US & Canada

The lawsuit comes two months after the state filed a similar lawsuit against competitor Kalshi.

New York State has filed a lawsuit against prediction market company Polymarket amid allegations that it violated state laws against illegal gambling.

The suit, filed on Thursday by New York State Attorney General Letitia James, comes two months after the state filed a similar lawsuit against competitor Kalshi. That followed the state suing Coinbase and Gemini for offering users the ability to bet on “sports, entertainment, and elections, in violation of New York laws”, according to a release from the attorney general’s office at the time.

The state accused all the companies of operating without licences from the State Gaming Commission.

“Our gambling laws exist to protect New Yorkers, prevent the potential harms of problem gambling, and ensure funding for educational and public benefit programs,” James said in a statement announcing the suit.

“By skirting New York’s laws, Polymarket is targeting the most vulnerable and depriving New York families of critical services and support. My office will never hesitate to take action to defend our laws and keep New Yorkers safe.”

The suit also alleges that the company encouraged gambling among young people. It accuses Polymarket of targeting users as young as 18, while state law requires users to be at least 21 years old to take part in mobile sports betting.

“By running an unlicensed gambling operation, Polymarket has done more than just knowingly violate state law, they have put New Yorkers at risk, especially those underage who are most vulnerable to problem gaming,” New York Governor Kathy Hochul said in a statement.

The more than 30-page lawsuit claims that Polymarket, which is valued at more than $20bn, has advertised sports betting in particular since July 2025. It pointed to a post on X from August 17, 2025, about the launch of its US mobile app that said it was “BAD NEWS (For sportsbooks)”.

Prediction markets allow users to wager on so-called event contracts, covering political events, sports, elections and even award shows. Concerns about the role of prediction markets came to a head earlier this year when wagers were made in the hours before the United States and Israel first struck Iran, prompting widespread backlash in Washington.

Polymarket pushed back on the allegations.

“We chose to engage with them directly on the substance and address their concerns,” chief legal officer Neal Kumar said in a statement.

“They preferred the media hit. Any time the [attorney general’s] office wants to swing by, our door is open for a conversation about how we protect consumers and offer fair, transparent and legal markets.”

Kalshi is facing similar allegations in New York State. Kalshi has been critical of reporting on lawsuits against it and allegations that it is akin to a sports betting or gambling platform.

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

The Polymarket lawsuit comes days after reporting from the Wall Street Journal that alleged a wave of users had linked stolen bank debit cards and then used them to make wagers, effectively draining the accounts. According to the report, when CEO Shayne Coplan was made aware of the issue, he responded: “Just keep growing and pay a fine if regulators ever find out.”

Political pressure

New York State’s lawsuit joins a growing list of states that have sued prediction market platforms, including Arizona, Massachusetts, Nevada and many others. Those states are at odds with the federal government, as the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has claimed that the federal agency exerts authority over the regulation of prediction markets.

Polymarket has close ties with the family of US President Donald Trump. The prediction market platform has investment from 1789 Capital, a venture capital firm backed by Donald Trump Jr, the president’s eldest son, who also serves on the company’s advisory board.

Macklemore says ‘being apolitical during a genocide doesn’t work’, promises to donate proceeds to Palestinian causes.

Grammy Award-winning rapper Macklemore has announced a string of shows in support of Palestine after he was controversially dropped from Ed Sheeran’s United States tour after speaking out against Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.

The 43-year-old American rapper, who has almost 40 million monthly listeners on Spotify, announced his Free Palestine Tour on Thursday, with shows set to take place in Dublin, Paris and London in late October.

Macklemore said he will be joined by other musicians and will announce their names soon. He added that US shows are currently being organised.

He said all proceeds raised from the tour will be donated to causes supporting the Palestinian people and the wider movement.

“If these last couple of weeks have shown us anything, it’s that something has shifted over the last three years,” Macklemore said in a statement.

“There has been a collective awakening around Palestinian liberation, the power of billionaires that try to censor that call, and what we expect from artists right now. It’s 2026. Being apolitical during a genocide doesn’t work anymore,” he continued.

“People are asking artists to show up, educate themselves and be in community. To use the stage for more than entertainment. To push back when the call for a Free Palestine is met with attempts to silence it.”

English punk rap duo Bob Vylan have expressed their support for the tour, responding to Macklemore’s Instagram post with a heart emoji. The British YouTuber and influencer known as Chunkz, who has more than four million followers on Instagram, also praised Macklemore.

Attempts to silence Macklemore

On September 4 at New Jersey’s MetLife Stadium, Macklemore, who was one of Sheeran’s opening acts, expressed support for Palestine.

“A big part of the reason why I wanted to do this tour in the first place is so I could stand up in stadiums like this and say two words that are very near and dear to my heart: ‘Free Palestine’ … My message is for peace; love for all human beings to be treated with dignity, respect, and equality,” Macklemore told the audience at the time.

Soon after, the rapper announced that he had been dropped from the Sheeran tour.

Venue owner Robert Kraft later confirmed that Macklemore was barred from performing at his Gillette Stadium in Foxborough, Massachusetts. Kraft denounced what he described as the rapper’s “broader history of antisemitic rhetoric and imagery” and argued that such actions led him to decide that allowing Macklemore to perform at his venue “would cross that line”.

Kraft is a Jewish-American billionaire and has donated to several Israeli causes. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is the subject of an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for war crimes and crimes against humanity, said in 2019 that Israel did not have a “more loyal friend” than Kraft.

Macklemore claimed Sheeran and his team removed him from the tour following pressure from Kraft.

He alleged that Kraft rallied the owners of the remaining stadiums that the tour would include and persuaded them not to allow him to perform. The rapper said that Kraft then told Sheeran the tour would not go ahead unless he was dropped.

Neither Kraft nor Sheeran have commented on Macklemore’s allegations that stadium owners were contacted by Kraft.

The red carpet was rolled out, and a trade truce was extended. Yet, beneath the pomp and pageantry of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s state visit with US leader Donald Trump on Thursday, Washington and Beijing remain locked in a much deeper strategic rivalry.

Xi arrived in Washington, DC on Wednesday evening for talks on Thursday, and Trump was there to meet him personally on the tarmac.

The meeting was the first state visit by a Chinese leader to the US in 11 years. But it is also the third time in less than a year that the two men have met face to face, as the two powers remain uneasily gridlocked in competition over AI, rare-earth metals, the question of Taiwan, and the Iran war.

Overhanging it all is the paused, but simmering, trade war between their two nations.

Almost as soon as Trump began his second term in the White House in January 2025, up went tariffs on Chinese goods as he accused China of facilitating the flow of fentanyl, a deadly drug, to the US. Beijing responded with its own levies, then restricted exports of valuable rare-earth metals which are crucial for the development and manufacture of everything high-tech, from smartphones to fighter jets. At one point, tariffs were heading towards 150 percent before being paused to allow time for talks.

Finally, the two leaders called a truce on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in South Korea on October 30, and they met once more, in May, when Trump travelled to Beijing.

As Xi landed in Washington on Wednesday this week, the Trump administration announced that the two countries had agreed to extend an October 2025 truce which had offered some respite from the punishing tariffs, produced an agreement from China to buy more soyabeans from the US and delayed the ban on rare-earth exports from China until January 10. The prospect of a much-longed-for trade deal appeared to be in the air when US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Fox News he had met Chinese ‌Vice Premier He Lifeng before Xi’s visit to “see if we could ⁠do a bigger deal as opposed to just a series ⁠of smaller things”.

But analysts have, for the most part, shot down such hopes. Beyond tariffs, they say, the simmering conflict between the two powers now encompasses new US sanctions on buyers of Russian oil – namely China – and sweeping investment and research restrictions, never mind the intensifying race for dominance in artificial intelligence.

“The two-month extension isn’t a bridge to a grand bargain – it’s a temporary sandbag holding back a structural flood,” Beijing-based Einar Tangen, a senior fellow at the Center for International Governance Innovation, told Al Jazeera.

Theatrics or continued thaw in tensions?

In fact, the truce is little more than “transactional theatre” – an attempt at good optics before the upcoming US midterm elections – Tangen said.

Trump’s deeply unpopular war on Iran has already inflicted severe damage to his chances in that vote. Democrats are leading in the polls amid concerns about the rising cost of energy, triggered by the war which the US started. Trump ultimately needs wins on other issues.

The current truce with China serves a purpose, therefore, but is fragile enough to be undone the moment political utility shifts for Trump, Tangen said.

“Success in January won’t be measured by what is solved, but by whether the knot is left tight enough to hold, but not kill,” said Tangen.

Phillippe Le Corre, professor of international relations and Asian studies at France’s ESSEC Business School, said the length of the truce extension indicates clearly that a more permanent deal remains out of grasp.

“The extensions are getting shorter and shorter, which means they haven’t found a common ground on many issues,” Le Corre told Al Jazeera.

“The two-month extension is a terrible outcome for the US. Nothing is resolved, and many Damocles’ swords are still hanging over Washington’s head,” he added.

Trump’s entire China policy, Le Corre argued, is in fact short-sighted. “That is bringing the world a lot of uncertainty,” he said.

Some analysts are more hopeful, but not much. Sun Chenghao, a fellow at the Center for International Security and Strategy at Tsinghua University in Beijing, described the extension of the trade truce as a “useful interim step”. It shows that both sides want to preserve the recent easing of tensions, which is meaningful progress, he said.

“From China’s perspective, a sustainable agreement needs reciprocal benefits and greater policy predictability,” Sun told Al Jazeera. “Additional purchases cannot indefinitely compensate for uncertainty over tariffs, technology restrictions and market access.”

The extension’s value, however, will depend on whether it produces “concrete commitments” from Beijing and Washington, Sun added.

A game of ‘economic chicken’

There is motivation to get a deal done, analysts say. Any escalation in the US-China trade war will be costly for both sides.

But there is some way to go. A Congressional Research Service report in July 2026 noted that Chinese goods exported to the US still face tariffs of 36.5 percent, while US goods entering China are taxed at 31 percent.

Any higher, and they will raise import and manufacturing costs in the US, squeeze margins and increase pressure on consumer prices, said Sun. They would also hurt US farmers and industrial exporters, he added, just as the US faces pressure from the rising costs of its war on Iran, which have pushed it into a record national debt of $40 trillion two years earlier than expected.

“Washington is playing a high-stakes game of economic chicken with a $40 trillion debt load, an inflationary sword of Damocles, zero fiscal cushion to absorb a truce collapse and a dependence [on] Chinese industrial and manufacturing inputs,” Tangen said.

US consumers and the economy in general will find it tough to survive yet another inflationary shock from renewed tariffs “at a time when the federal budget already operates like a high-wire Ponzi scheme”.

Then there is the AI race, which no one can afford to lose. According to Jon Bateman, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a partial “decoupling” of US and Chinese technology ecosystems is under way. US policymakers have pushed to become less dependent on Chinese tech and “to secure America’s technological future in the context of a rising China”, Bateman writes.

But that will not help if there is a collapse in valuations of companies in the AI sector, which currently drive global stock markets. An AI valuation collapse, Tangen warned, “could trigger a financial tsunami that makes 2008 look tame – making technological decoupling meaningless as the world is plunged into a depression”.

Despite the trade war and Trump’s tariffs, China’s trade with other countries has risen sharply, with the country registering a $1.2 trillion global trade surplus last year. But an escalation of the trade war with the US would nevertheless spell increased pressure on export orders, employment in exposed industries and business confidence, said Sun.

Beijing does hold one crucial ace card – it is sitting on 60 percent of the world’s known deposits of rare-earth minerals, said Le Corre. It processes 90 percent of them, too. These are the metals that all countries need supplies of for semiconductors, technological components and the manufacture of weapons, to name but a few. Last year, China began to make use of that leverage by restricting exports of five of the 12 rare-earth metals it mines in April. Then, in October, it prepared to restrict seven more – until the trade truce happened. Plans for the export restrictions are not shelved, however, merely on hold.

“[China] understood this over the past year and they are certainly not going to give up on this,” said Le Corre.

“Washington is hostile, but it is hooked,” Tangen said. “You cannot threaten China with secondary sanctions on energy while desperately needing its rare-earths to fuel your military-industrial base.”

A drawn-out path to durability

The path to a lasting US-China trade deal will be long and rocky. First, any new tariff reductions will need more coverage and duration, said Sun.

For a deal to last, it would also require “more predictable licensing and actual deliveries of rare earths and critical minerals; restraint in expanding technology restrictions; and market access reflected in regulatory approvals and completed transactions”, he said.

A durable agreement also needs regular consultations and a process for resolving complaints. If all this can be hammered out then, just maybe, there might be a chance, Sun said.

Tangen and Le Corre were less optimistic, however. “The US view of China as an existential threat has to change before there can be solutions,” said Tangen.

Le Corre, meanwhile, said that while China is a long-term planner, “durable is a word that can hardly be associated with Trump.”

The existing trade truce also risks breaking down if there are new unilateral tariffs, broader technology or mineral restrictions, or disputes over whether commitments have been fulfilled, said Sun.

Tensions over Taiwan, which China claims as its own territory, but for which the US approved an $11.1bn arms sale in December last year, could also trigger a breakdown in trade relations, the analysts said.

“Taiwan remains the ultimate low-probability, catastrophic-impact tail risk – where a single round of arms sales can snap a multibillion-dollar trade truce in an instant,” Tangen noted.

Heavy rains could cause life-threatening flooding and landslides on Mexico’s Pacific Coast, the US National Hurricane Center warned.

Hurricane Polo has sent heavy rain and strong waves across Mexico’s Pacific coast, while Tropical Storm Nolo is approaching Hawaii with the potential for catastrophic flooding.

Early on Thursday, the hurricane was swirling about 130 miles (209 kilometres) south-southwest of the Mexican city of Zihuatanejo. It was moving northwest at 7mph (11kph) and forecast to turn west-northwest later in the day, taking it further out to sea, before turning northwest on Saturday.

Polo was forecast to maintain Category 5 strength as it moves along Mexico’s coast over the next few days.

While the eye and the strongest winds were expected to remain at sea, the heavy rains could cause life-threatening flooding and landslides, warned the US National Hurricane Center in Miami.

A hurricane watch was issued for Hawaii county and disaster preparations are under way because Tropical Storm Nolo could hit the island on Friday or Saturday, warned the National Weather Service.

John Bravender, a weather service warning coordination meteorologist, said during a news conference on Wednesday afternoon that the tropical storm could develop into a major hurricane.

Hawaii County Mayor Kimo Alameda told residents in a video message that they should start preparing for the storm. He urged them to put together emergency kits with food, water and medications, as well as trim vegetation and clear drains.

“This is a very serious situation,” he said. “We do believe that the rain is going to come. It’s coming already.”

Governor Josh Green’s office said public schools and state and county offices across Hawaii’s Big Island will close on Thursday and Friday, while Maui County will shut them on Friday ahead of the threat of heavy rain, winds and flooding.

Acting United States Navy Secretary Hung Cao has confirmed that there have been “eight suicide attempts” by personnel assigned to the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier strike group posted in the Middle East – at least two by jumping overboard – during their deployment there.

In a letter to US Senator Kirsten Gillibrand on Tuesday, Cao wrote about quality of life on the fleet and morale among personnel. He was responding on behalf of US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to her questions about reports of crew members attempting to harm themselves.

While Cao said no service members had died by suicide during the deployment, there had been attempts to jump overboard.

“This includes the Lincoln crew and sailors from the carrier airwing, strike group and destroyer squadron staff, escorting destroyers and all embarked aviation squadrons,” the letter read.

Here’s what we know:

What is the USS Abraham Lincoln?

It is a nuclear-powered Nimitz-class aircraft carrier that the Navy has referred to as one of the “largest warships in the world”. Nimitz-class vessels include 10 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers in the US arsenal.

The carrier, which set off from California in November 2025 for a routine deployment to the South China Sea, was rerouted in January to the US Central Command (CENTCOM) region in the Middle East because of escalating tensions with Iran.

Since the US-Israel war on Iran broke out at the end of February, the USS Abraham Lincoln has engaged in combat efforts and helped enforce the US naval blockade on Iranian ports.

The roughly 5,000-strong crew on board the Lincoln were at sea for 286 days before finally disembarking in Thailand on September 1, setting a record for the longest deployment. Besides one short port stop last December, the crew had no land breaks in that time.

US media reports have tied ship supply shortages to Iranian attacks on US military sites in the Middle East, notably the heavy damage inflicted on the naval base in Bahrain in the early days of the war. The navy was reportedly forced to use the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia instead as its main supply hub, some 3,540km (2,200 miles) from where the USS Lincoln was operating in the Gulf.

According to its website, Naval Support Activity Bahrain provided “services and support to ships at sea, remote sites throughout the region, and military and civilian personnel living in Bahrain”.

Last month, experts told Al Jazeera that the lack of port stops during the ongoing conflict was a major issue for the carrier.

“Ships need maintenance, particularly ships that are extremely complicated with very advanced weapon systems such as nuclear-powered carriers with very advanced systems, and there are things that you cannot do in terms of maintenance under way,” Harlan Ullman, a retired senior naval officer and chairman of the strategic advisory firm Killowen Group, said.

Extended deployments “erode the readiness and capability of that ship the longer it’s at sea, and it lacks the ability to repair and extend maintenance”, he added.

Following media reports of poor levels of morale on board, the USS George Washington was diverted from the Pacific to replace the carrier last month.

What does Cao’s letter say?

“Since the beginning of Lincoln’s deployment, there have been a total of eight suicide attempts across the strike group,” Cao wrote.

In particular, he said one sailor assigned to the air wing jumped overboard in early August but was “quickly recovered”, treated by the medical department and “transferred off ship for follow-on care”.

“Additionally, one sailor attempted to go overboard in March and was stopped by his shipmates. That sailor was also provided with immediate medical care and subsequently returned to homeport,” the letter added.

Cao said the carrier had been deployed with various mental health resources, including one psychologist, three behavioural health technicians, one clinical social worker, one embedded integrated prevention counsellor, one facility dog, and five chaplains.

Cao also acknowledged resupply limitations, however, as the vessel was participating in “major combat operations”, which meant that the number of main course options served during meal times was reduced from two to one.

He said the Navy prioritised the delivery of “hygiene products, fresh provisions and critical repair parts”, adding that while the ship experienced plumbing issues earlier in its deployment, the shipboard engineering team had completed repairs and “portable water supply remains safe and tested daily”.

The Navy chief added that a biparitsan Congressional Delegation was in the “planning stages” of an on-board visit to the carrier once it returns to the US.

Have there been previous reports on the conditions on board the carrier?

Yes.

Before Cao’s letter, a crew member on board the carrier told CNN that morale on the vessel was very low, with suicidal ideation repeatedly heard among crew members.

Last month, the Navy Times, which covers US military news, spoke to the wife of a sailor who, she said, had attempted to jump off the vessel, saying he was “burnt out”.

According to the US news outlet, MSNOW, families of sailors had also attended a meeting with Cao the same month to express their concerns over the sailors’ mental health, exhaustion, and safety on board.

It also reported separately that families told it, on condition of anonymity, that their relatives and spouses on board had described mouldy showers and no hot water for showering for weeks.

Stars and Stripes, a US military news organisation, also reported last month that a spouse told the meeting with Cao that she had received a message from her husband saying “he hopes he doesn’t wake up tomorrow.”

The same month – and following that reporting – the Pentagon fired the Stars and Stripes editor-in-chief and its Middle East reporter.

Since beginning his second term in January 2025, US President Donald Trump has accused news outlets of publishing and broadcasting “fake news”.

Last week, he announced that CNN, Politico and MSNOW would be banned from reporting from the White House.

On Thursday, US federal judge Timothy Kelly ordered the Trump administration to reinstate press passes after finding that the revocation was done without “constitutionally adequate due process”.

What has been the response to reports on the situation of sailors on board?

Following reports of burnout and struggling mental health on the USS Abraham Lincoln, CENTCOM chief Brad Cooper visited the sailors on the ship last month.

Cooper said in a statement afterwards that the team were “standing tall with immense, justified pride”, adding that “history will record this deployment as one of the most operationally intense and consequential of the modern era.”

Last month, Hegseth said reports about low morale and poor conditions on the ship had been “completely misrepresented”.

“We make sure every ship, every crew, every captain has everything we can provide them at every single moment. Some deployments are longer than others, and ⁠I have more respect and gratitude for those sailors than anybody,” Hegseth told reporters during a visit to Panama.

Trump also dismissed reports and said last month that the ship was “beautifully maintained”, saying reports of poor conditions were a “CNN fake news report”.

In a statement on Wednesday to CNN following the letter from Cao, Gillibrand said that what Trump and Hegseth had dismissed as “fake news” was in fact “serious and deteriorating conditions for our service members”.

“Our troops and their families make immense sacrifices every single day, yet the president dismissed them with open disrespect. That this administration can find endless taxpayer dollars for bombs, ballrooms, and billionaires, but cannot take care of our service members, is completely unacceptable.”

Venezuela’s interim President Delcy Rodriguez took to the stage yesterday at the United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York City to deliver a rather bland speech, in which she thanked United States President Donald Trump for resuming “diplomatic relations and cooperation” with Venezuela.

This was a different vibe, to be sure, than the one she opted for at the same venue in September 2019, when, as vice president under Nicolas Maduro, she accused the US of perpetrating “economic terrorism” that did not require the use of bombs “but rather through banks and insurance companies”.

Denouncing the global superpower’s militarisation of international relations and punishment of millions of innocent people “in order to apply regime change doctrines and steal other nations’ resources”, the Rodriguez of 2019 went on to cite Venezuelan economic losses to the tune of $130bn between 2015 and 2018 alone on account of US sanctions.

She additionally offered her opinion that the domination of the US political system by “plutocratic minorities” made the country unqualified to impose its model on other countries.

Seven years later, US plutocracy is going strong with Trump at the helm – the same Trump alongside whom a grinning Rodriguez appeared in a photograph taken in New York on Tuesday, less than nine months after he oversaw regime change in Venezuela by kidnapping Maduro.

The kidnapped president is now also in New York, albeit in jail, and is scheduled to stand trial in June 2027. This despite his attempts to remind everyone that, as a sitting head of state, his prosecution in a foreign court contravenes international law.

Then again, abducting other countries’ presidents is also pretty glaringly illegal. But Trump has made it clear that he alone is in charge of deciding what is and is not permissible on any given day.

The abduction took place on January 3, when the US military launched air attacks on Venezuela, killing some 100 people and whisking Maduro and his wife away.

He is accused of an array of misdeeds, including being the leader of the “Cartel of the Suns” – which, mind you, does not actually exist – and engaging in “conspiracy to possess machineguns and destructive devices”.

This is quite the accusation coming from the country that just used all manner of destructive devices to bomb Venezuela and kill a bunch of people.

Anyway, bald-faced hypocrisy is nothing new in the land of the “plutocratic minorities”.

Now, the waning corporate media interest in Maduro’s fate amounts to another coup for US impunity, as folks go about more or less forgetting that there is a foreign head of state sitting in a Brooklyn prison.

But Maduro’s disappearance works out well for Rodriguez, as she goes about enabling the very theft of resources she once decried.

Rodriguez took the stage at the UN the day after Trump, who used the platform to pat himself on the back for the trampling of Venezuelan sovereignty that conveniently culminated in last month’s announcement from the White House of the “biggest oil deal in world history”, securing US majority control of more than 65 billion barrels of Venezuela’s proven oil reserves.

Speaking to his international audience, Trump boasted: “To the victor belong the spoils. You’ve all heard that.”

Never mind that you’re not technically supposed to admit that you attacked a country just to get its oil. (You’re also not, in polite company, supposed to threaten to annihilate Iran – another of Trump’s UN talking points.)

Since January, the US has lifted many coercive economic measures against Venezuela (including against Rodriguez herself), easing the brutal sanctions regime that as of 2020 was estimated to have already killed 100,000 Venezuelans, according to former UN independent expert Alfred-Maurice de Zayas.

But trading sanctions for de facto colonialism isn’t a great deal, either.

Meanwhile, Trump’s continued manic bombing of vessels in the Caribbean and Pacific, which a recent UN report warned may constitute crimes against humanity, suggests the US is nowhere near to kicking its old habit of terrorism – and is all the more reason that Rodriguez might have refrained from thanking the US leader for his “cooperation”.

As Gregory Wilpert, founder of the Venezuelanalysis website and author of Changing Venezuela by Taking Power, diplomatically put it to me: “One cannot help but wonder whether Delcy Rodriguez is over-complying with Trump in some aspects of her negotiations with him.”

Noting that Rodriguez is “in a highly vulnerable position”, Wilpert ran through a few of the options she faces, such as “the possibility that the Trump administration could treat her as it treated Maduro – by attempting to kidnap her – or as it treated Iran, by targeting the country’s highest levels of government”.

Or, Wilpert said, there is always the Cuba approach, which would entail “the kind of economic siege” that is undertaken “with the aim of starving an entire country”.

In her UN address, Rodriguez promised that Venezuela would hold elections at some unspecified point in time – not that the US, for its part, really cares about democracy as long as the right people are in power.

And although it’s still too early to tell, Rodriguez might just be one of those people.

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

When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu takes to his feet at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York later on Thursday, he does so at a critical point in both his political career and in his country’s long and fractious relationship with the international body.

Israel has faced repeated accusations of genocide at the UN, as well as systematic war crimes in Gaza and the occupied West Bank. Those criticisms continue to shape the country’s fractious relationship with the body.

For Netanyahu, appearing in front of the UNGA for the 15th time, the stakes have rarely been higher. Addressing a domestic Israeli audience that polls show to be losing faith in him and his Likud party ahead of crucial elections later this year, Netanyahu has already pitched himself as Israel’s primary voice on the international stage.

Nevertheless, analysts say Netanyahu’s address could prove a pivotal moment domestically, amplified by international criticism of Israel and expected to dominate headlines and be carried live across the country’s television networks.

“This is a regular fixture for him,” former Israeli consul general in New York and ex-government adviser Alon Pinkas told Al Jazeera. “It’s his way of being seen in Israel as standing up against the world and of telling members that he will never give up or surrender. He’s also turned the event into some kind of national holiday in Israel, with everyone sitting down to watch the address on television. He’s brainwashed people in Israel into believing his speech is somehow an announcement of policy, stated in defiance of the [rest of the world] who don’t believe a word he says.”

A history of hostility

Israeli leaders have long framed their stance towards the UN as one of defiance in the face of hostility. The UN has long been a platform for critics of Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian land and repeated attacks on its neighbours. It has included attempts to censure Israel over what UN investigators have described as apartheid in the West Bank, as well as accusations of genocide and pogroms across the occupied Palestinian territory since October 2023.

There have been numerous UNGA resolutions criticising Israel’s conduct — nearly all dismissed by Israeli lawmakers as evidence of institutional bias — culminating in Israel declaring UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres persona non grata and severely restricting the operations of the UN’s agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA.

“Generally speaking, many Israelis tend to see the UN as anti-Israeli,” Nimrod Goren, the president of the Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policy, Mitvim, said.

Against that background, criticism from New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani — already cast as anti-Israel in the Israeli press — has drawn greater public attention to the event. Underscoring the sense of hostility towards Israel are stories within the country’s media suggesting that Netanyahu’s visit to New York has been curtailed due to unspecified security concerns, with the Israeli premier expected to fly out of New York on the same day as his arrival.

In response, Israel’s ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, who has repeatedly accused the organisation of waging “diplomatic terrorism” against the state called for Mamdani’s arrest for what he said was the mayor’s incitement against New York’s Jewish community ahead of Netanyahu’s visit.

“Netanyahu is going into his UNGA speech with not one but both eyes focused firmly on the upcoming Israeli election,” Goren said. “The speech is usually treated in Israel as a major event, receiving broad coverage and dominating the news cycle. Netanyahu will likely try to leverage this to bolster his image as a close ally of the US and to talk up the threat posed by Iran.”

US backing

Some have interpreted US President Donald Trump’s apparent lack of availability to meet Netanyahu during this trip as a sign of waning support. But US backing for Israel at the UN has remained steadfast since the October 7 attack and has contributed to growing frustration within the UN over what they see as Israel’s ability to resist international censure.

Alongside the creation of the Board of Peace, which shifted significant responsibility for Gaza’s future from the UN to the Trump-founded organisation, Washington has repeatedly used its veto at the UN Security Council to shield Israel from resolutions it opposes. The US has vetoed at least six UN Security Council resolutions on Gaza since October 2023, most of them demanding an immediate ceasefire.

“There seems to be genuine frustration within the UN General Assembly over the body’s failure to play a significant political role in Gaza and the West Bank, but also in its failure to protect its own staff and agencies,” Chatham House Associate Fellow Zizette Darkazally, who previously worked with the UN, said.

“However, it’s worth remembering the context the UN operates within in the occupied territories and the important humanitarian role it plays. The UN continues to get aid and medical support into Gaza and the West Bank, which are both areas where Israel has absolute control over access,” she said. “It’s also worth remembering that the UN is only as strong as the commitment of its member states.”

“That, combined with a system of veto that’s more than 80 years old, has left the organisation weaker now than it had ever been,” she said of the confrontations between the UN and Israel. “And we’re seeing the effects of that, not just in Palestine, but in Yemen, Sudan and Iran, where the UN is playing next to no political role.”

United States President Donald Trump and China’s President Xi Jinping are set to meet in Washington, DC on Thursday for a summit that is expected to cover trade, artificial intelligence (AI), Taiwan and the US-Israel war on Iran.

In advance of the talks, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Washington had proposed an AI “notification mechanism” with China – effectively a hotline to alert each other when AI incidents threaten national security.

The meeting comes as leading AI companies warn about the technology’s risks, while both superpowers push to accelerate their AI race. In this visual explainer, Al Jazeera compares the US and China’s AI strength in computing power, AI models, spending and research.

Who has more computing power?

Training and running AI requires enormous amounts of computing power. The more powerful chips and computers a country has, the faster it can build and improve AI models, making computing power one of the biggest advantages in the AI race.

Computing power is measured in FLOP/s (floating-point operations per second) – or how many calculations a computer can perform in one second.

Adding up the computing power of all the AI chips a country has gives a sense of its total AI capacity. By that measure, the US is well ahead, accounting for nearly three-quarters of the world’s total AI computing power, while China holds just more than 14 percent, according to Epoch AI, an AI research institute.

The US lead comes largely from its access to the most advanced chips. US company Nvidia accounts for more than 60 percent of global AI computing capacity among major chip designers, while China’s Huawei holds a much smaller, but growing share, according to Stanford University’s 2026 AI Index.

Those chips also need somewhere to run. The US has more than 5,400 data centres – the large buildings which house thousands of computers – about 10 times as many as any other country. It also leads in dedicated AI data centres, with 84, more than the next eight countries combined.

Whose AI models are people using?

Frontier models are the most advanced AI systems, such as OpenAI’s GPT, Anthropic’s Claude and DeepSeek’s models in China. They are trained using vast amounts of data and computing power to write, reason and code.

The US has led the development of these models, but Chinese models are gaining ground.

As of March 2026, US and Chinese AI models were closely matched on Arena, a leaderboard where users compare two anonymous models and vote for the better answer. US companies Anthropic, xAI, Google and OpenAI ranked near the top, alongside China’s Alibaba and DeepSeek.

On OpenRouter, a platform that ranks AI models by real-world use, Chinese models dominate the leaderboard. Models from Chinese companies DeepSeek, Z.ai and Tencent hold the top three spots on OpenRouter by tokens processed, the units of text that AI models read and generate.

This is partly because Chinese models are cheaper to use. Many are also open-weight, meaning developers can download, adapt and run them themselves.

Chinese models can now compete with US ones in many real-world tasks, with Chinese AI models “months, not years, behind US frontier models”, according to a July analysis by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

In May, the US government’s Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI) estimated that DeepSeek V4 Pro, released in April, was about eight months behind leading US models.

Who is spending more?

The US is spending far more than China on the infrastructure needed to build AI, giving its tech companies a significant advantage in the race for computing power.

Goldman Sachs estimates that US hyperscalers, the giant tech companies that run large-scale cloud computing and data centres, will spend about $764bn in 2026. That includes Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Meta and Oracle. By comparison, China’s Alibaba, Tencent, Baidu and ByteDance are expected to spend $102bn.

But China’s spending is increasing faster. TrendForce, a market research firm, expects China’s four hyperscalers’ capital expenditure to rise by more than 80 percent in 2026, compared with a projected growth of 76 percent for US hyperscalers, according to the news agency Reuters.

The spending gap reflects the scale of the US tech sector, whose companies have larger revenues to reinvest in chips, data centres and talent.

Who is leading in AI research and talent?

China is producing more AI research and training more technical talent, but the US remains a magnet for the world’s top AI researchers.

China accounted for more than 27 percent of global AI publications in 2024, including journal articles, conference papers, working papers and preprints compared with 12 percent from the US, according to the Center for Security and Emerging Technology. The figures only cover publications with an English-language title or abstract.

China also trains more top researchers. According to a study by MacroPolo, 47 percent of the world’s top 20 percent of AI researchers completed their undergraduate studies in China in 2022, up from 29 percent in 2019. The study also found that 72 percent of the top AI researchers educated in China were working in the US.

Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has revealed a security breach of a government website containing Australians’ health data by an “AI agent”, less than a day after signing a joint appeal for “urgent global guardrails” around artificial intelligence.

Albanese co-signed the “A Call for Control of Frontier AI Models” statement on Tuesday together with 21 signatories including Canada, Spain and Germany, on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) meeting in New York.

Addressing reporters on Wednesday, Albanese said the agent, developed by OpenAI, accessed public and non-public data on the government’s Medicare portal in June.

Australia’s Labor government is tightening tech regulations with new online safety laws, age bans and proposed digital duty of care frameworks.

Albanese said he had spoken to OpenAI CEO Sam Altman to express Canberra’s “extreme concern” about the hack and disappointment that the company took three months to admit the breach.

OpenAI responded in the hours after the news conference, stating that while it was still investigating, there was no evidence patient records were accessed.

The company’s review had identified activity involving several Australian government websites and services as its “models attempted to look up answers”, it said.

World leaders respond to AI warnings

The leaders of artificial intelligence companies warned of the risks of unregulated AI development before a 15-member UN Security Council meeting on Wednesday.

One of them, Yoshua Bengio, a Canadian considered one of the ‘Godfathers of AI’ and co-chair of the Independent International Scientific Panel, spoke of the “unprecedented threat” and the “real and imminent” dangers of the technology.

China’s UN ambassador Fu Cong told the meeting that Beijing believed continuous improvement of regulatory frameworks, emergency response and cross-border cooperation on AI was needed.

British Prime Minister Andy Burnham said the United Kingdom was ready to lead an international effort to establish AI standards.

“We’ve all heard the warnings which we must heed… so we have to rise to this moment,” he said, but added he also wanted the UK to pursue the benefits of AI.

French President Emmanuel Macron warned against allowing the United States and China to dominate decision-making around AI during his speech to the assembly on Wednesday.

US President Donald Trump is at odds with many of his counterparts, comparing the dangers of AI to climate change, which he has called a hoax.

He also proposed rebranding the term AI to SI, or “super intelligence”, during his address to the UNGA on Tuesday, and earlier said he planned to appoint an AI adviser.

In a Truth Social post on Monday, Trump said the US was leading the AI race over China, that he was “not going to stifle Growth”, but added ⁠that the US would be careful.

White House science and technology adviser Michael Kratsios echoed Trump in remarks to the UN Security Council on Wednesday.

“You cannot govern technology you do not understand. This body and others like it should focus on sharing best practices to build domestic capacity, not establishing a global regulatory scheme,” he said.

The heads of several major AI firms told the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) their industry urgently needed global oversight to avoid dangers that could threaten the whole world.

“If managed poorly, I even believe AI could be a risk to humanity as a whole,” Dario Amodei, the chief executive officer of Anthropic, told members of the body on Wednesday.

Sam Altman, the head of rival company OpenAI, echoed his concerns, telling the 15-member council tasked with tackling major crises globally that humanity could “lose control of the future of AI”.

The meeting, which coincides with the UN General Assembly (UNGA) gathering in New York City, was convened by France and comes at a time when experts are increasingly warning that the rapid development of AI needs more human oversight to ensure it does not slip out of control and cause a global catastrophe.

Altman and Amodei called on world leaders to take action.

“If AI is to be democratic, the most important decisions cannot be made by labs in San Francisco alone,” Altman told members. “They must be shaped through democratic processes and by governments accountable to the people they serve.”

Their concerns were shared by several representatives on the council, including the foreign ministers of France and the United Kingdom, who said the international community needed to step in and create common frameworks for how the technology should be controlled.

Hugging Face CEO Clement Delangue, whose company has come under attack by out-of-control AI models in recent months – incidents used by the other companies as evidence of the need for more safety measures – told the UNSC his company had relied on the technology to defend itself in those same incidents.

Delangue said Hugging Face had relied on a Chinese AI model to help defend against the attack by OpenAI’s AI agents, because it faced fewer restrictions than comparable US tools.

“We were attacked by AI, but more importantly, we defended ourselves with AI,” he told the council.

US and China reluctant to impose restrictions

In the United States, though, where the largest and most influential companies developing AI are based, the administration of US President Donald Trump has baulked at imposing new guardrails on the industry.

The administration’s representative at the UNSC meeting, Michael Kratsios, told members, “We totally reject all efforts by international bodies to assert centralised control and global governance of AI.”

Chinese President Xi Jinping is expected to discuss whether and how to regulate AI during a visit to Washington, DC, this week. The two countries are locked in a technological race to develop more powerful AI tools, a competition that experts say makes it less likely that either country would want to impose any major new restrictions on their efforts right away.

Yet there is a growing recognition at the UN of the danger AI potentially poses to the world, said Daniel Forti, head of UN Affairs at the International Crisis Group. Member states understand that “there will be much more of a need for international cooperation, setting some rules of AI, even if the biggest players are more focused on growth opportunities than on some sort of collaboration,” Forti said.

For several years, the UN has been participating in multilateral meetings to shape everything from protections for workers from AI in emerging economies and ensuring open access to this technology, to following how AI is used in military conflicts. In 2024, the UNGA unanimously passed its first resolution on AI, a nonbinding statement that called on member states to protect personal data, monitor AI for risks and safeguard human rights.

The adoption of AI has taken off dramatically since then, and with it have come dire warnings from environmental groups, human rights advocates, and even the tech moguls whose companies are developing the tech.

The future of AI “cannot be decided by a handful of countries or left to the whims of a few billionaires”, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said at a global summit held earlier this year.

Last year, the UNGA formed two new bodies to deal with AI: the Independent International Scientific Panel on AI that brings together experts to provide governments with independent assessments, and the Global Dialogue on AI Governance, which provides a regular forum for discussing approaches to AI governance.

“The dangers are real and imminent,” Yoshua Bengio, a Canadian expert on AI and co-chair of the Independent International Scientific Panel, told the UNSC on Wednesday. “This council faces an unprecedented threat, one that none of its members would ⁠choose, that none can contain alone, and that does not respect the borders we defend.”

Trump takes rare step of meeting foreign leader at the airport, underscoring significance of US-China relationship.

United States President Donald Trump has welcomed Chinese President Xi Jinping as he arrived in the US for a three-day trip focused on issues such as security, trade and technology.

Trump took the rare step of meeting the Chinese leader in person at Joint Base Andrews in the state of Maryland on Wednesday, the first president to do so in recent memory.

The US president and First Lady Melania Trump greeted Xi and his wife on the tarmac during a welcoming ceremony, where a red carpet was rolled out and the couples exchanged handshakes. Trump and Xi then walked side by side, flanked by US soldiers, before standing for a gunfire salute and the US national anthem.

The in-person greeting is a sign of the significance that Washington ascribes to its relationship with Beijing, whose meteoric economic rise over the last several decades has transformed it into a global superpower capable of rivalling the United States.

Despite tense relations that worsened after the Trump administration placed high tariffs on Chinese goods – a move that was met with retaliatory measures from Beijing – Trump has expressed personal affinity for Xi and his desire for strong ties with China.

The Chinese president’s trip to the US will include a state dinner, attended by leaders of the country’s powerful tech industry, a military ceremony at the White House, and a visit to the National Archives, home to documents of historical and cultural significance such as the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

But both countries remain wary of the other as they compete for political and economic influence. The trip is likely to include discussion of issues such as the US war on Iran, trade, technology, rare-earth minerals and US ties to Taiwan, the self-governing island that China claims as part of its territory.

An 11-month deal that offered temporary relief from punishing tariffs between the two countries is set to expire on November 10.

Hacker group ShinyHunters claims to have detailed data on thousands of FBI employees.

The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation says it is investigating a breach of its jobs website by a hacking group that claims to have obtained sensitive data on thousands of employees.

“The FBI is aware of a cybercriminal enterprise group claiming a compromise of the fbijobs.gov portal and alleged impact to FBI employee personally identifiable information,” the agency said in a statement on Wednesday.

“While the point of breach is still undetermined — whether a third -party or the FBI’s enterprise — we are actively and aggressively investigating this matter and working closely with those third-party providers that support fbijobs.gov to mitigate any and all risk.”

Several news outlets, including Reuters news agency, reported they had seen parts of the data, claimed to be part of a larger trove between two and three terabytes by ShinyHunters, a hacking group claiming responsibility for the breach. According to Reuters, the data includes granular detail about scores of bureau officials’s job assignments, including sensitive work against Chinese spies, Russian intelligence, drug cartels and more.

ShinyHunters said on Tuesday that it had breached the FBI and stolen data on a huge number of current and former FBI employees. ⁠⁠It said it is holding the data hostage until the bureau rescinds an unflattering statement about the group issued in May. On Wednesday, the group said it was trying to keep the ⁠⁠personnel information from circulating widely in the meantime.

An FBI statement in May characterised ShinyHunters as “threat actors” who often harass or threaten victims, using “their real or exaggerated claims of access to sensitive or personal information to prompt payment from victims”.

The group “may falsely claim to have sensitive or compromising information, including embarrassing photographs or videos of victims, which frequently do not exist,” the FBI said.

The FBI has been a common hacking target.

In March, the FBI disclosed that it was investigating “suspicious activities” on an internal system that contains sensitive information related to surveillance operations and investigations. Also that month, a pro-Iranian hacking group claimed to have hacked an account of FBI Director Kash Patel and posted online what appear to be years-old photographs of him, along with a work resume and other personal documents dating back more than a decade.

The jobs portal was still offline Wednesday afternoon.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio says summit would be opportunity for Russian president to engage with global leaders.

United States President Donald Trump has invited his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin to the upcoming G20 summit in Miami, Florida, the latest step meant to build ties between the two countries amid Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters on Wednesday that Putin had been invited to travel to the summit in December, saying that he hopes the Russian leader will take the opportunity to meet with global leaders.

“In order to solve problems, you have to meet with the people that you disagree with or the people that you might have some issues with,” Rubio said. “So we’ve invited President Putin to the G20.”

“We think it’s an opportunity for him to engage not just with the president, but with other world leaders. We hope that’s an invitation he’ll accept,” Rubio said.

Rubio’s remarks followed a meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), currently convening in New York City.

During a speech to the UNGA on Wednesday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called on the world to place more financial pressure on Russia.

“When someone gives Russia more money through trade, they give this war more time. And that is exactly why we insist on limiting trade with the aggressor, and why we are burning Russia’s revenues ourselves,” he said, adding that he is sceptical that Russia is sincerely interested in taking steps that could end the war.

Trump has searched in vain for an agreement between Russia and Ukraine to end the war sparked by Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022.

Ukrainian officials have called for a pause on strikes targeting energy infrastructure and for steps to facilitate shipping for the Black Sea. Russia has given little sign that it is interested in such an arrangement.

“We are not going to have a pause in our special military operation,” Lavrov told the UN Security Council on Wednesday, accusing Europe of wanting to pause the fighting in order to “pump the Kyiv regime with weapons”.

Rubio, however, continued to express optimism about the possibility of a temporary ceasefire.

“I think both sides have expressed an interest in some limited ceasefire that involves grain and energy,” he said. “Obviously, you know, that won’t be easy, either.”

Zelenskyy told reporters that Kyiv remains open to a maritime truce in the Black Sea.

“We are waiting for Russia’s response,” he said, adding that his country is ready “to ensure safe shipping and food security in the Black Sea if Russia is ready to take real steps towards de-escalation, too”.

“We have to start somewhere,” he added.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for Putin in 2023 for the alleged war crime of deportation of Ukrainian children to Russian territory. The arrest warrant obliges member states to arrest Putin if he travels to their countries, but the court has no enforcement mechanism for this. The US is not a member of the ICC.

The ruling seals six years of legal battles after Weinstein’s initial conviction for sexually assaulting TV assistant.

Harvey Weinstein, the disgraced movie mogul, has been sentenced in Manhattan to 15 years in prison for a felony sex crime in another #MeToo reckoning.

Weinstein’s sentencing on Wednesday for sexually assaulting one-time TV production assistant Miriam Haley followed a legal odyssey spanning more than six years, when New York’s highest court overturned his 2020 conviction. A second jury found Weinstein guilty again at a retrial last year.

Once among the most powerful figures in the entertainment industry, Weinstein was an Oscar-winning producer whose hits included “Shakespeare in Love,” “Pulp Fiction” and “Chocolat.” But his downfall came quickly after sexual assault allegations in 2017 set off the #MeToo movement.

Weinstein, 74, is expected to appeal and maintains that he never raped or sexually assaulted anyone. He is now likely to remain behind bars well into his 80s. Seated in a wheelchair, he was quickly moved out of the courtroom after the sentencing, while some of his accusers hugged and brushed away tears.

Haley, 49, appeared in court on Wednesday morning and delivered a victim impact statement in which she talked about enduring seven years of public smear campaigns and humiliation orchestrated by Weinstein, his legal team and allegedly paid podcasters aiming to sour her image.

Haley added that her experience following the assault had “already been a life sentence” for her, and implored the judge to take all of this into consideration.

Owing to a cycle of retrials, appeals and judicial proceedings, Weinstein has remained incarcerated since his 2018 arrest and is now serving time in a prison medical ward.

Weinstein, first publicly accused of wrongdoing in 2017, was detained a year later. In 2024, New York’s highest court overturned the original 2020 conviction that had sentenced the former Hollywood producer to 23 years in prison, ruling that the inclusion of extraneous, non-indicted testimony had compromised the equity of the trial.

Prosecutors attempted to retry the case last June, but it ended in a split verdict after the jury foreperson refused to return to deliberate amid a jury room feud. Weinstein was convicted of a first-degree criminal sex act on a separate count at the time, again.

Weinstein is also awaiting resentencing in a separate rape case in Los Angeles.

In a defiant speech at the United Nations General Assembly, Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian has delivered a sharp rebuke to a threat by US President Donald Trump from the same rostrum the previous day to annihilate the country, but left the door open for diplomacy to end nearly seven months of war.

“The US president called us terrorists but we are the victims of terrorists,” Pezeshkian said on Wednesday.

During his speech, Pezeshkian held up a picture of former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei – assassinated in a joint US-Israeli strike at the start of the war in February – as well as photos of schoolgirls killed in an alleged US air attack on their school in the southern city of Minab.

“They hit us, but we did not bow our heads or bend the knee,” Pezeshkian added.

As the Iranian president began his speech, an official from the US delegation walked out of the vast hall. The Israeli delegation also boycotted the address.

“[Trump] must know that the resistance of the Iranian people will only grow in the face of sanctions and increased pressure and bullying,” Pezeshkian said.

But Pezeshkian, a relative centrist in the Iranian ruling system, also left the door open for negotiations, saying, “Iran extends its hands towards the world.”

“We invite the world and call to it, not out of weakness, but out of a deep belief in our own power and steadfastness to cooperate and collaborate out of a deep understanding that no one in this region will have security alone,” he said.

‘Very good meeting’

On Tuesday, Trump said his son-in-law Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, who are both leading negotiations with Tehran, had held a three-hour meeting with Iranian officials.

“They had a very good meeting, a very productive meeting,” Trump told reporters at the UN, adding that he believed there was “a lot of momentum” towards an agreement. Trump later said talks were continuing and that he believed a settlement would eventually be reached.

The remarks came after Trump used his speech before UN delegates to again threaten Iran’s destruction.

“Will a deal be made with Iran that lets them rebuild and create a far greater country than it ever was before?” Trump said. “Or do I annihilate the Islamic Republic and do it quickly, never giving them a chance to kill and destroy people and countries again?”

Strait of Hormuz

Addressing the US naval blockade of Iran and Tehran’s campaign to choke off trade in the Strait of Hormuz, Pezeshkian said Iran would resist what he called US efforts to use the critical sea lane to expand its war on the country.

“In the Strait of Hormuz, we cannot have some free access and gain their independence from that waterway while at the same time use that waterway to impose their aggressions upon us and to impose insecurity upon us; to forbid us access to our own waterways,” he said.

Negar Mortazavi, a senior fellow at the US-based Center for International Policy, said the Iranian president’s speech showed usual flashes of defiance, but notably signalled an appetite for a diplomatic off-ramp.

“Iran wants a way out of this war. They’ve kept the door to diplomacy open,” she told Al Jazeera.

“Reading between the lines of the Iranian president’s speech, it seems Iran may even show some flexibility as far as a return to some sort of agreement that may not be exactly along the lines of the June Memorandum of Understanding that US President Trump doesn’t seem interested in returning to,” she said. The memorandum, which has expired, called for a halt to fighting, lifting the US naval blockade and opening the Strait of Hormuz to maritime traffic.

Compromise still a possibility

Drawing parallels between the US and Israel bombing of Iran and Israel’s attacks in Gaza, Pezeskhian said Israel’s genocide in Gaza “revealed the double standards to which Iran is held by the international community”.

“They kill and we are sanctioned and we are punished,” Pezeshkian added.

Joey Hood, a former US diplomat and ambassador to Tunisia, said the speech leaned heavily into familiar Iranian official rhetoric and represented a lost opportunity to seek compromise.

“Instead of coming to the United Nations with something new and bold, we heard the same things that we’ve heard before,” Hood said, adding that a concrete peace offer or proposal posed to the US in the speech might have focused Washington’s attention.

“That would actually put Donald Trump on the backfoot, and he would have to respond. The Iranian president didn’t do any of that,” Hood said.

At the colloquium established shortly after the second world war to prevent future wars, United States President Donald Trump did just the inverse: He platformed his unceasing threats against Iran, suggesting almost casually on Tuesday that he could “annihilate” the country he has waged war against since February 28.

But behind closed doors on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), a flurry of diplomatic activity concerning the ongoing US-Iran war has also been unfolding, as world leaders gather in New York.

The US and Iran held indirect talks for three hours on Tuesday. US special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner met Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, with Trump calling it a “very good” and “very productive” meeting. Trump also met Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) leaders that day, with senior officials from the region mulling a Qatari proposal for a common security framework involving Iran and the Gulf states.

Meanwhile, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian arrived in New York early on Wednesday – the first time a leader whose country is at war with the US has set foot on US soil to address the gathering. And Chinese President Xi Jinping will skirt New York to instead meet Trump one-on-one in Washington, DC – his first state visit to the US in just less than a decade. Xi lands on Wednesday evening.

All these separate diplomatic initiatives, analysts tell Al Jazeera, are parts of a push to bring Iran and the US back to the negotiating table. According to Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Tehran, Tohid Asadi, Araghchi’s meeting with Witkoff and Kushner was to convey Tehran’s latest set of conditions to end the war, following the collapse of the June 60-day memorandum of understanding (MoU) finalised in Islamabad, Pakistan.

But analysts say expecting an actual deal to emerge this week from the diplomatic meetings in the US would be unrealistic. Multiple actors and mediators in the conflict are testing possible off-ramps, but core disagreements between Washington and Tehran remain unresolved.

“I am sceptical that a breakthrough deal can emerge this week, but a series of understandings can build confidence for renewed diplomacy,” Sanam Vakil, the director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Chatham House, told Al Jazeera.

Too early for a breakthrough

Vakil is hesitant to call the current moment ripe for a diplomatic breakthrough – it is far too early, and there is a history of negotiations failing, she said.

“Both sides have been negotiating for over two years and on two occasions, that ended with military conflict and these negotiations continue amid persistent military threats,” she said.

Iran has long pointed to its previous rounds of diplomatic talks with the US – in 2025 and again this year – as evidence that Washington can veer from negotiations to military action. It has cited the 12-day war last June, and the current conflict, which began with joint US-Israeli strikes on Tehran at a time Washington and Tehran were engaged in Oman-mediated dialogue.

Adel Abdel Ghafar, a senior fellow focusing on the Middle East at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, said that there appears to be “genuine” movement towards reigniting negotiations – but also “a fair amount of posturing”. He referenced Trump’s praise for Tuesday’s indirect Iran-US talks and his pugnacious UNGA speech the same day.

A breakthrough hinges on whether Iran’s diplomats in New York can actually deliver, he said.

“Araghchi and Pezeshkian can negotiate, but any deal will need the consent of the [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] and the hardliners in charge of the war back home,” Abdel Ghafar told Al Jazeera.

There are specific indicators to watch for another round of US-Iran contact, the analysts said.

“The signs to watch for are another confirmed round of US-Iran talks, agreement on sequencing or reciprocal steps, and language from both sides becoming more specific about implementation rather than simply repeating maximalist demands,” said Vakil.

Abdel Ghafar added that, against the backdrop of UNGA, signs could include Araghchi or Pezeshkian meeting directly with US officials, in addition to supportive statements from more hardline elements of the Iranian administration back home.

The appearance of such indicators could lead to a stronger push for such talks when Trump meets Xi, as well as an easing of fighting between the Iran-backed Houthi group and the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen, which has escalated in recent weeks, the analyst added.

The limits of Gulf and Chinese diplomacy

The analysts agreed that the Gulf states remain crucial in brokering a return to talks because they have channels to both warring sides, as well as a very strong interest in preventing further escalation, having absorbed the cost of the fighting since February. Qatar, Oman and other Gulf states have been involved in mediation efforts throughout the conflict.

“Qatar and Oman, in particular, can help translate broad political messages into workable arrangements on issues such as Hormuz and regional security,” said Vakil.

China, meanwhile, has less capacity or interest to mediate, she argued.

Beijing, however, could use its economic and political leverage with Tehran “to encourage compromise and give Iran greater confidence that any agreement will not leave it completely isolated”, said Vakil.

Abdel Ghafar pointed out that China remains Iran’s main customer for its oil, explaining why Beijing has pushed for a return to the June interim deal and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

“Still, I think neither can impose a settlement – it ultimately comes down to Washington and Tehran,” he said.

Hostilities and Hormuz

The tit-for-tat rhetoric has resulted in continued deadlock in the conflict, with each side unwilling to relinquish to the other’s demands and appear to admit defeat.

On Tuesday, following Trump’s remarks on annihilating Iran, Iran’s military warned that it is ready to respond with “crushing” attacks more severe than earlier in the war.

“The main challenge is finding a formula that both governments can present domestically as a negotiated compromise rather than capitulation,” said Vakil.

The Strait of Hormuz remains a key obstacle.

“It’s Iran’s strongest card and the thing Washington most wants back, with oil prices high and midterms approaching,” said Abdel Ghafar.

“Tehran will be reluctant to give it up without firm guarantees in return.”

Still, he warned that even if Washington and Tehran de-escalate, that does not automatically extend to the Red Sea.

The wider landscape of regional instability and conflict has created new conditions for Yemen’s unresolved war to flare up once again. The Bab al-Mandeb, now under effective Houthi control, has gained greater significance amid Iran’s effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a vital artery for global oil and gas supplies.

“Calm in Hormuz won’t necessarily mean calm in Bab al-Mandab,” said Abdel Ghafar.

UEFA president speaks for the first time since FIFA said it would review its decision-making, says trust still broken.

UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin says trust in world football has not ⁠been restored following the collapse of FIFA’s controversial private investment plan.

The remarks, made in a video address to the ⁠Portugal Football Summit on Wednesday, were Ceferin’s first public comments since FIFA president Gianni Infantino offered a review of the governing body’s decision-making.

Ceferin said unity, transparency and governance that served the wider game were essential to maintaining trust in football. “Yet not everyone places the game above their own ambitions.”

“Trust in our sport rests on three pillars: unity, transparency, and governance that serves the many, not the few. ‌In recent times, all three were disregarded by people who had sworn to protect them.

“The project that shattered the unity of world football may be abolished, but the trust it broke has not returned, and repairing it is our work now.”

Ceferin did not name Infantino or FIFA, but his comments were an apparent reference to the abandoned proposal to sell a 20 percent stake in FIFA’s commercial rights, including the World Cup, to private investors. The plan ⁠was dropped in July after fierce opposition from UEFA, the Asian Football ⁠Confederation and the Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football (CONCACAF).

“Football is not for sale,” Ceferin said. “That is the message UEFA has carried for years, and I’m certain this summit will carry it further.”

His intervention came two days after Infantino sought to address the fallout in a letter ⁠to the FIFA Council and the presidents of all 211 member associations.

He said he would ask the council whether it wanted to commission an ⁠independent external review of FIFA’s governance framework for major strategic initiatives ⁠and proposed consultations with confederations, member associations and other stakeholders on strengthening its decision-making processes.

He said any review could examine the roles of the president, bureau, council and congress and ways to improve transparency and accountability.

The letter has so far failed ‌to win over several federations that had criticised Infantino over the investment proposal.

Infantino has said he remains fully committed to leading FIFA and is expected to seek another term at the presidential ‌election ‌in March 2027.

Ceferin said those running the sport needed to remember whom they served.

“The game will remain safe if those who govern it remember whom they govern it for,” he said.

With world leaders at the UN General Assembly podium this week, play our quiz matching famous quotes to who said them.

This week, world leaders converge on New York for the annual United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), where representatives from the 193 UN member states are expected to take to the podium.

Over the decades, that same podium has hosted some of modern diplomacy’s most quoted moments, from Cold War warnings to wartime appeals.

Match each line to the leader who spoke it from the UNGA podium in the 10-question quiz below.