US & Canada

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen warned that a potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz and ongoing Israeli strikes on Lebanon threaten regional stability after a meeting in Brussels on the fallout from the Iran conflict. Al Jazeera’s Abdullah Elshamy reports on the bloc’s response.

What does Donald Trump’s naval blockade of Iranian ports look like and can it achieve what the US president wants? It is hard to know when the planning appears to have been done on the fly, according to war studies lecturer Samir Puri.

Dismissed lawsuit follows Wall Street Journal’s report on a letter allegedly signed by Trump for Epstein’s 50th birthday.

A United States federal judge has dismissed US President Donald Trump’s $10bn defamation lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and its owner Rupert Murdoch over a story on Trump’s ties to Jeffrey Epstein.

Miami-based ‌US District Judge Darrin Gayles said on Monday that Trump did not meet the “actual malice” standard that public figures must clear in defamation cases.

That means public figures must prove not only that a public statement about them was false, but also that the media outlet or person who made the statement ‌acted with reckless disregard for the truth or should have known that it was false.

“This complaint comes nowhere close to this standard,” Gayles wrote. “Quite the opposite.”

The judge noted that reporters from the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reached out to Trump for comment beforehand and printed his denial. That allowed readers to decide for themselves what to conclude, cutting against Trump’s assertion that the newspaper acted with actual malice, the judge said.

Gayles said Trump could file an amended version of ⁠the lawsuit by April 27.

In ⁠his lawsuit, Trump called a birthday greeting that he allegedly sent to Epstein, a convicted sex offender, a “fake”. The US president sought $10bn for what he called damage to ‌his reputation. News Corp’s Dow Jones & Company, the WSJ’s parent company, defended the accuracy of its July ‌17, ‌2025 article.

Trump filed the lawsuit after promising to sue the paper almost immediately after it put a new spotlight on his well-documented relationship with Epstein by publishing an article that described a sexually suggestive letter that the newspaper said bore Trump’s signature and was included in a 2003 album compiled for Epstein’s 50th birthday.

The letter was subsequently released publicly by the US Congress, which subpoenaed the records from Epstein’s estate.

The ruling marks yet another blow in the Trump administration’s efforts to manage fallout over its release of the Epstein files and the president’s attempts to use the legal system to curb reporting that he finds critical of him.

The White House didn’t immediately respond to a request by AP for comment.

Islamabad, Pakistan – More than 12 hours of face-to-face negotiations between the United States and Iran ended without agreement in Islamabad on Sunday, leaving a fragile two-week ceasefire as the only barrier between diplomacy and a return to war.

Pakistan, which spent weeks positioning itself as a mediator and succeeded in bringing both sides into the same room, emerged with its role intact. But officials acknowledge the harder phase now begins — getting American and Iranian negotiators back into talks before their differences explode into full-fledged war again.

“Pakistan has been and will continue to play its role to facilitate engagements and dialogue between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America in the days to come,” Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar said in a statement after the conclusion of the talks.

The talks, the highest-level direct engagement between Washington and Tehran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, faltered over differences surrounding Iran’s nuclear programme.

“The simple fact is that we need to see an affirmative commitment that they will not seek a nuclear weapon, and they will not seek the tools that would enable them to quickly achieve a nuclear weapon,” said US Vice President JD Vance, who led the American delegation alongside special envoy Steve Witkoff and US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner.

However, Vance left a narrow opening for the resumption of talks.

“We leave here with a very simple proposal, a method of understanding that is our final and best offer. We’ll see if the Iranians accept it,” Vance said, tapping the podium for emphasis, before ending his brief remarks, which lasted for less than five minutes.

Pakistani and Iranian sources confirmed that the Iranian delegation met senior Pakistani officials later on Sunday before departing for Tehran, though details of those discussions remain unclear.

What is clear is that Pakistan isn’t giving up yet.

Washington’s red lines

US officials said that Iran had entered negotiations misreading its leverage, believing it held advantages that, in Washington’s assessment, it did not.

According to these officials, Vance spent much of his time during the talks correcting what they described as Iranian misperceptions about the US position — asserting that no deal would be possible without a full commitment on the nuclear issue.

Officials also suggested that Trump’s subsequent announcement of a blockade in the Strait of Hormuz was not an impulsive reaction, but a pre-planned step aimed at removing the waterway as an Iranian bargaining tool and forcing the nuclear issue back to the centre of any future talks.

But the US officials, speaking on background, also acknowledged that the gulf in the positions between Washington and Tehran that they failed to bridge extended to issues beyond Iran’s nuclear programme.

In essence, they said, the two sides failed to agree on six key points: ending all uranium enrichment; dismantling major enrichment facilities; removing Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium; accepting a broader regional security framework involving US allies; ending funding for groups Washington designates as “terrorist” organisations, including Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis; and fully reopening the Strait of Hormuz without tolls.

Hours after the talks ended, Trump acknowledged partial progress, but underscored the central impasse.

“The meeting went well, most points were agreed to, but the only point that really mattered, NUCLEAR, was not,” he wrote on Truth Social.

“Effective immediately, the United States Navy, the Finest in the World, will begin the process of BLOCKADING any and all Ships trying to enter, or leave, the Strait of Hormuz,” Trump said. “Iran will not be allowed to profit off this Illegal Act of EXTORTION.”

Iran has effectively controlled access to the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly 20 percent of global oil supplies pass, since the US-Israeli attacks began on February 28.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has imposed what analysts describe as a de facto toll system, requiring vessels to secure clearance codes and transit under escort through a controlled corridor.

The disruption has pushed oil prices above $100 per barrel at times, unsettling global markets and placing sustained pressure on energy-importing countries across Asia and Europe.

Tehran has framed its control of the strait as both a security measure and a key negotiating lever, one it has shown little willingness to relinquish without a broader settlement.

Tehran’s point of view

Iran’s account of the breakdown differed sharply.

In a post on X early on April 13, after returning to Tehran, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said his country had engaged in “good faith”, only to face shifting demands.

“When just inches away from an Islamabad MoU, we encountered maximalism, shifting goalposts, and blockade,” he wrote. “Zero lessons learned. Good will begets good will. Enmity begets enmity.”

The reference to an “Islamabad MoU”, a memorandum of understanding, was the clearest public signal yet that the two sides had come closer to a formal agreement than either government had previously acknowledged.

Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who led the country’s delegation, said his team had proposed “forward-looking initiatives”, but failed to secure trust.

“Due to the experiences of the two previous wars, we have no trust in the opposing side,” he wrote on Sunday.

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei also pointed to partial progress but unresolved differences.

“On some issues we actually reached mutual understanding, but there was a gap over two or three important issues and ultimately the talks didn’t result in an agreement,” he said.

Tehran’s key demands, including an end to Israeli strikes on Lebanon, the release of $6bn in frozen assets, guarantees on its nuclear programme and the right to charge vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz, remained unmet.

Iran’s ambassador to Pakistan, Reza Amiri Moghadam, however, offered a more measured view — suggesting that Tehran was not closing the window on talks.

“The Islamabad Talks is not an event but a process,” he wrote in his message on X on Sunday. “The Islamabad Talks laid the foundation for a diplomatic process that, if trust and will are strengthened, can create a sustainable framework for the interests of all parties.”

Pakistan’s balancing act

For Pakistan, analysts say, the outcome represents a setback but not a failure.

Officials were careful to describe the talks as “an important opening step in a continuing diplomatic process”, stressing that issues of such complexity cannot be resolved in a single round.

The emphasis, they said, was on keeping the channel open.

Muhammad Obaidullah, a former Pakistan Navy commodore who has served in Iran as a diplomat, said expectations of a breakthrough were always unrealistic.

“The mere fact of bringing both parties face to face is a significant diplomatic achievement in itself,” he told Al Jazeera. “The diplomacy is not dead.”

Ishtiaq Ahmad, professor emeritus of international relations at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad, went further.

“The talks did not collapse; they concluded without agreement but with a defined US offer on the table and the channel still intact,” he said.

“Pakistan’s role was to move the crisis from escalation to structured engagement, which it achieved. The absence of convergence reflects structural differences between the US and Iran, not a failure of mediation.”

Both Trump and Iranian officials have praised Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Chief of Army Staff Field Marshal Asim Munir for their efforts to secure the ceasefire, and for hosting the talks in Islamabad. That, say analysts, suggests that they remain open to further Pakistan-brokered negotiations.

Sahar Baloch, a Germany-based scholar of Iran, said that trust remains Pakistan’s most valuable asset.

“The real test of credibility is not preventing breakdowns, but remaining relevant after them,” she said.

Fragile ceasefire

The immediate threat to Pakistan’s role comes from the evolving situation in the Strait of Hormuz and in Lebanon.

Iran has already warned that continued Israeli strikes on Lebanon could render negotiations meaningless. Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian has framed such attacks as a direct challenge to the ceasefire.

Trump’s blockade announcement now adds pressure from a second front.

Ahmad, a former Pakistan chair at Oxford University, warned that a collapse of the truce would sharply narrow diplomatic options.

“If the ceasefire collapses, the immediate consequence is the loss of the diplomatic window,” he said. “A second round becomes far more difficult because both sides would return to negotiating under active escalation, where positions tend to harden rather than converge.”

Obaidullah drew a historical parallel with the US naval quarantine of Cuba during the 1962 missile crisis. What if China were to use its own ships to import Iranian oil? Would the US attack them?

“The world will again be watching who blinks first,” Obaidullah said. “However, it may turn into a far greater conflict if neither side does.”

The Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962 brought the US and the Soviet Union to the brink of nuclear war, after Washington discovered Moscow had installed nuclear missiles on Cuban soil, within striking distance of the American mainland.

The US blocked the Soviets from providing more equipment to Cuba, and eventually, a diplomatic settlement was reached, with the Soviets agreeing to withdraw the missiles in exchange for a US pledge not to invade Cuba.

Baloch, the Berlin-based scholar, agreed that the situation remains volatile.

“The ceasefire risks becoming more symbolic than substantive,” she said. “But paradoxically, escalation can sometimes force a return to talks, even if under more urgent and less favourable conditions.”

What is the road ahead?

Pakistan’s room for manoeuvring is also shaped by its economic fragility.

The disruption in the Strait of Hormuz has driven up energy prices, compounding pressures on an economy already under strain before the conflict.

Ahmad said this creates both urgency and limits.

“Economic exposure, especially to energy shocks and external financing, creates urgency for Pakistan to prevent a prolonged conflict,” he said.

“But it also reinforces a constraint: Pakistan cannot afford escalation with either side. Its leverage is not coercive; it is positional. It comes from being the only channel acceptable to both sides, not from the ability to impose outcomes,” Ahmad said.

Eight days remain until the end of the initial two-week truce, a window Pakistani officials said privately represents a genuine opportunity for further technical and political alignment, if both sides choose to use it.

Ahmad suggested that any breakthrough would depend on creating a sequence of steps acceptable to both sides.

“The US is asking for early nuclear commitments; Iran is asking for guarantees and relief first,” he said.

Pakistan’s role, he added, would be to help “structure this sequencing, keep both sides engaged, and prevent breakdown at each stage”.

Islamabad won’t be the one drafting a deal itself, he emphasised, noting, “At this point, maintaining the channel is as important as the substance of the deal itself.”

Leo, ​who last year became the first US-born pope, has emerged as an outspoken critic of the US-Israeli ⁠war on Iran.

United States President Donald Trump has unleashed a storm of criticism at Pope Leo XIV, calling him “weak on crime” and “terrible for foreign policy”.

Trump delivered the unusual criticism of the head of the Catholic Church in a Sunday night post on social media, saying he does not “want a Pope who criticises the President of the United States”.

Trump’s outburst appeared to be triggered by recent remarks from Pope Leo critical of the US-Israel war on Iran.

Last week, Leo issued a rare direct rebuke of Trump’s threat to destroy Iranian civilisation, calling it “truly unacceptable“. And then, on Sunday, the 70-year-old pontiff implored leaders to end ongoing bloodshed, condemning what he described as a “delusion of omnipotence” fuelling war – comments that appeared directed at Trump.

The pope has also previously questioned the Trump administration’s hardline immigration policies, saying, “I don’t know if that’s ⁠pro-life.”

Taking to Truth Social, Trump wrote: “I don’t want a Pope who thinks it’s OK for Iran to have a Nuclear Weapon. I don’t want a Pope who thinks it’s terrible that America attacked Venezuela.”

“Leo should get his act together as Pope, use Common Sense, stop catering to the Radical Left, and focus on being a Great Pope, not a Politician,” said the US president.

Trump also claimed credit for Leo’s leadership in the Catholic Church, suggesting the Vatican picked the first US-born pontiff – elected last year – to curry favour with the White House. “If I wasn’t in the White House, Leo wouldn’t be in the Vatican,” Trump said.

Asked about the comments later on Sunday, Trump reiterated that he is “not a big fan” of Leo, who he said “is not doing a very good job”.

“He likes crime, I guess,” said Trump. “He’s a very liberal person.”

Trump also had a rocky relationship with Leo’s predecessor, Pope Francis, who criticised Trump’s ‌immigration ‌policy proposals when he first ran for president and suggested Trump was “not a Christian“. Trump had called Francis “disgraceful” in early 2016.

Leo is set to begin an 11-day trip to Africa on Monday, starting with a historic visit to Muslim-majority Algeria.

Democratic Representative Eric Swalwell suspends campaign to succeed Gavin Newsom after media reports detailed alleged accounts of sexual assault.

US Congressman Eric Swalwell has dropped out of the California state gubernatorial race following sexual assault allegations.

“I am suspending my campaign for Governor,” he said in a social media statement on Sunday.

“To my family, staff, friends, and supporters, I am deeply sorry for mistakes in judgment I’ve made in my past. I will fight the serious, false allegations that have been made – but that’s my fight, not a campaign’s,” the Democrat added.

Swalwell’s statement came after several influential Democratic Party lawmakers called on him to exit the race and resign from the United States Congress following reports from CNN and the San Francisco Chronicle that detailed alleged accounts of sexual assault from a former staffer and misconduct allegations from several other women.

“What he did is sick and disgusting,” Congressman Ro Khanna told the news programme Fox News Sunday, calling for investigations into the allegations by law enforcement and the US House of Representatives.

A March poll from Emerson College suggested that Swalwell was ahead of Democratic and Republican challengers by several points in the race to replace Governor Gavin Newsom.

But the reports shook his campaign, with powerful figures and organisations revoking their endorsements and calling for him to drop out over the weekend. The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office confirmed on Saturday that it was investigating the allegations.

Republican US Representative Anna Paulina Luna said she would submit a motion to begin the process of expelling Swalwell, a move some Democrats in Congress said they could support.

“This is not a partisan issue,” Representative Pramila Jayapal said on Sunday. “This cuts across party lines. And it is the depravity of the way that women have been treated.”

Democrats have also called for the expulsion of Representative Tony Gonzales, a Republican from Texas, who is also facing sexual misconduct allegations.

Khanna and Republican Representative Byron Donalds have said they could support a bid to eject both Gonzales and Swalwell from Congress.

“As far as I’m concerned, both gentlemen need to go home,” Donalds said.

The Northern Irishman becomes the first player to repeat at Augusta National since Tiger Woods back in 2001-2002.

Jack Nicklaus, Nick Faldo, Tiger Woods, and now, Rory McIlroy.

The Northern ‌Irishman emerged from a tight pack of contenders to win the 90th Masters Tournament on Sunday, joining the trio of golf icons as the only players in history ⁠to conquer Augusta National in back-to-back years.

McIlroy ⁠said earlier this week that winning one Masters would make it easier to win a second, and he dug deep into that belief on Sunday to rally from a three-shot deficit on the front nine to post a one-under-par round of 71 for the winning score of 12-under 276 – one better ⁠than Scottie Scheffler.

“I can’t believe that I waited 17 years to get one green jacket, and I get two in a row,” McIlroy told CBS in Butler Cabin. “I think that all of my perseverance at this golf tournament over the years has really started to pay off.”

McIlroy’s sixth career major also tied him with Faldo for the most by a European player in the modern era, and they are tied for 12th-most all-time by any player.

Cameron Young, Russell Henley, England’s Tyrrell Hatton and Justin Rose finished another shot back at 10 under.

McIlroy rallies

McIlroy began the final round tied for the 54-hole lead at 11 under with Young, who birdied the second hole to reach 12 under and take the outright lead. It appeared that McIlroy’s repeat quest might unravel when he went three over on the two par-threes on the front nine to fall to 9 under for the tournament.

Suddenly, McIlroy’s name was looking up on the leaderboard at Young and Rose, who reached 12 under with ‌four birdies in a five-hole stretch through No 9. Scheffler was also making a run several holes ahead, and Henley reached 10 under through eight holes.

This is when McIlroy kicked it back into gear for the first time since closing with six birdies over his final seven holes on Friday. A birdie on the seventh hole got McIlroy back to double digits under par, and he pulled within one shot of the lead with another on the par-five eighth.

While Scheffler’s rally stalled for a long stretch with 11 consecutive pars, and Rose and Young struggled to hole putts on the back nine, McIlroy kept ratcheting up the pressure. He birdied the 12th and 13th holes to go 2 under through “Amen Corner” and build a two-shot lead.

Scheffler kept it interesting with birdies on numbers 15 and 16 to get to 11 under. Another birdie attempt on 17 stayed on the lip of ⁠the cup, and Scheffler parred out to post a 4-under round of 68, with McIlroy on the course with three holes to play.

The two-shot ⁠cushion proved helpful for McIlroy when he pushed his drive on the 18th hole well right into the trees. He was able to punch the ball forward into a greenside bunker and put it on the putting surface with his third shot.

From there, McIlroy easily converted the two-putt bogey, and became the fourth player in history to successfully defend at the Masters.

“It’s nice to have that two-shot cushion instead of the one [shot] like I ⁠had last year,” McIlroy said. “I looked at the [leader]board after I made the bogey on six, and I went back to 9 under at that point. And I said, ‘If I can get to 14 under, I think I’ve got a really good chance of winning this tournament.’

“I didn’t quite ⁠get there, I got to 13, but 13 was good enough standing on the 18th tee.”

After setting a Masters record ⁠with a six-shot lead after 36 holes, McIlroy played the final 36 holes in even par. That brought a host of players back into the mix, with at least four different players leading at some point during the final round.

McIlroy admitted that he kept a close eye on the leaderboard after falling back to 9 under to know where he stood in the tournament.

“It was a tough weekend,” he said. “I did the bulk of my work on Thursday and Friday, ‌but just so happy to hang in there and get the job done.”

Vessels will still be able to transit Strait of Hormuz to and from non-Iranian ports, says CENTCOM; Iran warns any approaching military vessels will be breaching ceasefire.

The United States military has announced it will begin blockading all Iranian ports on Monday, its latest move to exert pressure on Tehran after marathon peace talks in Pakistan concluded without a deal.

In a statement on Sunday evening, US Central Command (CENTCOM) said the blockade would apply to “all maritime traffic entering and exiting Iranian ports” from 10am Eastern Time (14:00 GMT) on April 13. That includes “vessels of all nations entering or departing Iranian ports and coastal areas”, including those on the Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.

However, US forces “will not impede freedom of ⁠navigation for vessels transiting the Strait ⁠of Hormuz to and ⁠from non-Iranian ports,” CENTCOM said, in an apparent scaling back from President Donald Trump’s earlier threat to blockade the entire strait and pursue ships paying tolls to Iran.

“There are a lot of questions here,” said Al Jazeera’s Heidi Zhou-Castro from Washington, DC, pointing to “conflicting information” coming out of the US side.

“Trump said the blockade would target any and all ships trying to enter or leave the Strait of Hormuz. But CENTCOM is saying this would only target ships going to or from Iranian ports.”

The price of US crude oil jumped 8 percent to $104.24 a barrel after the US blockade threat. Brent crude oil, the international standard, increased 7 percent to $102.29.

Iran has essentially taken control over the Strait of Hormuz, a vital chokepoint for the global energy market, since the US and Israel launched a war against the country on February 28. Traffic through the waterway has since slowed to a trickle, nearly paralysing about one-fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas shipments.

Iran has continued to move its own vessels through the strait, while allowing limited passage of ships from other countries. Iranian officials have discussed setting up a toll system after the fighting ends.

In a statement responding to Trump’s blockade threat, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said any approaching military vessels would be in breach of a US-Iran ceasefire – meant to be in effect until April 22 – and “will be dealt with severely”.

The US-declared blockade appears to be triggered by the failure of the talks in Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad, raising fears of renewed fighting.

Iranian officials blamed the US side for failing to reach a deal, with Minister of Foreign Affairs Abbas Araghchi saying US negotiators shifted the “goalposts” and obstructed efforts when a memorandum of understanding was “just inches away”.

Zohreh Kharazmi, an associate professor at the University of Tehran, said the US “is not in a position to dictate” to Iranians how to behave, or “to choose which vessels may pass”.

“If this blockade becomes a contest between the resilience of the Islamic Republic and the resilience of global markets, it will not take long to see who is losing,” she said, adding that Iran “is ready for a prolonged war”.

“Technically, they [the US] cannot control the situation. With Hollywood-style strategies, they cannot prevail in this battleground.”

CENTCOM says the blockade will begin at 14:00 GMT, as Iran warns of even higher prices at the pump.

In a matter of minutes, Israel killed more than 350 people across Lebanon on Wednesday, April 8. Here are some of their stories.

It was too much to ask of United States Vice President JD Vance that he hammer out a peace agreement with representatives of the Islamic Republic of Iran after the first direct meeting of the two sides in more than a decade.

But it is not too much to ask for enemy combatants to maintain the ceasefire and for negotiators to come back to the table for a second round of meetings.

As of now, we still have a ceasefire. The question remains: Can America win it?

For President Donald Trump, this question is existential. If voters perceive that the US lost the war against Iran, the Republicans will lose Congress and the president would be on the political hot seat for his last two years in office.

If, on the other hand, voters perceive that this conflict with Iran was worth it and life returns to normal by the summer, then the Republicans have a better chance of breaking even in November’s midterm elections.

What would it take for the US to win the ceasefire and eventually get a peace agreement?

Well, first, the Strait of Hormuz must be open to all shipping. This must be the number one objective for the Trump administration as it is the one thing that has the most impact on the global economy and, most importantly for a domestic audience, the price of oil. Policy planners at the White House didn’t fully appreciate how Iran could seize control of this critical chokepoint in international commerce, but they appreciate it now.

Second, the US must increase domestic pressure on the Iranian regime. Stopping the bombing is a good way to do that. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has been significantly weakened by the joint US-Israeli attacks. Our intelligence community needs to do everything it can to strengthen the Iranian protest movement, arming them with weapons and resources. Bombing bridges and oil refineries would have been a significant blunder by the Americans because it would have made it much more difficult for insurgents within the country to mount any kind of opposition.

Third, the US must mend its relationships with its traditional allies. This isn’t just about Iran. Russia and China look at the tensions within NATO, and they rejoice. A more united Western world, especially when it comes to keeping the Strait of Hormuz open, is essential.

Fourth, the Trump administration needs to improve its messaging game. Right now, the US is thoroughly divided when it comes to this war. Even elements of Trump’s political base are deeply sceptical of the campaign. I understand the motivation behind the president’s maximalist rhetoric, but trying to convince your opponents that you are a madman who just might put his finger on the button comes with some downsides.

Our allies were frightened, the American people were concerned, the pope was aghast. Even some of the president’s biggest political fans called for him to be removed via the 25th Amendment of the US Constitution, which provides for replacing a sitting president due to incapacity. Messaging from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth hasn’t been much better. Calling this another Christian crusade is not helpful to our long-term goals in the region.

Fifth, the president needs to paint a picture of what peace would mean to the Iranian people and to the region in general and then sell it to them. What is happening with Venezuela is a perfect example of what could happen with Iran. We cut off the head of government there, but the rest of the political body is still mostly in place. We do not need a total change in the regime. We do need a total change in the attitude of the current regime.

Sixth, the president needs to firmly lay out what we expect from a lasting peace agreement and what we need from the Iranian regime. The first thing we need is actual peace. Enough with funding terrorism, terrorist proxies and never-ending war against Israel. Peace means peace. The nuclear programme must never be turned into nuclear weapons.

Seventh, the president needs to make sure Israel’s objectives are aligned with ours. This would require some blunt talk between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Clearly, the Israeli prime minister sold Trump a bill of goods when he told him that this would be a quick war that would topple the Iranian regime at a relatively low cost. That hasn’t happened.

I appreciate how the Israelis are sick and tired of getting missiles sent their way from Hezbollah. But a forever war seems to be a key component of the Netanyahu political campaign, and that simply does not work for the American people any more.

The US and Israel need to be on the same page about what their objectives are now that we are in a lull in the fighting. This is critical to win this ceasefire.

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

On Saturday, the United States and Iran held direct negotiations for the first time in more than a decade. The talks ended without a deal, as the US and Iranian positions remain far apart.

While it is unclear what will happen next, the past month and a half of fighting has cast light on important lessons to be learned not just about this conflict but also the nature of modern warfare. These may turn into key considerations for decision-makers in Washington as they determine what to do next.

Scale and geography matter

Iran operates on a scale that immediately complicates any direct confrontation. With a landmass of approximately 1.64 million sq km (more than 633,200sq miles) and a population exceeding 90 million, the country dwarfs the environments in which recent major wars have taken place.

By comparison, Iraq — invaded by a US-led coalition in 2003 — has roughly one quarter of Iran’s land area and half its population. Afghanistan and Ukraine, while sizeable, are still significantly smaller in both territory and demographic weight.

This matters because military operations scale nonlinearly. Larger territory does not simply require more troops and weapons; it requires exponentially more logistics, longer supply lines, and expanded intelligence coverage.

If scale complicates the planning of a war, geography compounds it even more.

The US invasion of Iraq benefitted from favourable terrain. Coalition forces advanced rapidly through the relatively flat southern desert and river valleys, enabling a swift push towards Baghdad. Russian forces also benefitted from the relatively even landscape in Ukraine, easily crossing through the steppe in the eastern part of the country.

The problem with flat terrain is that it exposes troops to enemy attacks, as their movements can easily be detected.

Afghanistan presented the opposite challenge: mountainous terrain that limited conventional operations and forced reliance on airpower, special forces, and local allies.

Iran, however, combines the worst of both environments at a much larger scale.

The Zagros Mountains stretch along Iran’s western frontier, forming a natural defensive barrier. The Alborz Mountains in the north protect key population centres, including Tehran. The central plateau introduces vast desert expanses that can complicate military manoeuvres and sustainment. Meanwhile, Iran’s long coastline along the Gulf and the Gulf of Oman introduces maritime vulnerabilities, but also defensive depth.

Iran’s mountainous terrain not only makes a ground invasion almost impossible but also provides plenty of opportunities to hide missile launchers, military production facilities, and even air defences. This means that even a conflict limited to an air campaign could be stretched over many months, as Iran retains the capability to retaliate.

Strong and cohesive defence

The assumption that internal diversity translates into vulnerability is often overstated. Iran is ethnically diverse, with minorities such as the Azerbaijanis, Kurds, Arabs, Baloch, and others forming a significant part of its population. Yet historical experience suggests that external threats tend to strengthen national cohesion rather than fracture it.

Ukraine provides the most recent example. Despite linguistic and regional differences, Russia’s invasion reinforced Ukrainian national identity and resistance.

Iran followed a similar trajectory. External military pressure did not dissolve the state; it consolidated it.

This is particularly significant given Iran’s military structure. With more than 800,000 active personnel, including both the regular army and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Iran possesses a layered defence system designed for both conventional and asymmetric warfare. Its doctrine emphasises dispersal, survivability, and long-term resistance.

Unlike Iraq in 2003, whose military had been weakened by sanctions and prior conflict, Iran maintains a functioning state apparatus, integrated command structures, and extensive missile and drone capabilities.

Here, Ukraine offers another important lesson: even a large, modern military can fail to achieve decisive results against a smaller but determined and organised defender.

Russia entered Ukraine with a large force, hoping for a swift victory and regime change. Yet the war quickly evolved into a protracted conflict, with high costs and limited strategic gains.

Limits of conventional arms

There are also lessons to be learned about the effectiveness of conventional arms. The past month and a half has shown that even overwhelming air superiority does not necessarily translate into decisive results when deployed against a state designed to absorb and outlast attacks.

Iran’s ballistic missile and drone capabilities are central to this dynamic. Rather than relying on concentrated, high-value assets that can be quickly neutralised, Iran has developed a dispersed and layered system. Missile launchers, storage facilities and production sites have been embedded in mountainous terrain or hardened underground infrastructure, making them difficult to detect and eliminate. This reinforces the broader point: geography is not just a backdrop to conflict; it is actively integrated into Iran’s defensive strategy.

At the same time, Iran’s increasing reliance on drones and relatively low-cost missile systems introduces a different kind of challenge. These systems do not need to achieve precision or dominance; they only need to survive and sustain pressure over time. In doing so, they impose a continuous operational burden on even the most advanced air defence systems.

This creates a structural imbalance. Highly sophisticated and expensive military platforms are used to counter weapons that are significantly cheaper and easier to reproduce. Over time, this dynamic does not necessarily result in victory on the battlefield, but it erodes the ability to achieve decisive outcomes.

The result is a shift in how military power functions in practice. Conventional superiority remains important, but its role becomes more limited. It can disrupt, degrade, and contain, but it struggles to decisively defeat an adversary that is territorially embedded, operationally dispersed, and strategically prepared for a prolonged confrontation.

What this means strategically

Iran is not Afghanistan in 2001, nor Iraq in 2003, nor Ukraine in 2022. It is a hybrid of all three — combining scale, complexity and resilience.

Taken together, these factors reinforce a central conclusion of this conflict: Iran is not simply a harder target; it fundamentally alters the strategic calculus of war.

The combination of scale, geography, and resilience means that any conflict is likely to become prolonged, costly, and uncertain in outcome. This helps explain why, despite sustained military pressure, the war did not produce a decisive shift on the ground. Instead, it moved towards a temporary pause, reflecting the difficulty of translating military action into clear strategic gains.

This does not suggest that future conflict is unlikely. Rather, it indicates that the nature of such conflict could be different from what we saw in this month and a half. Direct, large-scale confrontation becomes less attractive when the probability of a quick victory is low, and the costs of escalation are high. Instead, what emerges is a pattern of limited engagements, calibrated responses, and strategic signalling — forms of conflict that fall short of full-scale war but stop well short of lasting resolution.

For the US and other major powers, the implications are equally significant. The expectation of rapid, decisive campaigns — seen in Iraq in 2003 — becomes far less applicable in this context. Military superiority can still shape the battlefield, but it cannot easily compress time or guarantee outcomes.

Ultimately, the conflict points to a broader shift in the nature of modern warfare. Victory is no longer defined by speed or initial dominance, but by endurance, adaptability, and the ability to operate effectively within complex environments. This may well be a major factor in US calculations on whether to restart the war.

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

The dawn of a new ‌era at light heavyweight commenced in Miami in the ⁠main event of ⁠UFC 327, which saw Carlos Ulberg win the vacant Ultimate Fighting Championship light heavyweight title over former champion Jiri Prochazka.

With United States President Donald Trump sitting cageside on Saturday, Ulberg delivered a perfect left hook to Prochazka’s chin and won the undisputed belt with a knockout at the 3:45 mark of the first round.

Ulberg (14-1 MMA, 10-1 UFC) finished Prochazka (32-6-1 MMA, 6-3 UFC) after nearly losing the fight due to a knee injury, catching Prochazka coming in with a left hook, followed by strikes, to win the ⁠title.

“I blew out my knee, but I never counted myself out,” Ulberg said. “I knew all I needed was that one shot, and I ended up getting it. So I knew that Jiri was hesitant to come forward. And as soon as I landed my left hand, he’s going.

“It’s about getting those moments.”

Ulberg has won 10 in a row, whereas Prochazka has fallen to 1-3 in UFC title fights since June 2022. Two of those losses were to Alex Pereira (13-3).

Ulberg (15-1-0) appeared to tweak something early in the first round when he planted his foot and his right knee buckled awkwardly. Prochazka (32-6-1) immediately went to work on Ulberg’s left leg, repeatedly landing kicks with hopes of taking both legs away, rather than attacking aggressively to end it.

“I felt sorry [for] him, and this is one of the biggest lessons in my life,” Prochazka said. “That fight was won, I had it, it was in my hands. I saw his injury, and … I will be back. Life is about that, learn and be better.”

The matchup was made after former champion Alex Pereira vacated the belt to move up and challenge for the interim heavyweight crown at UFC Freedom 250 at the White House on June 14, on what will be Trump’s 80th birthday.

Earlier, on his way to the arena, Trump’s Truth Social account posted an advertisement for the event.

Trump entered the Kaseya Center accompanied by UFC president Dana White and several members of the Trump family.

As a Kid Rock song blasted from the speakers, Trump walked to his seat, where Secretary of State Marco Rubio was waiting. Also nearby was Sergio Gor, the US ambassador to India.

Earlier, Paulo Costa rallied in the third round to ‌halt Azamat Murzakanov’s undefeated record. Costa (16-4) has won his last two fights, as he used to fight primarily at middleweight. Murzakanov (16-1) had won five of his first seven fights in the UFC by KO/TKO dating back to 2022.

In the co-main event, Azamat Murzakanov (17-0-0) used a right roundhouse to the head to drop Paulo Costa (15-5-0) and end the bout at the 1:23 mark of the third round.

Murzakanov stepped onto the apron of the Octagon after his victory to shake Trump’s hand, and the president praised him. Murzakanov acknowledged Trump during his post-fight interview with Rogan.

Josh Hokit (9-0-0) and Curtis Blaydes (19-6-0) battered each other in the slugfest of the night, with Trump excitedly watching the heavyweights as fans chanted “This is awesome!” while the fighters bloodied each other’s faces. Hokit won by unanimous decision (29-28, 29-28, 29-28).

Lewis vs Hokit added to White House fight card

White took to social media after Hokit’s win to reveal that a matchup between Hokit and Derrick Lewis had been added to UFC Freedom 250. According to White’s video, Trump asked why Lewis was not on the White House card.

The UFC chief said he called Lewis and offered him a fight, and when Rogan jokingly asked during the broadcast if there was room for Hokit on the card, the match came together.

“President Trump built half of that fight, Rogan built the other half,” White said in the video. “Both guys have agreed and accepted the fight.”

US Vice President JD Vance says the US delegation has failed to reach an agreement with Iran after 21 hours of negotiations in Pakistan. In a very short press conference, Vance said Iran had chosen not to accept Washington’s terms.

US Vice President JD Vance is leaving Pakistan after 21 hours of talks with Iran, saying Tehran chose not to accept their ‘final and best offer’. Here’s his full press conference in Islamabad.

US President Donald Trump says ‘we win regardless of what happens’ in Iran talks. His comments outside the White House came as US and Iranian delegations continue negotiating late into the night in Islamabad.

The Strait of Hormuz is believed to be a key sticking point as Iran and the US continue negotiations in the Pakistani capital.

Former Pakistani diplomat to the US Maleeha Lodhi says expectations from the Islamabad talks between the US and Iran should be realistic, stressing that “we should recognise that diplomacy is not an event, it’s a process, it takes time.”

NASA’s Artemis II astronauts were seen being helped across the deck of a US navy recovery ship, after splashing down on Earth from their mission around the moon.

A bill laying out plans to return the Indian Ocean archipelago, home to the US-UK Diego Garcia base, has been paused.

The United Kingdom is setting aside a bill to return the Chagos Islands to Mauritius amid a lack of support from United States President Donald Trump.

“We have always said we would only proceed with the deal if it has US support,” a UK government spokesperson said in a statement, according to the Reuters and AFP news agencies on Saturday.

This followed reports in the UK media that said a bill laying out plans to cede sovereignty of the 60-plus Indian Ocean islands had been dropped from the next parliamentary agenda.

Last May, the UK and Mauritius jointly announced a deal that would return full sovereignty of Chagos to Mauritius, which is some 2,000 kilometres (1,200 miles) away from the archipelago.

Britain would then pay to lease Diego Garcia – the largest island and a strategic location in the middle of the Indian Ocean between Asia and Africa, which is home to the military base – on a 99-year lease to preserve US operations there.

But Trump opposed the move, calling it an “act of great stupidity” in January.

“Diego Garcia is a key strategic military asset for both the UK and the US. Ensuring its long-term operational security is and will continue to be our priority – it is the entire reason for the deal,” the UK government spokesperson added in his statement.

“We are continuing to engage with the US and Mauritius.”

The statement added that the UK “continue[s] to believe ⁠the agreement is the best way to protect ⁠the long-term future of the base”.

‘Big mistake’

After Trump’s initial opposition, he appeared to momentarily back down in February after speaking with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, saying Starmer had made the “best deal he could make”.

But he then attacked the prime minister again on Truth Social weeks later.

“He is making a big mistake,” Trump wrote, adding that ceding the Chagos Islands would be “a blight on our Great Ally”.

Over the last six weeks, relations between Trump and Starmer have been further strained by the US-Israel war on Iran.

The UK is now leading a coalition of more than 30 countries to protect vessels in the Strait of Hormuz, without US participation in the initial talks.

Britain has controlled the Chagos since 1814, including after Mauritius gained independence in the 1960s. The Diego Garcia base has played a key role in US military operations in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Chagossians – thousands of whom were forcibly evicted to make way for the base – have brought compensation claims to British courts, culminating in a 2019 International Court of Justice recommendation that the archipelago be returned to Mauritius.

Scientists from NASA have hailed the Artemis II mission to send astronauts around the moon as a ‘fantastic feat’ but said there was more work to do, after the crew was safely brought back to Earth on Friday.

Pakistan’s ambassador to the US has told Al Jazeera that weeks of intense diplomatic efforts have led to a shared commitment from all sides to pursue a negotiated settlement, as US-Iran talks are set to begin in Islamabad.