television’s English-language broadcaster, Press TV, quoted an anonymous official also stating that Iran rejected the US ceasefire proposal.

“Iran will end the war when it decides to do so and when its own conditions are met,” Press TV quoted the official as saying.

The official offered Iran’s own five-point plan, which included a halt to killings of its officials, means to make sure no other war is waged against it, reparations for the war, the end of hostilities and Iran’s “exercise of sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz”.

Earlier, two officials from Pakistan described the 15-point US proposal broadly, saying it addressed sanctions relief, a rollback of Iran’s nuclear program, limits on missiles and reopening the Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world’s oil is shipped.

An Egyptian official involved in the mediation efforts said the proposal also includes restrictions on Iran’s support for armed groups.

Israeli officials, who have been advocating for Trump to continue the war against Iran, were surprised by the submission of a ceasefire plan, the Associated Press news agency reported, citing an anonymous source.

Iran remains highly suspicious of the United States, which twice under the Trump administration has attacked during high-level diplomatic talks, including with the February 28 strikes that started the current war.

Iran’s rejection of the US proposal came as Israel launched air attacks on Tehran and Washington deployed paratroopers and more Marines to the region.

Iran, meanwhile, launched more attacks on Israel and Gulf Arab countries, including an assault that sparked a huge fire at Kuwait International Airport.

In a sharp escalation in the Middle East conflict, energy production itself is now in the firing line.

Iran targeted facilities across the Gulf – including the world’s largest liquefied natural gas hub in Qatar.

It was retaliation for an Israeli strike on an Iranian gasfield hours earlier.

Energy prices are soaring, and countries from Asia to Europe are scrambling for alternative supplies.

But, for Asia – the world’s largest LNG buyer – this is a severe energy shock.

The region depends on Gulf supplies to keep its lights on, its factories running, and its people fed.

Police source tells Al Jazeera the attack hits positions of the Iran-aligned PMF, which the US has increasingly targeted.

An aerial attack on a military base in western Iraq’s Anbar province has killed seven fighters and wounded 13, according to Iraq’s Ministry of Defence.

The strikes on Wednesday targeted the military healthcare clinic at the base in Habbaniyah, according to the ministry. It called the attack “a heinous crime” that violated “all international laws and norms”.

An Iraqi police source told Al Jazeera the attack targeted positions of the Iraqi military’s Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF), a paramilitary force that includes some Iran-aligned brigades and reportedly shares the base with members of Iraq’s regular army.

“What we understand from the military here is that air strikes were carried out and then further strikes carried out on that same position,” said Al Jazeera’s Assed Baig, reporting from Baghdad. He said it appeared to be the first time the PMF was hit alongside the broader Iraqi military.

Iraq has denounced the attack as the country has been dragged into the United States-Israeli war on Iran. On Tuesday, Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani’s office said Baghdad would summon the Iranian and US ambassadors over the recent strikes.

‘Right to respond’

A security official quoted by the AFP news agency said the strike occurred at the same base that suffered a deadly attack the day before.

Tuesday’s strike, which the PMF blamed on the US, was the deadliest in Iraq since the start of the war on Iran on February 28, It killed 15 fighters, including a commander.

The attack prompted Iraq’s government to grant the PMF a “right to respond” to any attack against it, a position Baghdad reaffirmed on Wednesday.

“We reserve our full right to take all necessary measures to respond to this aggression within the established legal frameworks,” the Defence Ministry said.

Since the war began, pro-Iran armed groups have claimed responsibility for attacks on US interests in Iraq and across the region while strikes have also targeted these groups, including at government-linked positions.

The US Department of Defense has acknowledged that combat helicopters have carried out strikes against pro-Iran armed groups in Iraq during the current conflict.

Baig said the latest strikes demonstrate “an escalation in terms of the PMF being targeted”.

“Increasingly, Iraq is becoming a battlefield between Iraqi armed factions and the United States,” he said.

Iran’s military has said the United States is failing in its war and negotiating with itself to save face, dismissing claims by US President Donald Trump that talks are under way to end the conflict.

“Has the level of your inner ⁠struggle reached the stage ⁠of you negotiating with yourself?” Ebrahim Zolfaqari, spokesperson for the unified command of Iran’s armed ⁠forces, Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, said on Wednesday in comments carried by Iran’s semiofficial Fars news agency.

“Don’t call your failure an agreement,” he added, mocking US leadership.

The statement is the latest official Iranian denial that Tehran is engaged in diplomacy with Washington, even as Trump insists talks are ongoing and reports circulate of the US sending a peace proposal.

Speaking to reporters at the White House yesterday, the US president said Washington is speaking to the “right people” in Iran, which he claimed wants to make a deal “so badly”.

“They are talking to us, and they’re making sense,” said Trump.

Trump’s position marks a stark shift from days earlier, when he threatened to strike Iran’s power plants if Tehran did not fully reopen the Strait of Hormuz, where it has threatened vessels from “enemy” nations. Hours before the ultimatum expired on Monday – and US markets reopened for the trading week – Trump said he would delay any planned attack by five days, citing diplomatic progress. Iranian officials denied this.

Zolfaqari said there would be no return to previous oil prices or the prior regional order “until our will is done”.

‘Obscurity in Iran’

Questions over possible diplomacy were amplified by US media reports that Washington had sent Tehran a 15-point plan to end the war.

The Wall Street Journal, quoting unnamed officials, reported that the plan calls on Iran to dismantle its three main nuclear sites, end any enrichment on its soil, suspend its ballistic missile programme, curb support for its regional allies and fully reopen the Strait of Hormuz. In return, Iran would have nuclear-related sanctions lifted and the US would assist the country’s civilian nuclear programme, according to the Journal.

Al Jazeera’s Mohamed Vall, reporting from Tehran, said there is “total confusion” in Iran over the status of potential negotiations.

“Contrary to the clarity with which Donald Trump seems to speak, there is obscurity in Iran,” said Vall. “What we hear instead are the officials and politicians here saying the complete opposite. They say there is no negotiation.

“There is total confusion, total obscurity, and it’s really making this situation very interesting and very strange,” he added.

While there is a “cloud of mistrust” between the US and Iran, Tehran is engaged diplomatically with several regional countries, including Pakistan, said Al Jazeera’s Tohid Asadi, also reporting from Tehran. Islamabad, which appears to have emerged as a possible mediator in the conflict, delivered the US’s plan to Tehran, according to The New York Times.

Israel, Iran trade strikes

Amid the competing claims about negotiations, Israel continued to strike Iran, and the US reportedly prepared to send more troops to the Middle East.

Israel’s military said it carried out a series of late-night strikes on infrastructure in Tehran. Iran’s Fars news agency reported at least 12 people killed and 28 wounded in an “enemy attack” on the residential area of Varamin in southern Tehran.

Iran, for its part, claimed to fire more missiles at Israel, including targeting a military base in the northern Israeli city of Safad, as well as sites in the cities of Tel Aviv, Kiryat Shmona and Bnei Brak. There were no immediate reports of casualties from that missile salvo, though an earlier rocket attack by Hezbollah killed one woman in northern Israel.

Meanwhile, the US was expected to send at least 1,000 soldiers from the Army’s elite 82nd Airborne Division to the ⁠Middle East, adding to some 50,000 US soldiers already in the region, the Reuters and AP news agencies reported.

“As the US is preparing for peace talks, it’s also preparing for war,” said Al Jazeera’s John Hendren from Washington, DC. “Diplomacy and military moves are going on at the same time.”

Trita Parsi, Vice President of the Quincy Institute, argues that Iran is unlikely to agree to end the war without sanctions relief, while there is little sign Donald Trump is willing to offer meaningful concessions, adding that a deal remains unlikely until then.

This is first big step by the ChatGPT maker to focus its business on potentially more lucrative areas, such as coding tools.

OpenAI is shutting down its social media app Sora, which went viral towards the end of last year as a place to share short-form videos generated by artificial intelligence but also raised alarms in Hollywood and elsewhere.

OpenAI said in a brief social media message on Tuesday that it was “saying goodbye to the Sora app” and that it would share more soon about how to preserve what users had already created on the app.

“What you made with Sora mattered, and we know this news is disappointing,” it said.

The company behind ChatGPT released Sora in September as an attempt to capture the attention, and potentially advertising dollars, that follow short-form videos on TikTok, YouTube or Meta-owned Instagram and Facebook.

But a growing chorus of advocacy groups, academics and experts expressed concerns about the dangers of letting people create AI videos on just about anything they can type into a prompt, leading to the proliferation of nonconsensual images and realistic deepfakes in a sea of less harmful “AI slop”.

OpenAI was forced to crack down on AI creations of public figures – among them, Michael Jackson, Martin Luther King Jr and Mister Rogers – doing outlandish things, but only after an outcry from family estates and an actors’ union.

Disney, which made a deal with OpenAI last year to bring its characters to Sora, said in a statement on Tuesday that it respects “OpenAI’s decision to exit the video generation business and to shift its priorities elsewhere”.

But Disney did not see the move coming, the Reuters news agency reported.

On Monday evening, Walt Disney and OpenAI teams were working together on a project linked to Sora. Just 30 minutes after the meeting, the Disney team was blindsided with word that OpenAI was dropping the tool altogether, a person familiar with the matter said.

OpenAI announced the move publicly on Tuesday.

“It was a big rug-pull,” according to the person, who requested anonymity to discuss the matter.

Messy process

The move is the first big step by the ChatGPT maker to focus its business on potentially more lucrative areas, such as coding tools and corporate customers.

But the abrupt cancellation of Sora illustrates how messy the streamlining process may become as OpenAI prepares for a stock market debut that could come as early as later this year.

The Sora decision means the end of a blockbuster $1bn deal between Disney and the ChatGPT maker that was announced a little more than three months ago. As part of the three-year deal, Disney said it would invest $1bn in OpenAI and lend more than 200 of its iconic characters to be used in short, AI-generated videos.

But the transaction between the companies never closed, two other people familiar with the matter said, and no money changed hands.

US media is reporting the Trump administration has proposed a temporary ceasefire and a 15-point plan to end the war on Iran. The reports emerge as Trump claims the US is already talking to Iranian officials – a claim Iran has vehemently denied.

The agency will increase robotic missions to the moon and launch a spacecraft called Space Reactor 1 Freedom.

NASA has unveiled a major overhaul of its moon and Mars strategy, scrapping plans for a lunar-orbit space station and instead committing $20bn over the next seven years to build a base on the moon’s surface, while also advancing plans to send a nuclear-powered spacecraft to Mars.

NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman outlined the changes on Tuesday during a meeting in Washington, DC, with partners, contractors and government officials involved in the Artemis programme, saying the agency will increase robotic missions to the moon and lay the groundwork for nuclear power on the lunar surface.

Isaacman, appointed by US President Donald Trump and who took charge in December, said the changes form part of a broader overhaul of NASA’s long-term Moon-to-Mars strategy.

The planned moon base is intended to support long-term human presence on the lunar surface, with robotic missions expected to help prepare the site, test technologies and begin building infrastructure before astronauts return later this decade.

The agency also disclosed plans to launch a spacecraft called Space Reactor 1 Freedom before the end of 2028, a mission designed to demonstrate nuclear electric propulsion in deep space on the way to Mars.

The spacecraft will deliver helicopters on the Red Planet, similar to the Ingenuity robotic test helicopter that flew with NASA’s Perseverance rover, a step the agency said would help move nuclear propulsion technology from laboratory testing to operational space missions.

The Ingenuity helicopter was the first aircraft to achieve powered, controlled flight on another planet. It travelled to Mars attached to NASA’s Perseverance rover and landed in February 2021.

Pausing the Lunar Gateway station

The Lunar Gateway station, a planned space station in lunar orbit being developed with contractors including Northrop Grumman and international partners, was meant to serve as a base where astronauts could live and work before heading to the Moon’s surface.

But NASA now plans to repurpose some Gateway components for use on the surface instead.

Repurposing Lunar Gateway to create a base on the moon’s surface leaves uncertain the future roles of Japan, Canada and the ‌European Space ⁠Agency in the Artemis programme, three key NASA partners that had agreed to provide components for the orbital station.

“It should not really surprise anyone that we are pausing Gateway in its current form and focusing on infrastructure that supports sustained operations on the lunar surface,” Isaacman said.

The changes to NASA’s flagship Artemis programme are reshaping billions of dollars’ worth of contracts and come as the United States faces growing competition from China, which is aiming to land astronauts on the moon by 2030.

The Artemis programme, begun in 2017 during Trump’s first term as president, envisions regular lunar missions as NASA’s long-awaited follow-up to its first moon missions in the Apollo programme that ended in 1972.

United States President Donald Trump is insistent that “productive” negotiations have taken place with Iran to end the war he launched with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu almost a month ago. The major problem with that narrative is that Iran’s top officials have repeatedly denied it.

Amid the fog of war and the propaganda being pushed by all sides, it is hard to know who to believe. But an analysis of what each side has to gain from any negotiations – and a potential end to the conflict – could bring more clarity.

Trump’s comments that there were “major points of agreement” after “very good” talks with an unnamed “top” Iranian figure came as stock markets opened in the US for the start of the trading week. The five-day deadline he gave for a positive response from Iran also happens to coincide with the end of the trading week.

Many have cynically noted that timing, especially as it comes after a two-week period in which oil prices have fluctuated in line with events in the Middle East, leading to a high of about $120 a barrel last week.

Trump’s talk of negotiations may also give time for more US troops to arrive in the Middle East, if Washington decides to conduct some form of ground invasion of Iranian territory.

Among those questioning Trump’s motives was the man believed by some to be the senior Iranian official Trump was referencing: the Iranian parliamentary speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf.

“No negotiations have been held with the US, and fakenews is used to manipulate the financial and oil markets and escape the quagmire in which the US and Israel are trapped,” Ghalibaf wrote on social media.

The impact on stock markets and oil prices is not just relevant to the US and Trump, but also to Iran. However, for Tehran, the benefit comes in the damage the war is doing to the US and global economies.

The Iranian state wants the US to feel economic pain from the war, as a means of deterrence for any future Israeli or US attack on Iran.

Therefore, as much as it is in the US interest to play up talk of negotiations in order to calm the markets, it is also in Iran’s interest to downplay any talk to do the exact opposite, and not give the Trump administration any breathing space.

US benefits?

Consequently, both sides have their own narratives on negotiations, and public comments will do little to inform us as to whether those negotiations are really taking place, or in what form they may be.

That instead leads us into what each side has to gain from negotiations, and an actual end to the war at the current stage.

Trump appears to have underestimated the consequences of the conflict that he launched with Netanyahu on February 28, and the ability of the Iranian state to withstand the attacks against it without collapsing.

“They weren’t supposed to go after all these other countries in the Middle East … Nobody expected that,” he said last week, adding that even “the greatest experts” didn’t believe that.

Leaving aside that experts – including US intelligence officials – had repeatedly made those warnings, reality has now made Trump aware of the consequences he had previously ignored.

While some allies and supporters may continue to push him to plough on with the conflict, Trump has previously shown himself amenable to cutting deals to extricate himself from difficult situations, and it is not far-fetched to see the benefits of doing so in this instance.

The US president has already ordered his government to issue temporary sanctions waivers on some Iranian oil, in an effort to calm oil prices. This is the first time Iran has lifted sanctions on any Iranian oil since 2019, and it will not be lost on Iran that the waivers have come as a result of their policy to expand the conflict to the wider Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, a key waterway through which a fifth of the world’s oil and liquified natural gas transits.

The war was already unpopular in the US – and now even more so, as consumers see the impact on petrol prices and potentially other areas of the economy, all in the run-up to congressional elections later this year, in which Trump’s Republicans are likely to do poorly.

Trump, therefore, has the options of extending this war – and suffering the economic and political cost, or ending it – and facing the criticism that he was unable to finish what he termed as a “short-term excursion”.

The Iranian perspective

But whatever Trump wants to do, the decision is not totally in his hands. Iran, attacked for the second time in less than a year, now appears to have less of an incentive to end the war without the establishment of an effective deterrent to another in the future.

Gone are the days of the telegraphed attacks on US assets and the slow climb up the escalation ladder. From the outset of the current war, it was clear that Iran had changed its tactics and was not as interested in restraint.

It is now arguably in the Iranian state’s benefit to drag out the conflict and inflict more suffering on the region, if it wants to ensure its survival.

There may also be a belief that interceptor stocks in Israel are running low, allowing Iran to strike targets more effectively. The thinking – particularly among the hardliners who now appear to be in the ascendancy in Iran – will be that now is not the time to stop, and allow those interceptor stocks to replenish.

And yet, Iran is suffering. More than 1,500 people have been killed across the country, according to the government. Infrastructure has been heavily damaged, and the power grid could be next. Relations with Gulf neighbours have nosedived, and, after repeated Iranian attacks, are unlikely to return to their previous levels after the conflict.

More moderate voices in Iran will look at that and think that things could easily get worse. They can argue that some form of deterrence has been achieved, and that the time is now ripe to talk. And if they can get some concessions – such as a promise of no future attacks, or greater authority in the Strait of Hormuz – they may decide that the time is right to make a deal.

The final qualification spots for the FIFA World Cup 2026 are about to be sealed via UEFA and intercontinental playoffs.

With the FIFA World Cup 2026 kicking off on June 11, the final spots that are still up for grabs are being fiercely fought by nations in qualifiers around the globe.

The last governing body to complete their continental playoff route is UEFA, with four European spots still up for grabs at the showpiece event.

Thereafter, FIFA’s Play-Off Tournament – an intercontinental competition – will provide the last-chance saloon for two more of the best non-qualified finishers from the other continental processes around the globe.

Al Jazeera Sport takes a look at UEFA’s final continental playoff path as that draws to a close.

Which UEFA teams are still in with a chance of World Cup qualification?

There will be more European teams than from any other continent at the World Cup: 16.

There are still 16 European teams, meanwhile, vying for the final four of the UEFA qualifying positions for the World Cup:

• Italy, Northern Ireland, Wales, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ukraine, Sweden, Poland, Albania, Slovakia, Kosovo, Turkiye, Romania, Denmark, North Macedonia, Czechia and the Republic of Ireland

Which UEFA teams have already qualified for the World Cup?

The 12 European teams that have already qualified for the World Cup are:

• Germany, Switzerland, Scotland, France, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Austria, Norway, Belgium, England, and Croatia

What is the pathway to the World Cup for the remaining UEFA teams?

The remaining teams are divided into four paths. Only the winner of each path will qualify:

Path A:

• Italy vs Northern Ireland and Wales vs Bosnia and Herzegovina
  The winner of this path joins World Cup Group B (with Canada, Qatar, and Switzerland).

Path B:

• Ukraine vs Sweden and Poland vs Albania
  The winner of this path joins World Cup Group F (with the Netherlands, Japan, and Tunisia).

Path C:

• Slovakia vs Kosovo and Turkiye vs Romania
  The winner of this path joins World Cup Group D (with USA, Paraguay, and Australia).

Path D:

• Denmark vs North Macedonia and Czechia vs Republic of Ireland
  The winner of this path joins World Cup Group A (with Mexico, South Africa, and South Korea).

When are the first set of UEFA playoffs for World Cup qualification?

The first round of pathway matches will be played by the 16 remaining teams on March 27, and are single-leg semifinals.

When are the second set of UEFA playoffs for World Cup qualification?

The second round of pathway matches will be played on March 31, with the four winners of each pathway final progressing to the FIFA World Cup 2026. These matches will also be played over a single leg.

How have the UEFA qualifiers reached this stage?

The four final UEFA qualifying places are being decided by the teams that were the 12 runners-up from the group qualifying stage and four based on performances in the UEFA Nations League.

How were the home teams decided for the UEFA playoffs?

The highest-ranked teams are hosting the semifinals. The hosts of the finals were determined by a draw.

Pressure on Italy as playoff hopefuls eye 2026 World Cup

There is no doubt that Italy are the biggest name not amongst those nations that have already qualified.

The four-time champions are seeking to avoid the ignominy of missing out on a World Cup for a third consecutive time.

The spotlight has been on the Italian domestic league, Serie A, for falling behind the other leagues on the continent with their clubs struggling to compete in European competitions.

There will be no greater evidence of Italian football’s fall from grace, however, than the failure to reach the finals.

“It’s undeniable that there’s nervousness,” coach Gennaro Gattuso said. “Only someone without blood running through their veins wouldn’t feel it.”

Will there be any more qualifiers for the World Cup after UEFA’s?

Yes. There is a different format for the intercontinental playoffs, which FIFA simply calls the Play-Off Tournament.

Two teams will advance from a field of six.

The lineup of teams was comprised of two nations from CONCACAF (Jamaica, Suriname) and one each from Asia (Iraq), Africa (DR Congo), South America (Bolivia) and Oceania (New Caledonia).

The Trump administration has deployed ICE agents to airports across the United States amid staffing issues and delays. It’s seen as a negotiating tactic in a funding dispute with Democrats, who describe it as a dangerous move.

Videos show large demonstrations in Tehran, where crowds waved Iranian flags and chanted in support of the government. The rallies come as Iranian media highlights public backing amid the US-Israeli war on the country.

Videos show flames and a plume of thick smoke following an explosion at a Valero oil refinery in Port Arthur, Texas. Police have told local media they believe an industrial heater caused the blaze and there are no reports of injuries.

Schools and hospitals bombed; strikes on apartment buildings; energy facilities targeted and attacks on neighbouring states.

Have Israel, the United States and Iran broken international law in the war? Or what legal justification might they claim?

Presenter: James Bays

Guests:

Geoffrey Nice – Human rights lawyer and former International Criminal Court prosecutor

Brian Finucane – Senior adviser with the US programme at the International Crisis Group and former legal adviser at the US State Department

Nicholas Tsagourias – Professor of international law at the University of Sheffield

Since Donald Trump entered the political fray, critics have opined that if he ever faced a direct confrontation with Iran as United States president, the result would be chaos, endless war, and global instability. They have been proven wrong once again.

Today, the world is witnessing the swift decisive assertion of US power that is leading to a clear military victory over a terrorist state that has long threatened US as well as global peace and security.

For too long, US foreign policy was dominated by hesitation disguised as sophistication. US presidents, Democrat and Republican, advocated for “containment”, “strategic patience”, and “measured responses”, while adversaries grew bolder and more brazen. Iran expanded its influence across the Middle East, funded proxy militias, threatened global energy supplies, and openly challenged Washington’s credibility by attacking US interests, personnel and assets.

Trump rejected the conventional Washington approach even before assuming public office. He never believed that endless negotiations or carefully worded diplomatic statements would deter a regime that only yields to power. His critics called it recklessness. What it actually was, was clarity.

Instead of drifting into another conventional decade-long war, Trump chose a simple formula: hit hard, hit fast, and make it clear that the US will not capitulate to threats.

Today, most of the foreign policy establishment still defines “victory” the way it did in the 20th century: overthrow the regime, occupy the country, and rebuild its government in our liking. That post-World War II and Cold War model worked in Europe, Asia and Latin America. It did not in the Middle East. Iraq and Afghanistan proved that nation-building can be a futile endeavour.

Trump understands something Washington does not want to admit: the exercise of American power should not be to build democratic societies. It should be to eliminate threats.

From the outset, the Trump administration made clear that it was launching the attacks to control the outcome.

If Iran’s military leadership has been weakened, if its ability to threaten US forces and allies has been reduced, and if its nuclear ambitions have been significantly set back, then the mission has already succeeded, and it is time to end the war.

When Trump declares victory, he will not do it quietly. He will say it directly: America struck, America won, and America did so without engaging in another endless war.

Timing has always been one of Trump’s political talents. He understands momentum better than any of his predecessors of the past few decades did. If the military objectives have already been largely achieved, waiting months to say so would only weaken the message.

Declaring victory at the moment of peak strength sends a powerful signal — not just to Iran, but to the entire world.  It ratifies that the US has red lines again. It makes clear that threats will be met with force, not speeches. And most importantly, it declares that the US is once again confident enough to act decisively.

Critics on the American left will predictably label any Trump victory “premature” and his methods “illegal” and reckless. But their genuine discomfort with his success has more to do with the use of American firepower to achieve objectives that they believe can or should only be had through diplomacy and multilateral rather than unilateral actions.

Trump’s “America First” foreign policy builds on US President Ronald Reagan’s peace through strength mantra by being willing to pre-emptively exercise American might to demonstrate American resolve and deter adversaries. It has proven effective before, and it is proven effective again today.

It destroys the critics’ primary thesis — that American strength must always be restrained, that military power should be used cautiously, and that multilateral strategies are a prerequisite.

Trump’s Iran victory speech will not be lofty and replete with platitudes. It will be direct, simple, and unabashedly America First.

He will explain that the US acted because it had to do so. He will declare that the imminent threat of a nuclear Iran has been eliminated. He will say American lives were saved. And he will end by stating that the world is safer because of this sacrifice by the American people.

Through Trump’s America First foreign policy, the US will act decisively and unilaterally. It will not apologise for defending its interests. And it will prove that acting boldly can change the course of events in a matter of weeks, not years.

After decades of vacillation, Trump’s message to the world is simple: America’s back and American interests come first.

America did not need another endless war. It needed a president willing to act.

And that is exactly what it got.

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

Iran’s paralysis of the Strait of Hormuz has led to major disruption in global oil and gas supply and many countries have begun tapping into their strategic oil reserves to evade an economic crisis.

Since the US-Israeli war on Iran began on February 28, Tehran, whose territorial waters extend into the Strait, has blocked the passage of vessels carrying 20 percent of the world’s oil and liquified natural gas (LNG) from the Gulf to the rest of the world. The strait is the only waterway to open ocean available for Gulf oil and gas producers.

Last week, the price of Brent crude topped $100 a barrel compared to the pre-war price of around $65.

The United States Trump administration has tried and failed to re-open the strait. First, it called on Western nations to send warships to help escort shipping through the strait – an option all have declined or failed to respond to. Then, on Sunday, Trump gave Iran 48 hours to reopen the strait or face US attacks on its power plants.

However, on Sunday, Iran said it would hit back at power plants in Israel and those in the region supplying electricity to US military assets. And, on Monday, Iran said it would completely shut the Strait of Hormuz if US attacks on its energy infrastructure continue.

Following Iranian attacks on energy infrastructure across the Gulf over the past three weeks, countries including Saudi Arabia, UAE, Iraq and Kuwait have also cut their oil output, raising further concerns about global oil and gas supply.

On Monday, Trump appeared to backtrack on his Hormuz ultimatum when he ordered all US strikes on power plants in Iran to be paused for five days and claimed the US was holding talks with Iran. Iran has denied this.

In the face of chaos, on March 11, the 32 member countries of the International Energy Agency (IEA) agreed to release 400 million barrels of oil from their strategic emergency reserves – the largest stock draw in the agency’s history. It is far higher than the 2022 release of 182 million barrels of oil by the group’s members after Russia invaded Ukraine.

What are strategic oil reserves and which countries hold them?

What is a strategic oil reserve?

A strategic oil reserve or strategic petroleum reserve (SPR) is an emergency stockpile of crude oil which is held by the government of a country in government facilities.

This oil reserve can be drawn on in cases of emergencies like wars and economic crises. Governments generally buy the oil through agreements with private companies in order to keep their reserves filled.

According to the IEA, its members currently hold more than 1.2 billion barrels of these public emergency oil stocks with a further 600 million barrels of industry stocks held by private organisations but under government mandate to be available to supplement public needs.

Other reserves are also held by non IEA members like China.

Which countries have strategic oil reserves? Can they withstand the war in Iran?

China

Beijing is not an IEA member, but holds the world’s largest strategic oil reserve.

According to China’s Ministry of Ecology and Environment, Beijing “started a state strategic oil reserve base programme in 2004 as a way to offset oil supply risks and reduce the impact of fluctuating energy prices worldwide on China’s domestic market for refined oil”.

“The bases are designed to maintain strategic oil reserves of an equivalent to 30 days of imports, or about 10 million tonnes,” according to a 2007 report from Chinese state news agency Xinhua.

These strategic oil reserves are primarily located along China’s eastern and southern coastal regions such as Shandong, Zhejiang and Hainan.

China does not officially publish information about its crude inventories so it is not clear how much oil the country has in reserve. However, according to energy analytics firm Vortexa, in 2025, “China’s onshore crude inventories (excluding underground storage) continued to rise… reaching a record 1.13 billion barrels by year-end”.

According to data from Kpler, China bought more than 80 percent of Iran’s shipped oil in 2025. As the war in Iran escalates, therefore, Chinese companies such as refiner Sinopec have begun pushing for permission to use oil from the country’s reserves according to a Reuters report on Monday.

“We basically won’t buy Iranian oil, this is pretty clear,” Sinopec President Zhao Dong told a company results briefing in March, according to Reuters.

“We believe the government is closely monitoring crude oil and refined fuel inventories and market situations, and will advance policies at the appropriate ⁠time to support refinery productions,” he added.

US

Of the IEA members, the US holds one of the largest strategic oil reserves with 415 million barrels of oil. The stores are maintained by the US Department of Energy. It has confirmed that it will release 172 million barrels of oil from its SPR over this year as its contribution to coordinated efforts with the IEA.

On Friday, the Trump’s administration announced that it has already lent 45.2 million barrels of crude from the SPR to oil companies.

The US created its SPR in 1975 after an Arab oil embargo triggered a spike in gasoline prices which badly affected the US economy.

The reserves are located near big US refining or petrochemical centres, and as much as 4.4 million barrels of oil can be shipped globally per day.

The SPR currently covers roughly 200 days of net crude imports, according to a Reuters news agency calculation.

US presidents have tapped into the stockpile to calm oil markets during war or when hurricanes have hit oil infrastructure along the US Gulf of Mexico.

In March 2024, US President Joe Biden announced oil would be released from the reserve to ease pressure from oil price spikes following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and amid subsequent sanctions imposed on Russian oil by the US and its allies.

Japan

An IEA member, Japan also has one of the world’s largest strategic oil reserves.

According to Japanese media Nikkei Asia, at the end of 2025, the country held about 470 million barrels of in emergency reserves which is enough to meet 254 days of domestic consumption. Out of this amount, 146 days worth of oil are government-owned, 101 days are owned by the private sector, and the remainder is jointly stored by oil-producing countries.

Japan set up its national oil reserve system in 1978 to prevent future economic disruptions following the global oil crisis in 1973. That oil crisis heightened Japan’s vulnerability and dependence on oil from abroad. The country remains one of the world’s largest oil importers, relying on fossil fuels from overseas for about 80 percent of its energy needs.

Japan’s reserves are primarily located in 10 coastal national stockholding bases with major storage sites in the Shibushi base in Kagoshima in southern Japan.

On March 16, Japan announced that it had begun releasing oil from its emergency reserves amid the global energy crisis sparked by the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi told journalists the country would unilaterally release 80 million barrels of oil from stockpiles amid supply concerns.

UK

As of February 26, according to the UK Department of Energy Security and Net Zero, the UK holds about 38 million ⁠barrels of crude oil and 30 million barrels of refined products, as strategic reserves. The reserves are thought to be able to last around 90 days.

The country established its reserves in 1974 following the oil crisis of the 1970s and also to meet its IEA obligations. Members of the organisation are required to maintain at least 90 days of net imports in reserve.

The UK’s strategic reserves are largely held by private oil companies, but are regulated by the government. Milford Haven in South Wales and Humber in northeast England are key locations of reserves.

The country is among the 32 IEA nations releasing oil from its reserve to address the oil crisis amid the war in Iran. The UK government will be contributing 13.5 million barrels as a part of the release.

EU

EU member nations including Germany, France, Spain and Italy, all IEA members, also hold strategic oil reserves.

Germany has 110 million barrels of crude oil and 67 million barrels of finished petroleum products which are held by the government and can be released in a matter of days, according to Germany’s economy ministry.

France reported about 120 million barrels’ worth of crude and finished products in reserve at the end of 2024, the most recent data publicly available. About 97 million barrels of that is held by SAGESS, a government-mandated entity, with ‌a breakdown ⁠of about 30 percent crude oil, 50 percent gasoil, 9 percent gasoline, 7.8 percent jet fuel and some heating oil. Another 39 million barrels are held by the country’s oil operators.

On March 16, Spain approved the release of around 11.5 million barrels of oil reserves over 90 days to counter ⁠supply shortages caused by the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, Energy Minister Sara Aagesen told reporters. This is the country’s contribution to the IEA release. The country has around 150 million barrels of crude oil reserves in total.

Italy, by law, was holding about 76 million barrels of reserves, representing 90 days of Italy’s average net oil imports, in 2024.

Protesters gathered outside the US embassy in Madrid as sanctions pushed Cuba into an electricity blackout. They called for an end to US intervention in Latin America and the Middle East.

A new UN report confirms the past decade was the hottest on record, warning that rising temperatures driven by fossil fuels demand urgent climate action.

United States President Donald Trump has shared a Truth Social video of a TV comedy skit showing a panicked United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer trying to avoid his call, on the same evening the two leaders spoke about the US-Israel war on Iran.

The skit, aired on the premiere of the new British version of Saturday Night Live (SNL), adapted from the long-running US show, shows Starmer, played by George Fouracres, panicking inside 10 Downing Street at the prospect of a call with Trump.

Starmer turns to a fake David Lammy, his deputy prime minister, and says, “What if Donald shouts at me?”

When Trump picks up the phone, Starmer immediately hangs up, asking why it is so difficult to talk to “that scary, scary, wonderful president”.

“Sir, just be honest and tell him we can’t send any more ships to the Strait of Hormuz,” Lammy says, the vital shipping lane effectively blocked by Iran since the US and Israel launched strikes on Iran on February 28.

“I just want to keep him happy, Lammy. You don’t understand him like I do – I can change him,” Starmer says.

Trump did not post any comment alongside the video.

Trump has lashed out at his NATO allies, including Starmer, for not joining the US efforts to break the de facto blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of global oil passes. A week ago, he asked the UK to be more supportive of the US war efforts because Washington spends “a lot of money” on NATO.

The US president last week called the NATO countries “cowards” for their refusal to join the war. This, after European leaders rejected Trump’s demands ⁠to help ensure freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.

“Now that fight is militarily WON, with very little danger for them, they complain about the high oil prices they are forced to ⁠pay, but don’t want to help open ⁠the Strait of Hormuz, a simple military maneuver that is the single reason for the high oil prices. So easy for them to do, with so ⁠little risk,” he wrote on the Truth Social platform.

The closure of the strait has sent oil prices soaring, creating the biggest energy crisis since the 1970s. On Sunday, Trump threatened to “obliterate” Iran’s power plants if it did not reopen the strait within 48 hours.

Trump-Starmer call

Separately, on Sunday evening, Starmer spoke with Trump to discuss escalating tensions in the Middle East, his office said in a statement. It was not clear if the call took place before or after Trump posted the SNL skit on Truth Social.

In a readout of the call, the Prime Minister’s Office said the two leaders focused on “the need to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to resume global shipping” amid growing concerns over energy security and regional stability.

“They agreed that reopening the Strait of Hormuz was essential to ensure stability in the global energy market,” the statement said.

The leaders also agreed to remain in close contact as the situation develops and “to speak again soon”, it added.

On Monday, Starmer ⁠said there had been no assessment ⁠that mainland Britain was being targeted by Iran.

Starmer asserted that any ⁠attempt to reopen the Strait of Hormuz needed careful consideration and a ‌viable plan, and that his number one priority was to ‌protect ‌British interests and de-escalate.

‘Not Winston Churchill’

The US leader has repeatedly railed against Starmer since the start of the war, accusing him of not doing enough to support the US.

“This is not Winston Churchill that we’re dealing with,” Trump said earlier this month, after Starmer initially declined to let US warplanes use UK bases to strike Iran.

“I’m disappointed with Keir,” Trump has also said, slamming Starmer’s “big mistake”. “I like him, I think he’s a nice man, but I’m disappointed.”

On Friday, the UK government gave authorisation for the US to use its military bases to carry out strikes on Iranian missile sites that were attacking ships in the Strait of Hormuz.

Starmer initially rejected a US request to use British bases for the strikes on Iran, saying he needed to be satisfied that any military action was legal.

But the prime minister modified his stance after Iran conducted strikes on British allies across the Middle East, saying the US could use RAF Fairford and Diego Garcia, a joint US-UK base in the Indian Ocean.

The Argentinian star forward records his 901st career goal as Inter Miami beat New York City FC at Yankee Stadium.

Micael dos Santos Silva’s go-ahead goal in ‌the 74th minute lifted Inter Miami to a 3-2 comeback victory over ⁠hosts New York ⁠City FC on Sunday.

Dos Santos headed home a beautiful ball from fellow defender Noah Allen, which found its way past NYCFC keeper Matt ⁠Freese and gave Inter Miami (3-1-1, 10 points) their first Major League Soccer (MLS) win since March 7.

Lionel Messi scored his 901st career goal, and Gonzalo Lujan scored his first career MLS ⁠goal for Inter Miami, which bounced back after being eliminated from the CONCACAF Champions Cup on Wednesday following a pair of draws against Nashville, with that side advancing on the away goals tiebreaker.

NYCFC (3-1-1, 10 points) suffered their first defeat of the season and snapped ‌a three-game winning streak despite goals from Nicolas Fernandez Mercau and Agustin Ojeda.

Maxi Moralez delivered a stellar assist to Ojeda in the 59th minute to put NYCFC briefly ahead 2-1.

Moralez sent a great ball through traffic down the middle of the field to Ojeda, who was uncontested, and flipped the ball past Inter Miami goalkeeper Dayne St Clair.

But two minutes later, Inter Miami earned a free kick⁠, and Messi delivered. His shot deflected off NYCFC’s Hannes Wolf ⁠and redirected past Freese (five saves) to tie the game at 2.

Messi nearly had a multi-goal match as he came close on several chances. He hit the post in the 31st minute and the crossbar in ⁠the 42nd minute. He also had a late opportunity to pad Miami’s lead but missed wide.

German Berterame appeared to extend ⁠Miami’s lead in the 79th minute, but what would have ⁠been his first goal with his new club was nullified after he was ruled offside.

After Lujan scored in the fourth minute, NYCFC levelled the match with a fantastic free kick goal by Fernandez Mercau, who ‌lifted a high shot that bounced just under the crossbar and in, freezing St Clair in place in the 17th minute.

NYCFC used Moralez as a decoy, having him ‌approach ‌as if he would take the shot, and then Fernandez Mercau ran up and booted it.

St Clair (three saves) made a huge save late in stoppage time to preserve Inter Miami’s win.