US & Canada

Quansah will miss England’s quarterfinal against Norway after being sent off for a sliding studs-up ​tackle.

England defender Jarell Quansah has been suspended for two matches following his red card in the team’s World Cup last-16 victory over Mexico, leaving manager Thomas Tuchel short of back-line options for the latter stages of the tournament.

The two-match ban, confirmed on Thursday, means that Quansah will miss England’s quarterfinal against Norway on Saturday in Miami and a potential semifinal should they advance.

Quansah was sent off after a video review determined that he made a sliding studs-up tackle in the round-of-16 match against the cohosts.

Jude Bellingham’s goal and a Harry Kane penalty double inflicted a rare defeat on Mexico at their Estadio Azteca as 10-man England won a nerve-racking World Cup classic 3-2 to reach the quarterfinals.

England had been weighing a possible appeal after FIFA overturned a one-match suspension imposed on United States striker Folarin Balogun earlier in the tournament.

The defender would only be available again for selection if England reach the World Cup final.

The suspension is a setback for Tuchel as England attempt to continue their run in the tournament, with the team’s defensive problems compounded by injuries.

England midfielder Jordan Henderson had surgery on his left wrist following an injury sustained after tripping over an advertising board during the team’s celebrations for the win over Mexico. He rejoined the team at its camp in Kansas City and has been ruled out for the remainder of the World Cup.

A day earlier, France coach Didier Deschamps revealed that an appeal against a yellow card shown to Michael Olise in the World Cup last-16 win over Paraguay had been rejected by FIFA.

“The yellow card has not changed. We were notified by FIFA this morning; it has been maintained,” Deschamps told reporters in Foxborough on Wednesday, on the eve of France’s quarterfinal showdown with Morocco at the Boston Stadium.

The US military says it has struck 90 targets across Iran, hitting ports and infrastructure along the Strait of Hormuz. Iran says at least 14 people have been killed in two nights of attacks, and that it has responded with drone strikes on US-linked sites in the Gulf region.

Trump’s name was removed from the centre’s facade and signage last month, after a judge ordered its removal.

A US appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump’s name must remain off the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, while the organisation appeals an earlier ruling that found a name change illegal.

Trump’s name was removed from the centre’s facade and signage last month after US District Judge Christopher Cooper ordered the removal and blocked Trump’s plans to close the centre for renovations. An appeal against this ruling was struck down by a three-judge panel on Wednesday.

It is another setback for the centre’s board of trustees, of which Trump is chairman, in a saga that began earlier this year when the Kennedy Center became: “The Donald J. Trump and The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts.”

The conspicuous addition, and ensuing legal battle, became symbolic of Trump’s broader push to imprint his legacy – and, in this case, his actual name – on the nation’s capital in his final term.

The decision by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied the Trump administration’s request to pause the lower court order in a lawsuit brought by Democratic Representative Joyce Beatty, a Kennedy Center board member.

“Today’s ruling again affirms that this administration’s efforts to rename the Kennedy Center were unlawful,” Beatty said in a statement.

“His name no longer desecrates this sacred memorial, which belongs to the American people.”

The panel of judges wrote on Wednesday that the board of trustees’ request “failed to show how they will be irreparably injured” if Trump’s name remains off the building through the appeal process.

The board had argued that the removal “threatens to impede” fundraising efforts, but the judges found that claim came without the support of “specific facts or evidence”.

The Kennedy Center did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment from the Associated Press news agency.

When Trump first took office in 2025, he replaced the Kennedy Center’s board of trustees, who then named him chairman. His name was quickly added to the building, but a federal judge then ruled that the name change was illegal, prompting the ensuing legal battle.

On Tuesday, two tankers were attacked as they transited the Strait of Hormuz via a passage in Omani waters. Gulf countries responded by sharply condemning the attacks and blaming Iran. The United States then launched attacks on Iranian territory, to which Tehran responded by striking Bahrain and Kuwait. US President Donald Trump has now said the memorandum of understanding (MoU) that Iran and the US signed is void.

This latest escalation illustrates how the Strait of Hormuz has become the central issue in the US-Israel war with Iran that began on February 28. Disagreements over the strait’s future have proven to be the hardest to resolve in the US-Iranian negotiations, as questions about Iran’s nuclear programme have been put to the side.

The disruption of traffic in the Strait of Hormuz has an immediate and costly price tag attached, for Iran, for its Gulf neighbours, and for a global economy that has spent four and a half months absorbing the largest oil supply shock in the history of the modern market.

Iran’s leverage is also its liability

For Tehran, the strait is its strongest card – one that is also incredibly costly. Since the war began, Iranian forces have mined the strait, attacked vessels and cut traffic through the passage by roughly 95 percent. This has led to what the International Energy Agency’s Fatih Birol has called “the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market”.

That leverage is real: about a fifth of the world’s oil and a fifth of its liquefied natural gas (LNG) normally move through Hormuz, and no amount of Gulf pipeline capacity can fully replace it.

But Iran has effectively been strangling its own lifeline along with everyone else’s. Iranian crude, once sold for $3 a barrel less than international benchmarks, is now selling at a 20 percent discount. The country’s oil exports collapsed by more than 90 percent in May as US naval enforcement squeezed its shadow fleet.

Even before the war, the World Bank projected that Iran’s economy would contract in 2026. The impact of the collapse of oil sales will be far-reaching because of the closure.

A 60-day US Treasury waiver issued on June 22, permitting Iran to sell oil at full market rates through August 21, but has now been renounced following the attacks on Tuesday.

This is the economic backdrop to Iran’s insistence on asserting joint authority over the strait and floating a system of transit fees or “service charges” for passing ships. Washington has made clear that Iran cannot charge tolls in international waters governed by the right of transit passage under the Law of the Sea.

For Tehran, the dispute is not really about toll revenue, which would be rather modest when compared to its oil income; it is about establishing precedent and sovereignty over a chokepoint that is its only real point of leverage once sanctions relief and frozen-asset release are negotiated.

The latter is itself contested: Iran wants half of an estimated $25bn in frozen assets released immediately, while the US has resisted. A separate $300bn reconstruction fund floated in the MoU has already become a political flashpoint in Washington.

The Gulf is paying for a crisis it didn’t start

For the Gulf states, the Strait of Hormuz crisis has meant improvising around geography. Saudi Arabia has redirected crude through its roughly 1,200km (746-mile) East-West pipeline to the Red Sea port of Yanbu, and the UAE has leaned on the Habshan-to-Fujairah line to the Gulf of Oman.

Together, though, these pipelines carry a fraction of what Hormuz once did, at best 7 million barrels a day of design capacity for the Saudi line and under 1.8 million for the Emirati one, against roughly 20 million barrels a day that transited the strait before the war.

Both alternatives have themselves come under attack: Iranian strikes cut the East-West pipeline’s throughput by an estimated 700,000 barrels a day in April, and drone attacks disrupted loading at Fujairah. Seaborne crude exports from Gulf states excluding Iran fell by roughly half between February and March.

Qatar, host to the talks between Iran and the US, has its own acute stake: its entire LNG export industry depends on the Strait of Hormuz, and it has been pushing the hardest for a settlement.

Oman, drawn into Iran’s sovereignty claim as co-owner of the strait’s territorial waters, is caught between commercial interest in a resolution and a legal position, as a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) that publicly rejects Iranian tolls. Iraq, highly dependent on its Gulf terminals, has quietly explored an export route north through Turkiye.

None of these workarounds are cheap, and all of them are political as well as commercial, tying Gulf capitals’ economic fortunes to a settlement between the US and Iran.

The rest of the world: Insurance bills and inflation

Beyond the region, the crisis has been transmitted mainly through two channels: price and insurance. Higher oil prices are passed on to various consumer goods down supply chains and suppress growth. According to estimates, the global economy can slow down to 2.8 percent in 2026 from 3.4 percent last year due to the closure of the strait.

Insurance for Hormuz transit, which cost roughly 0.25 percent of a vessel’s value before the war, has spiked as high as 8 percent, turning a single large tanker’s coverage into a $3m-to-$8m expense. Shipping lines including CMA CGM and Hapag-Lloyd have layered on conflict surcharges of $1,500 to $2,000 per twenty-foot equivalent unit (TEU). Washington’s own International Development Finance Corporation has had to step in as, in effect, an insurer of last resort, offering up to $40bn in reinsurance capacity to keep vessels moving.

China has absorbed the largest share of this pain: It takes close to 40 percent of its crude imports through the Strait of Hormuz and buys more than 80 percent of Iran’s oil exports outright, making it simultaneously Tehran’s most important customer and one of the war’s most exposed bystanders. Japan, which sources 70 percent of its Middle Eastern crude via the strait, has already tapped strategic reserves.

For import-dependent economies across Asia and Europe, the strait’s fate is not an abstraction of Middle East diplomacy; it shows up directly in fuel, freight and fertiliser prices.

Oil and gas dominate the headlines, but roughly 30 percent of the world’s seaborne fertiliser trade also passes through Hormuz.

The World Bank’s fertiliser price index has risen more than 12 percent in the first quarter of 2026 and has since climbed to its highest level since October 2022, driven largely by the closure. The Food and Agriculture Organization has warned that the resulting scarcity of urea and other nitrogen products will show up as lower yields through the 2026–2027 growing season, hitting import-dependent and already food-insecure countries in Africa and Asia the hardest.

Unlike an oil-price spike, which mainly stings at the pump, a fertiliser shortfall reaches into next year’s harvest, meaning an unresolved Hormuz standoff carries a slower-moving but longer tail of economic damage than crude prices alone suggest.

That is the arithmetic weighing on both sides. A deal that reopens the Strait of Hormuz without resolving who controls it risks recreating the same instability that shut it in the first place; one that concedes Iranian toll authority risks a precedent Washington and shipping nations will not accept. Until that circle is squared, the global economy is left pricing in a chokepoint that neither side can fully afford to keep closed, nor fully agree how to reopen.

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

US President Donald Trump says the US will ‘probably’ carry out another round of strikes on Iran on Wednesday night, following overnight strikes he said were launched in response to Iranian attacks on ships in the Strait of Hormuz.

Messi is the top goal scorer after tallying his eighth against Egypt, with Erling Haaland and Kylian Mbappe next best.

Argentina superstar Lionel Messi has, once again, taken the lead in the race for the World Cup’s Golden Boot award after scoring his eighth goal in his country’s thrilling 3-2 win over Egypt in the round of 16 on Tuesday.

Messi’s goal brought Argentina back on level terms after they were 2-0 down in the match in Atlanta, and also helped him break away from the rest of the pack.

For three days, French talisman Kylian Mbappe and Argentinian great Lionel Messi rubbed shoulders as the joint leaders – with seven goals apiece – in the race to be the tournament’s top goal scorer, but Haaland’s double in Norway’s round of 16 win against Brazil put him level with both on Sunday.

When the World Cup’s knockout stage began, Messi became the first to reach seven goals when Argentina beat Cape Verde on Friday, and Mbappe matched him a day later as France beat Paraguay.

England’s Harry Kane took his tally to six goals after scoring in England’s thrilling 3-2 win over Mexico late on Sunday.

Spain’s Mikel Oyarzabal and Mbappe’s teammate Ousmane Dembele are hot on their heels with four goals each.

Here’s everything you need to know about FIFA’s Golden Boot award:

What’s the FIFA Golden Boot award and how is it decided?

FIFA’s Golden Boot is awarded to the player with the most goals at the end of the tournament.

France’s Mbappe is the current holder after scoring eight goals in Qatar at the 2022 World Cup.

If two players are tied on the same number of goals at the end of the tournament, then the player with the most assists will win the award.

If those tiebreakers cannot split two players, then the Golden Boot is handed to the player who achieved their goals and assists in the least number of minutes.

Which players are the top goal scorers at World Cup 2026?

1. Lionel Messi (Argentina) – 8 goals, 1 assist
2. Kylian Mbappe (France) – 7 goals, 2 assists
3. Erling Haaland (Norway) – 7 goals, 0 assists
4. Harry Kane (England) – 6 goals, 1 assist
5. Ousmane Dembele (France) – 4 goals, 2 assists
6. Mikel Oyarzabal (Spain) – 4 goals, 1 assist

How many Golden Boot awards have current World Cup players won?

Mbappe, Kane and James Rodriguez are all looking to bag the top goal-scorer prize for a second time.

England’s Kane won the award in 2018 in Russia, while Colombia’s Rodriguez was the top scorer in 2014 in Brazil.

No player has ever won the award more than once.

Entering the quarterfinals, Mbappe gets his chance first to increase his goal tally when France plays Morocco on Thursday.

Which player has scored the most goals in a single World Cup?

French forward Just Fontaine holds the record after scoring an incredible 13 goals at the 1958 tournament in Sweden.

Sandor Kocsis scored 11 at the 1954 tournament in Switzerland, while West Germany’s Gerd Muller bagged 10 at the World Cup 1970 in Mexico.

Who has scored the most goals in FIFA World Cup history?

1. Lionel Messi (Argentina) – 21
2. Kylian Mbappe (France) – 19
3. Miroslav Klose (Germany) – 16
4. Ronaldo (Brazil) – 15
5. Harry Kane (England) and Gerd Muller (West Germany) – 14

Egypt head coach Hossam Hassan has called for players and reporters at the World Cup to speak out about the killing of children in Gaza and Palestine. Hassan made the comments after his team’s controversial 3-2 defeat to Argentina in the last 16.

An Argentina fan waves the Israeli flag during his team’s Round of 16 match against Egypt. Some viewed it as a provocation towards Egypt’s coach, Hossam Hassan, who dedicated Egypt’s first-ever World Cup knockout victory to the people of Gaza.

The clamour surrounding the World Cup’s controversy involving US President Donald Trump and FIFA chief Gianni Infantino had barely died down when another arose in the aftermath of Argentina’s controversial 3-2 win over Egypt in the round-of-16 match in Atlanta.

As the defending champions staged a stunning comeback against the Pharaohs in the knockout match on Tuesday, questions were raised about an unusually late VAR call that saw Egypt’s second goal rescinded, followed by a chain of events that led to Argentina’s victory.

A day earlier, Trump had revealed that he had asked FIFA to review, and overturn, USA striker Folarin Balogun’s one-game suspension for a red card, and the governing body controversially obliged. The matter was dusted off by Belgium as they dumped the hosts out of the tournament with a 4-1 win in the match Balogun was initially suspended from but ended up playing – to no avail.

Trump watch on the World Cup

While the anger surrounding FIFA’s red-card decision was directed at both the football governing body and Trump, Egypt’s outburst was solely aimed at the organisation, which, according to Egypt’s manager, had “wanted to keep the world champions in the competition”.

Head coach Hossam Hassan speculated that match officials had been put under pressure to ensure that one of the biggest names, Argentina’s Lionel Messi, stayed in the tournament.

“Perhaps they wanted Messi to stay in the running,” Hassan told beIN Sports after the match.

“In football, there are sometimes external factors that go beyond the technical aspects. The world champions received support at every level.”

While the tournament has been no stranger to the political spotlight of questionable integrity, experts say the lines between sport and politics have been blurred even further.

“After the Balogun affair, who knows which decisions are legitimate and can be trusted, and which can’t?” Simon Chadwick, professor of Afro-Eurasian sport at the Emlyon Business School in Shanghai, told Al Jazeera.

“If the Trump administration is maintaining a watching brief over the tournament, it’s worth remembering: Argentina’s president, Javier Milei, is a staunch Trump supporter.”

Trump and his Argentinian counterpart share a close relationship. Milei is a regular feature at pro-Trump political gatherings in the United States, and Trump has described Argentina’s far-right populist leader as his “favourite president”.

Chadwick also opined that Hassan’s vociferous support for Palestine at the World Cup could have prompted some officials to “have built-in biases when making decisions”.

Hassan dedicated part of his pre-match news conference on Monday to making an impassioned plea for the people of Palestine, especially those in the besieged Gaza Strip.

Advantage, Argentina

Circling back to the VAR call that sliced Egypt’s lead in half and was followed by decisions that conveniently favoured Argentina, Chadwick said the period of play was “unusual”.

He wondered why the referee had not called a foul in real-time that VAR picked up several moments later and only once Egypt scored their second goal.

“There was something distinctly unusual about the goal and VAR decision, something that was amplified when Argentina scored one of its goals,” Chadwick said, questioning refereeing standards in the match.

“In the build-up, an infringement was perpetrated by an Argentina player, which could have been interpreted as a similar offence to that supposedly committed earlier by the Egyptian player. At the very least, refereeing standards during the game were somewhat inconsistent, although critics are clearly making much more serious claims.”

But while many social media commentators and football experts were outraged at the decisions – Portuguese football icon Jose Mourinho reportedly termed the match “daylight robbery” – some football experts said it was a closer call.

“Robbed might be a strong word,” football analyst Ali El Garni said.

“I’d say decisions made by both the referee and VAR could have gone either way, and Argentina benefitted from all the 50/50 incidents.

“The incident leading to the Egyptian disallowed goal was an indisputable foul. The question is how far VAR should go back to check the legitimacy of a goal,” said El Garni, who has extensively reported on European and North African football.

However, he did wonder if VAR would have been involved had the scoreline been 2-0 in Argentina’s favour instead.

“Would the goal have been disallowed had it been scored by Argentina? It’s unlikely,” he said.

“What’s making it worse for Egypt is the fact that a similar incident involving what appeared to be a foul on [Mohamed] Salah took place before Argentina’s third goal, and VAR didn’t intervene,” he said.

Meanwhile, Chadwick questioned why VAR officials had raised the issue if the on-field officials did not call a foul when Egypt‘s Marwan Attia lightly tugged the shirt and stepped on the foot of Lisandro Martinez.

A logical solution to the VAR issue, Chadwick proposed, would be “for fans and viewers to listen to an assessment of the alleged offence, hear the various arguments, and have a clear insight into the basis for a decision”.

Chadwick admitted that although Egyptian players should not have become overwhelmed with emotion, “a sense of injustice was induced by the VAR decision”.

“This technology was supposed to minimise doubt and bring consistency. Instead, its use during this match had significant cognitive and behavioural effects,” he said.

“Indeed, rather than brandishing cards and inflaming the situation even further, the referee should have used his discretion and judgement to defuse the situation.”

While Chadwick dismissed rumours of match-rigging in favour of Messi and Argentina, he acknowledged the pull of the iconic footballer’s star power.

“There is no doubt that Messi is a box office attraction the tournament really can’t afford to be without.”

Air raids come after US revokes a waiver that allowed Iran to sell oil, citing the attacks on ships in the Strait of Hormuz.

‘Perhaps they wanted to keep the world champions in the competition,’ Hassan said after his team was knocked out.

Egypt coach Hossam Hassan claims his side was “cheated” out of a place in the World Cup quarterfinals after Argentina staged a stunning late comeback from 2-0 down to win 3-2 in a gripping last-16 match in Atlanta.

The Pharaohs started as underdogs but took the lead against the world champions within 15 minutes, which was doubled in the second half before Argentina walked away with the win on Tuesday.

“I do not want to put it nicely and talk about hard luck. We have been cheated unfairly today; we have suffered injustice,” Hassan said in an explosive post-match news conference.

Egypt had a Mostafa Zico goal ruled out when they were leading 1-0 as the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) intervened to spot a foul on Lisandro Martinez much earlier in the move.

Zico did then put Egypt on the brink of a place in the last eight for the first time by doubling their lead.

However, the defending champions hit back as Cristian Romero reduced the arrears before Lionel Messi, who had a first-half penalty saved, smashed in the equaliser with his eighth goal of the tournament.

The controversy did not end there, though, as in the buildup to Argentina’s winner scored by Enzo Fernandez, Egypt believe they should have instead been awarded a penalty for a pull by Alexis Mac Allister on Hamdy Fathy.

“We haven’t seen respect or fair play. There has not been respect or fair play,” Hassan said.

“A penalty was ruled out, was not even checked by VAR. A second goal was remarkably disallowed. There has not even been a VAR check when we have all seen the image of the [shirt] being pulled back.”

Hassan said he would not watch any more matches of the tournament, such was the injustice he felt.

“I am not going to continue following the matches of this World Cup,” he added.

“This is my own way of speaking up.”

‘They wanted Messi to stay’

After Yasser Ibrahim’s header put Egypt in front, Argentina were awarded a penalty for a trip on Nicolas Tagliafico.

Messi’s problems with World Cup penalties continued as his effort was saved by Mostafa Shobeir.

The eight-time Ballon d’Or winner has now failed to score four of his eight non-shootout spot-kicks at the World Cup, including two misses at this tournament.

Hassan speculated that the officials had been put under pressure to keep one of the biggest names in the competition.

“Perhaps they wanted to keep the world champions in the competition. Perhaps they wanted Messi to stay in the running,” he told BeIN Sports.

“In football, there are sometimes external factors that go beyond the technical aspects. The world champions received support at every level.”

Egypt had been surprisingly attacking early on in the game, a departure from Hassan’s usual tactic of playing with a tight defence and looking for counterattack opportunities.

It helped them take an early lead, but it was the heroics of goalkeeper Mostafa Shobeir that ensured they remained in front by half-time.

“I’m very, very satisfied with the effort they put in. Most of our players come from the Egyptian domestic league, while many players in other national teams are based in Europe and live in that professional environment,” Hassan added.

“Yet with predominantly local players – besides Mohamed Salah and Omar Marmoush – we were able to compete with anyone.”

Hassan also complained about the scheduling of the match for a noon kick-off (16:00 GMT), just four days after both sides had won their round of 32 matches.

“Whoever schedules those matches has never played football. You never schedule a game for 12pm. At noon you go for a walk or to eat brunch; you do not go to play football.

“When are the players supposed to eat? At 7:30am?

“There have been a lot of things to be questioned on and off the pitch.”

DEVELOPING STORYDEVELOPING STORY,

The US military says it has launched airstrikes against Iran as explosions were reported in several locations in the south of the country.

The US Central Command (CENTCOM) said the strikes began on Tuesday, and are being conducted “in response to Iranian attacks on three commercial vessels that were transiting the Strait of Hormuz”.

Iranian media have reported several explosions in the southern port city of Sirik, as well as Qeshm Island and Bandar Abbas.

“According to state TV, six explosions have been heard on the island of Qeshm which is the largest island in the vicinity of the Strait of Hormuz, with very geostrategic significance when it comes to Iran’s control and authority over the Strait of Hormuz,” Al Jazeera’s Tohid Asadi reported from Tehran.

“The state TV also says that at least seven explosions have been heard in the areas close to Sirik Port which is very important because it oversees the Strait of Hormuz, another strategic point from which Iran imposes its control and authority over the Strait of Hormuz,” Asadi said.

Starting from the time after the signing of the [memorandum of understanding], we have been witnessing limited confrontation and escalation in this highly escalated situation at the Strait of Hormuz,” he added.

Following the blasts, Iran’s foreign ministry said it held the US government responsible for the consequences of breaching the memorandum of understanding (MoU) agreed between the two countries in June, which was supposed to put to an end to the war the US and Israel began against Iran in late February. The MoU mandated lifting the US naval blockade on Iran in exchange for Tehran reopening the vital Strait of Hormuz.

The US also agreed at the end of June to waive sanctions on Iranian oil for 60 days.

However, the US Treasury Department on Tuesday moved to revoke the temporary suspension of sanctions on Iranian oil, less than 20 days sales after the MoU was signed. The department cancelled a licence announced in June that had allowed Iran to produce, sell and deliver crude oil and related products through August 21.

The move by the Treasury Department comes after tankers in the Strait of Hormuz were attacked. A Qatari tanker caught fire off the coast of Oman Monday after being struck by an “unknown projectile” in the Strait of Hormuz, according to the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO).

Iranian television reported claims that the LNG tanker came under attack after ignoring warnings, but Tehran did not directly claim the assault. Neither the US Central Command (CENTCOM) nor the IRGC commented on the incident.

A second ship, a Saudi-flagged crude oil tanker, was also damaged in the Strait of Hormuz when the IRGC fired missiles, sources told Reuters news agency.

A US ⁠official warned that Iran’s attacks on vessels in the Strait ‌of Hormuz were “wholly unacceptable” and would ‌be ‌met with consequences, Reuters reported Tuesday.

In response, Iran’s foreign ministry said it would take any measure it deemed necessary to safeguard the country’s interests and national security.

“The United States’ action in revoking the waiver for the exemption of sanctions on Iran’s oil sales constitutes a blatant violation of Article 10, and the subsequent military operations of this country against Iran also constitute a serious violation of Articles 1 and 2 of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding.” Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister, said in a post on social media.

Gharibabadi said the US has “repeatedly” violated the MoU, citing Israeli attacks in Lebanon and threatening statements made against Iran.

The 2026 World Cup has a prize pool of $871 million, the biggest in football history. How much is every country getting and where does the money come from? Al Jazeera’s Yasmeen ElTahan explains.

NATO leaders are meeting in Ankara, Turkiye on Tuesday and Wednesday.

The summit gets underway as US President Donald Trump renews pressure on member states over defence spending. European nations are expected to respond with billions of dollars in new military contracts.

At the NATO summit last year, members agreed to increase their target to 5 percent of GDP: 3.5 percent on military spending by 2035 and 1.5 percent on security-related needs.

Who is there and what is at stake?

Leaders from all 32 NATO member states are at the summit in Turkiye this week.

Two non-alliance heads of state will also be there: Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy and South Korea’s Lee Jae-myung.

Australia, Japan and New Zealand are sending defence or foreign ministers, as are Gulf countries affected by the US-Israel war on Iran: Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa is not expected to attend the summit but is holding a bilateral meeting with Trump in Ankara.

What Trump wants from NATO allies

Trump has questioned NATO’s value since his first presidential campaign. He argued that the US carried an unfair share of the costs. At the time, only five countries spent the agreed two percent GDP on defence.

His questions about shared defence responsibility have produced some results in recent years within the alliance as member states pledged an increased defence budget.

Ozgur Unluhisarcikli, the German Marshall Fund’s regional director for Turkiye, believes NATO this year will focus on implementing its promises from last year. “NATO allies just decided to increase their defence spending to five percent last year at The Hague and European allies took action to upgrade their defence industries,” he said. “This year in Ankara the discussion will be on how to translate spending to capabilities. It is therefore stronger than it was last year.”

But Paolo von Schirach, president of the Global Policy Institute, noted that any capability gains from increased spending are years away, saying that more orders mean more military hardware but only eventually. “You can spend a lot and obtain not too much,” he said.

What Ukraine needs from this summit

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is meeting Trump for a bilateral meeting on Wednesday. Ukraine is not a NATO member.

Zelenskyy will be using his face-to-face with the US president to request additional Patriot air defence systems as Russian attacks are intensifying on Ukrainian cities. A drone attack on the Ukrainian capital Kyiv killed at least 11 people on Monday morning.

Jack Watling, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute said that Ukraine is looking for ongoing political and military technical support from alliance members, to signal to Russia “that this support will be sustained”.

The idea, he said, was “to show Russia that there will be no diminution in its defensive capacity over the next 12-24 months”.

“There is a direct correlation between the number of interceptors supplied to Ukraine and the damage that Russia can inflict with ballistic missiles,” says Watling.

What European nations are trying to solve for

The billions in contracts expected to be announced by European nations at this summit are seen by some analysts as trying to appease the Trump administration.

When European nations didn’t join the war on Iran, Trump stated he didn’t want their money, just their “loyalty”. He added he might not have attended the summit if it wasn’t hosted by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Turkey has in recent years not only increased its defence spending, it also has grown into one of NATO’s largest military exporters.

For now, the tone around defence spending remains sharp. On the eve of the summit, Trump called Germany’s defence spending “ridiculous”. Chancellor Friedrich Merz defended his country’s budget, saying that “this is the greatest effort we have ever made to strengthen our defence capabilities”.

Meanwhile, the US has gone a step beyond rhetoric and announced a phased withdrawal of warplanes, destroyers and submarines from NATO countries. “Less US infantry or armour in Europe has an impact on messaging but little else,” Watling said. But, he added, “the withdrawal of US air power has a more tangible impact”.

Whether the alliance can project unity amid the rhetoric and withdrawals is a key question, said analysts.

“The main value of this summit is political, it shows that the allies are still talking, still meeting, still trying to project unity, even if the underlying disagreements and doubts haven’t disappeared,” von Schirach of the Global Policy Institute said. “Ankara is more about reassurance and signalling than about concrete, immediate changes on the ground.”

From a challenge to “overturn” the result to a celebration that looked quite similar to the host team president’s signature dance move, the United States’ World Cup dreams not only came to a crashing halt in the last-16 fixture against Belgium but also became the centre of social media mockery following the controversial events of the past day.

Charles De Ketelaere scored twice to give Belgium a 4-1 win overshadowed by FIFA’s controversial decision to suspend USA forward Folarin Balogun’s ban. US President Donald Trump’s actions that prompted the overturn put both the team and the player in the spotlight.

De Ketelaere gave Belgium the lead in the ninth minute with a simple tap-in before Hans Vanaken punished a goalkeeping howler, and substitute Romelu Lukaku added a fourth to settle a last-16 clash on Monday.

Once Lukaku put the result beyond doubt, he was joined by his teammates in a celebratory dance that looked all too familiar for the global audience. Social media users were quick to link it back to President Trump’s signature dance move.

Balogun, who was named in USA coach Mauricio Pochettino’s starting lineup after FIFA suspended a one-game ban, was largely anonymous throughout Monday’s knockout tie at Seattle.

Instead, a rampant Belgium ruthlessly dismantled the USA’s hopes of reaching a first World Cup quarterfinal in 24 years, in a bitterly disappointing end to a campaign that had captivated the host nation.

Criticism of FIFA and solidarity with Belgium had already poured in before Monday’s match, but the USA’s disappointing performance produced a new wave of jeers while the game was still ongoing.

The Belgian Red Devils shared a cheeky post captioned “Overturn this” minutes after the match ended, besides snubbing the USA for calling the game “soccer” rather than football.

Social media users pinballed the USA’s poor performance from every angle; some joked that it was the first time the team was playing a match, while others said it was more embarrassing than the previous 48 hours had been. Balogun put in a non-starter performance that saw him subbed off in the 92nd minute.

It was sarcasm for the most part – or, perhaps not – when social media users cautioned that Trump could overturn Belgium’s 4-1 win if he felt like it.

‘FIFA mafia’

FIFA President Gianni Infantino was in attendance for the match, watching from a suite with Pascale Van Damme, chair of the Belgian Football Association, and Cindy Parlow Cone, president of the USSF.

Belgium fans chanted “FIFA Mafia” during their pre-game march to Lumen Field.

People were quick to point out that when the Iranian team needed US visas, or when Somali referee Omar Artan was denied a US visa, or when Haiti was forced to change its jersey last minute over war imagery, Infantino shrugged his shoulders and absolved himself of any power to remedy crucial matters.

“We try always to find solutions – always,” Infantino had said at a news conference on the tournament’s eve.

“But then we need to respect that we are not the kings of the world who can rule over governments and police forces and I don’t know what. We are a sports organisation; we try to do our best with the means that we have.”

He fanned the flames at the news conference by adding: “We don’t control everything. Maybe it’s good to just chill, relax.”

Trump’s own niece, Mary Lea Trump – who has sued him over personal disputes and is one of his most vociferous critics – called out his interference in the matter.

“He casts a shadow over everything. He can only win if he cheats, and he thinks that applies to everybody else. Sad,” she wrote on X.

‘Do our talking on the pitch’

Belgium captain Youri Tielemans said the furore over Balogun had motivated his teammates.

“Let’s be honest: We held a meeting when we heard the news,” Tielemans said.

“We told ourselves we needed to do our talking on the pitch. That’s what we did today. I’m very proud of the team,” the Aston Villa midfielder told Belgium’s RTBF broadcaster.

Belgium midfielder Nicolas Raskin said his side’s win felt like a measure of justice after FIFA’s decision on Balogun.

“Like I said, I think there is always a justice somewhere in life, and the fact that something can happen like that, you can put it all you want, but we don’t think that was fair,” Raskin told reporters.

“And today, I think it just brings us a little bit of luck. We needed to win the game and the message throughout.”

Belgium coach Rudi Garcia, however, played down the dispute in his post-match news conference when asked if it had spurred his players.

“No, it wasn’t needed or necessary … What really mattered to us is our game plan,” he said, adding that he had spoken with Balogun after the final whistle.

“He came to talk to me, I really like that,” he said. “It’s not his fault, he’s not the one to blame and that’s what I told him.”

Belgium will face Spain in Los Angeles on Friday for a place in the semifinals.

Hossam Hassan uses his FIFA World Cup news conference to raise awareness about the plight of Palestinians in Gaza.

Egypt coach Hossam Hassan has reiterated his support for Palestine days after dedicating his team’s historic knockout win at the World Cup to the Palestinian people and waving their flag at the biggest sporting event in the world.

Hassan broke away from discussing his team’s upcoming round-of-16 match against Argentina to give an impassioned monologue about the plight of the Palestinian people at his news conference on Monday.

“If there is anyone in the world who does not feel for the Palestinian people, then they are not human — whether they are Arab, European, or American,” Hassan said. He spoke for more than four minutes on the subject and was applauded by many of the assembled media.

Israeli attacks across Gaza have continued to kill Palestinians, despite an ongoing “ceasefire” between Israel and Hamas. Israel has killed at least 73,066 people, including at least 20,179 children, in Gaza since the beginning of its genocidal war on October 7. At least 463 of those have been killed due to starvation, including 157 children.

More than 2million Palestinians in Gaza, largely displaced and living amid ruins, face uncertainty following the Israeli genocide.

Hassan was asked what prompted him to wave the Palestinian flag after his team’s penalty-shootout win over Australia on Friday, and he responded by saying it was “simply a human reaction”.

“Everywhere in the world, including in Europe or America, if someone hurts an animal, we see animal rights being defended and the whole world reacts,” Hassan said. “It has become normal to hear that two or three thousand people die in a single day because of a missile.”

The genocide sparked pro-Palestinian protests around the world, with athletes, including Spain’s Lamine Yamal, showing their support.

While Hassan dealt with questions about Lionel Messi and his team’s chances against the holders, he also spoke at length about Palestinians.

“Regardless of religion… I am a human before being Arab or anything else. My message, through football, is this: Please, just as FIFA’s slogan calls for respect among us, I hope there will be respect for people’s right to live,” Hassan said.

With a win over Argentina, Egypt would reach the quarterfinals for the first time.

“My dreams have no limits. My ambitions have no limits. I promise that we will do everything to live up to the expectations [of fans],” Hassan said. “We’re no underdogs. We’re big in every respect. We are a civilisation that is 7,000 years old, even more than 7,000 years.”

Hassan conceded that his side were not favourites for Tuesday’s clash, but insisted they were far from overawed.

“We know we are playing against the World Cup holders and one of the greatest players ever [Messi], but we do not fear them.

“[The] responsibility makes us focus on ourselves and on what we can produce on the field,” he added.

“We have a responsibility towards Egypt and the Arab world and Africa. We represent all of them.”

Comedian Trevor Noah joked that US President Donald Trump’s intervention in Folarin Balogun’s red card saga amounted to “government interference”. His comments came during his livestreamed “Trevor Noah’s World Cup Watch Party” ahead of the USA-Belgium match.

Monday’s accusations are the latest in a long string of controversies surrounding the Maine Democratic Senate candidate.

Leading US Democrats are withdrawing their support from Maine Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner after a former girlfriend accused the politician of sexual assault.

In an exclusive interview with media outlet Politico published on Monday, Jenny Racicot alleged that Platner forced her to have nonconsensual sex in late 2021. She alleged that Platner had entered her Maine home uninvited while intoxicated and forced himself on her, despite her repeatedly telling him to stop.

Platner, whose status as a progressive outsider has gained him popularity, has denied the allegations.

Following Politico’s interview, top US Democrats and Democratic-leaning political groups have pulled their endorsements of Platner.

“I’ve been very clear that sexual assault or violence against women is a red line,” California Democrat Ro Khanna, a member of the US House of Representatives, said. “These allegations are very serious and credible. Graham Platner should drop out from the race. I am withdrawing my endorsement.”

Arizona Senator Ruben Gallego also announced he was pulling his endorsement, while the Maine Democratic Party called on Platner to withdraw his candidacy.

Democratic-leaning political group End Citizens United pulled its endorsement as well, calling the allegations “profoundly disturbing and disqualifying”.

“The conduct described is fundamentally inconsistent with the standards we expect from the candidates we support,” End Citizens United said in its statement.

Hasan Piker, a leftist commentator and streamer who has backed Platner, seemed to reverse his position on Monday following the Politico report. “If new evidence presents itself, I’m going to change my perspective – it’s that simple,” Piker said during a livestream on Twitch.

“This is a clear-cut instance of verifiable sexual assault allegations. It’s completely irredeemable,” he added.

Platner won Maine’s Democratic primary in April, defeating a centrist Democrat from the party’s establishment wing. The race is a must-win for Democrats, facing off against incumbent Republican Susan Collins. Maine state law allows Platner to be replaced on the ballot if he withdraws by July 13. The replacement candidate must be named by July 27.

In a video released on social media, Platner denied the latest allegations but said he was rethinking his campaign.

“Regardless of the inaccuracy of the reporting but mindful of the political reality it will inflict, we’re taking the time to reflect on the best path forward,” he said in the video.

Racicot’s accusations are the latest in the long string of controversies surrounding Platner. A Marine veteran who also worked for a private security contractor, he has a chest tattoo resembling a Nazi symbol – which he denied knowledge of and later had covered up. He has also had a history of controversial statements on social media, as well as reportedly sexting with other women shortly after getting married.

FIFA’s decision to suspend the one-match ban on United States striker Folarin Balogun, allowing the team’s leading goal scorer to play in their crucial last-16 World Cup match against Belgium, has stirred a controversy hours ahead of the USA vs Belgium last-16 match.

The row and ensuing uproar deepend on Monday when US President Donald Trump confirmed asking FIFA to review its decision against Balogun, with FIFA utlimately making a U-turn on the player’s suspension from the crucial fixture.

Was FIFA’s decision the result of an unfair power move from President Trump, or was it a warranted correction to a red card that should not have been issued in the first place?

It depends on who you ask.

Football fans of the cohost nation appear to be divided on the controversy.

While there is near consensus that the red card Balogun received against Bosnia and Herzegovina was harsh, not everyone agrees with Trump’s intervention.

“I think it’s bull****,” Cesar Espino, who was watching the Spain vs Portugal round-of-16 match at a pub near downtown Washington, DC, told Al Jazeera hours ahead of kickoff in the USA-Belgium game.

“I feel like if you win it’s a stain because Balogun is one of our top players.”

He added that the decision will make the USA “more unlikeable”, adding to the list of controversies for the host nation, including travel bans and the restrictions against the Iranian team during the group stage.

But 23-year-old Oscar Ramirez argued that the issue is more nuanced than the USA gaining an unfair advantage “because of the nature of the red card”.

“I think most people, including myself, believe the red card was unfair; it was unjust,” Ramirez said.

“I think you’ll have some people who will be like, we should keep the rules no matter what. And you’ll have some people who will be like, that card shouldn’t have happened in the first place.”

The USA fan admitted jokingly that he is biased, so he supports the decision.

“I’m American, and I want our best chances. And without him, we don’t have a good chance,” Ramirez  said.

FIFA responds

Balogun, the USA’s top scorer in the tournament with three goals, received the red card for a studs-up contact near the ankle of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Tarik Muharemovic.

The USA striker was looking at the ball, so the incident appeared unintentional. Nonetheless, Balogun was sent off after an onfield VAR review, triggering an at least one-match suspension.

A FIFA board subsequently suspended the penalty without providing an explanation.

Trump, who enjoys close relations with FIFA President Gianni Infantino, confirmed on Monday that he requested a review of the suspension.

“All I did – I asked for a review because I didn’t think it was a foul,” Trump said.

He also suggested that the US conducted research on the referee who issued the card, calling the official “very suspect”.

“If you like I can provide you with the past,” he told reporters.

FIFA has insisted that the decision was taken by a judicial panel that operates independently with Infantino denying that his conversation with Trump may have influenced the process.

“During our conversation, I explained that there was an ongoing legal process involving FIFA’s independent judicial bodies and that the case would be decided in due course by the competent bodies,” the FIFA president said in a statement.

“That is how FIFA’s system works, and it is a principle that I will always uphold.”

Despite that assertion, US Senator Ted Cruz thanked Trump earlier for “getting rid of that ridiculous red card”.

The controversy has infuriated Belgian football officials. But in the US, some politicians and commentators lauded Trump for his intervention.

“I admit that I’m not the biggest soccer fan, but I’m glad President Trump urged FIFA to do the right thing. Good for President Trump, good for Folarin Balogun, good for the USA,” Republican Senator Tom Cotton wrote on X.

For his part, Fox Sport analyst Alexi Lalas said lifting Balogun’s suspension was surprising but welcome news.

“What happened here is America stood up for itself,” Lalas, a former USA player, told Fox News.

“The powers that be when it comes to the United States Soccer Federation did what they needed to do within the rules and regulations that exist in order to give ourselves the best possible chance of being successful.”

Mamdani invokes Mourinho

But CBS Sports commentator  Nico Cantor said the episode set a “dangerous precedent” that undermines the authority of the referees making decisions based on their interpretations of the rules.

“For as much as I believe Balogun didn’t deserve the red, it’s an interpretable decision,” he wrote on X.

“Anything can now be questioned after the fact. And it’s up to FIFA’s ‘judicial body’ – whoever that is, wherever they are – to call make critical decisions as they see fit.”

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani had also called the red card “cruel”, but he refused to comment on FIFA’s decision to suspend the suspension.

Instead, he posted a GIF of Real Madrid coach Jose Mourinho saying, “I prefer not to speak. If I speak – big trouble.”

Back in Washington, DC, US fan Lucas Faria said it was “crazy” that the suspension was overturned, but he added that the decision is unlikely to derail trust in the World Cup because it is already loaded with controversy.

Faria told Al Jazeera that the tournament has been a Trump-Infantino show.

“The tickets have been outrageous. It’s been an outrageous tournament so far. This is just an obvious thing,” he said.

Faria added, however, that the US team should not be judged for FIFA’s decisions.

“It’s not on them,” he told Al Jazeera.

The Belgian football federation has vowed “to challenge” FIFA’s controversial reversal of a red card game suspension against Folarin Balogun, which allows the star USA player to take the field in the round of 16 World Cup match against Belgium.

The statement on Monday from the Royal Belgian Football Association (RBFA) came hours before the match was set to begin, and as US President Donald Trump defended directly reaching out to FIFA’s President Gianni Infantino ahead of the controversial decision.

The federation charged that FIFA did not follow the proper protocol in allowing an appeal of its lifting of Balogun’s game suspension, the result of a red card shown during the round of 32 match against Bosnia-Herzegovina.

The RBFA said, given FIFA’s conduct, the federation “has no alternative but to challenge [Balogun’s] eligibility for the upcoming match”. It was not immediately clear how such a challenge would proceed.

“Regardless of the sporting outcome of this match, the RBFA is deeply concerned by the course of events and will continue to fight in the coming hours, days and months in defence of the fundamental principles of ethics, fair competition, and the interests of football as a whole,” the federation said.

Trump says he asked Infantino to ‘review’ the decision

The decision to lift Balogun’s one-game suspension came shortly after Trump spoke directly to Infantino.

That has raised eyebrows and accusations of political meddling in the tournament, with critics noting it is exceedingly rare for FIFA to lift a game suspension during the World Cup, even when a referee makes a questionable call.

If Balogun is allowed to play, it would be the first time since 1962 that a red card issued at the World Cup did not result in a suspension.

FIFA has said it relied on Article 27 of its disciplinary committee rules to reverse the game ban. The provision states “the judicial body may decide to fully or partially suspend the implementation of a disciplinary measure”.

FIFA had earlier said the game ban could not be appealed by Team USA.

Speaking to reporters on Monday, Trump denied that he directly influenced FIFA’s decision.

“All ⁠I did, I asked for a review, ⁠because I didn’t ⁠think it ⁠was a foul,” Trump told reporters.

“I thought it was two great athletes that crashed [into] each other and got entangled.”

He further called football referee Raphael Claus “very suspect”. He added, “If you want, I’ll provide you with the past”, without providing further details.

Later on Monday, Infantino also released his version of the call, which he said was among many he regularly receives from “heads of state, government officials, football stakeholders and business executives from around the world on many different issues”.

Infantino maintained he was not involved in the decision on Balogun’s suspension and was only made aware after it was released.

“During our conversation, I explained that there was an ongoing legal process involving FIFA’s independent judicial bodies and that the case would be decided in due course by the competent bodies,” he said.

‘Keep politics out’

To be sure, several leading football pundits have questioned the decision by Claus to show Balogun the red card.

Many have argued that Balogun incidentally stepped on the ankle of Bosnia and Herzegovina defender Tarik Muharemovic during an otherwise legitimate challenge, and the contact did not warrant the potentially tournament-transforming penalty.

Nevertheless, the unusual series of events is likely to cast a further pall of politics over the games ahead, adding to criticism of the Trump administration’s treatment of Iran’s national team.

Observers have said the optics of Trump’s intervention could taint any future success of the USA team, which has far exceeded expectations under head coach Mauricio Pochettino.

“This is embarrassing to a wonderful US team and a wonderful player,” Shibley Telhami, a professor of peace and development at the University of Maryland, wrote on X following FIFA’s decision.

“Keep politics out. This US team is good enough to win honourably. Now, a win will be diminished.”

President Lula accuses Jair Bolsonaro’s son, now a presidential hopeful, of helping triggered proposed US tariffs.

Brazilian presidential hopeful Flavio Bolsonaro, the son of former President Jair Bolsonaro, is asking the Trump administration to delay proposed tariffs on Brazilian goods until after October’s election, as he tries to counter allegations from President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva that his family helped bring them about.

The Trump administration proposed the 25 percent tariffs in June, citing alleged trade violations including illegal deforestation and what it called unfair electronic payment practices, catching Brazil’s government by surprise. Lula had said relations were improving after a White House meeting with Trump in May.

The announcement came shortly after Bolsonaro met senior US officials in Washington, prompting accusations back home that he had invited US pressure on Brazil, with Lula accusing the right-wing senator of lobbying Washington to impose the tariffs.

He has since doubled down on those accusations, saying in a social media post last week, “the origin of all this was motivated by the Bolsonaro family itself” and that Bolsonaro’s request to delay the tariffs until after the election was “yet another act of treason against the Fatherland”.

Bolsonaro rejects the allegation, arguing instead that it’s Lula who would gain a political advantage if the tariffs were imposed.

“New US tariffs on Brazilian products would hand the current Brazilian government precisely the political victory it has been engineering,” Bolsonaro wrote in a submission to the Office of the US Trade Representative.

Brazilian officials have spent months trying to persuade Washington not to move ahead with the tariffs. But Bolsonaro says the government hasn’t gone far enough to find common ground with the US and is calling for a 180-day delay before any final decision is made.

“Brazil holds general elections in October 2026, and the political landscape that determines the viability of any negotiated resolution will be redefined within roughly ninety days,” he wrote.

So far, there is little sign his efforts are paying off. In a response to a letter Bolsonaro sent last month, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said US officials still had “substantial differences” with Brazil over the issues they say justify the proposed tariffs.

The dispute has left Brazilians split over who’s telling the truth. A Quaest poll published last month found 47 percent of Brazilians agreed with Lula’s claim that Bolsonaro had encouraged the United States to impose tariffs, while 35 percent agreed with Bolsonaro that he had tried to stop them.

Washington has until July 15 to decide whether to impose the tariffs which, if approved, would still exempt beef, coffee, rare earth minerals and aircraft parts. They would come on top of the tariffs Trump imposed last year over what he described as a “witch hunt” against Jair Bolsonaro, who was convicted months later.

Bolsonaro has made Brazil’s relationship with the United States a central part of his campaign, as Trump has taken a more active role in Latin American politics. That has included the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in Caracas and backing right-wing candidates across the region, including Abelardo De La Espriella, who narrowly won Colombia’s presidential election last month.