US & Canada

As the United States-Israeli war on Iran enters its fourth week, the conflict seems to have escalated beyond President Donald Trump’s control.

The Iranian government has been able to endure the killings of its top political and military leaders and has launched retaliatory attacks on Israel and Gulf countries despite weeks of air strikes.

Tehran has also been able to impose a de facto blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway through which a fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas supplies pass, sending oil prices soaring. Analysts said the conflict risks unleashing a global recession. And that has put pressure on Trump, prompting his administration to allow the sale of sanctioned Russian oil to try to ease the energy crisis and pressure allies to police the strait, so far unsuccessfully.

Trump’s response in how to deal with the situation has been anything but coherent.

On Saturday, Trump upped the ante, issuing a threat to “obliterate” Iran’s power plants if Tehran does not reopen the Strait of Hormuz within 48 hours. This came a day after he said the US was “winding down” its military operations in Iran.

Analysts said Trump launched the war without a clear goal and misjudged how Tehran would respond. The conflict has expanded across the Middle East.

So is Trump looking to exit the war – or escalate it?

Trump’s mixed messaging on the Iran war

Here’s a brief look at the changing statements from Washington:

Is the war winding up or widening?

While one statement from Trump signalled that the US is considering “winding down” the war on Iran, another one indicated that the conflict would widen in the coming days.

On Saturday, Trump posted on his Truth Social platform that Washington was “very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great Military efforts in the Middle East with respect to the Terrorist Regime of Iran”.

Trump listed the goals of the war as: completely degrading Iran’s missile capability, destroying its defence industrial base, eliminating the Iranian navy and air force, never allowing Iran to get even close to having nuclear weapons, protecting Middle Eastern allies, and guarding and policing the Strait of Hormuz.

Both Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have claimed repeatedly in the past few days that Iranian military capabilities have been “completely destroyed” even as Tehran continues to retaliate against Israel and strike countries in the region.

US military officials said they have carried out heavy bombardments of Iran’s coast, including with bunker buster bombs, but still have not been able to limit Tehran’s capacity to disrupt the Strait of Hormuz.

On Saturday, Trump said the US “has blown Iran off of the map” and insisted that he has “met my own goals … and weeks ahead of schedule!” He also reiterated that Iran’s “leadership is gone, their navy and air force are dead, they have absolutely no defense, and they want to make a deal”.

Iranian leaders have consistently denied reaching out to the US with a ceasefire offer.

Just an hour later, Trump returned to his Truth Social platform with a warning for Iran.

“If Iran doesn’t FULLY OPEN, WITHOUT THREAT, the Strait of Hormuz, within 48 HOURS from this exact point in time, the United States of America will hit and obliterate their various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST!” Trump wrote.

Iran has since responded by saying it will hit energy sites across the Middle East if its power facilities are targeted. It has already fired hundreds of missiles and drones on Gulf countries, targeting US assets as well as energy facilities.

Between Trump’s claims to be “winding down” operations and upping the ante later, his administration announced it is sending three more warships to the Middle East with about 2,500 additional Marines.

The US military said about 50,000 military personnel are already deployed for the war against Iran.

When will the war on Iran end?

That has been among the foremost questions posed to US officials, including Trump, since the war on Iran was launched on February 28.

The next day, Trump told the Daily Mail that “it will be four weeks or so. It’s always been about a four-week process.” A day later, Trump said at the White House: “We projected four to five weeks, but we have capability to go far longer than that.”

On March 8, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told the CBS TV network’s 60 Minutes programme: “This is only just the beginning.” The next day, the US president told the same channel that he thinks “the war is very complete, pretty much.” And the US military operation was “way ahead of schedule”.

Then, on March 9, Trump said one could say the war is “both complete and just beginning”. Later the same day, the president said: “We’ve already won in many ways, but we haven’t won enough” and promised to go further and harsher against Iran.

On March 11, Trump said: “We don’t want to leave early, do we? We’ve got to finish the job.”

Why did US and Israel launch strikes on Iran?

Responses to this question are perhaps the most telling about US posturing in the war against Iran.

On March 2, Hegseth said the attacks were aimed at ending “47 long years” of war by “the expansionist and Islamist regime in Tehran” and were launched because Iran refused to negotiate with the US.

Hours later, Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, told reporters the US knew Israel was about to strike Iran, adding that the Trump administration believed the US needed to launch a pre-emptive strike before Iran’s retaliation potentially targeted US forces. “We went proactively in a defensive way to prevent them from inflicting higher damage,” he said.

This sparked a massive row in Washington with critics saying Israel had forced the US into war with Iran. Soon Trump rebutted his top diplomat, saying: “They [Iran] were going to attack. If we didn’t do it, they were going to attack first. … So if anything, I might have forced Israel’s hand.”

The next day, the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, concluded that Trump just had a “good feeling” that Iran would strike so Washington attacked Tehran.

The launch of the war came as Washington and Tehran were scheduled to meet for another round of talks that were started late last year. Before the war, their Omani mediator said a deal was “within reach”.

The US and Israeli assertion that Tehran was on the verge of making a nuclear bomb has not been backed up by the United Nations nuclear watchdog. Last week, US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard also told Congress that Iran was not in a position to make an atomic bomb.

Some analysts said the Trump administration was convinced to go to war by Netanyahu, who has been seeking US military intervention in Iran for decades. They said Trump was buoyed by a swift US military operation in Venezuela and did not think through Iran’s strengths before going into the war. In January, the US military abducted President Nicolas Maduro in a military operation in Caracas that took two and a half hours.

What does the conflicting messaging mean for US strategy?

Analysts said the moving goalposts in the Iran war show the policy limits of the current Trump administration as well as its strategy, to some extent, of keeping off-ramps available.

Zeidon Alkinani, a Middle East analyst at the Arab Perspectives Institute, told Al Jazeera that in the earlier days of the hostilities, there appeared to be clearer targets and limited objectives.

“There now seems to be a more chaotic reaction,” he said. He described the attacks as increasingly reciprocal, suggesting strikes on oil or energy facilities could prompt further escalation.

Last week, Iran attacked energy facilities in Qatar and caused “significant damage”, knocking out  17 percent of Qatar’s liquefied natural gas (LNG) export capacity. Qatar produces 20 percent of global LNG supplies. Iran said the attack was in retaliation for Israeli attacks on a gas plant.

Paolo von Schirach, president of the Global Policy Institute, told Al Jazeera that Trump changes his mind “very quickly” and it is hard to predict what his next step could be in the war on Iran.

The analyst said it was unclear to him what “tools” Trump has to end the war.

“We look at his message saying the war is winding down. OK, good. Things are quiet. Maybe there is an off-ramp somehow. But now he says that if the Iranians don’t open the Strait of Hormuz, then we [the US] are going to unleash hell and what have you,” von Schirach noted.

“It is not quite clear to me what he wants and what the tools are to accomplish this.”

Von Schirach added that it would be difficult to predict whether the US could force Iran into submission, given its size and population. Using as a reference Iraq, where 150,000 American soldiers were deployed during the Second Gulf War, the analyst predicted that the US might need as many as half a million soldiers if Trump “wants to take over Iran”.

Tehran, Iran – Military and political authorities in Iran are projecting a message that “victory” is near as war with the United States and Israel continues to escalate, and air strikes and assassination attempts are reported across the country.

Massive joint US-Israeli air raids were recorded in multiple areas of the capital Tehran overnight into Sunday, and in central Iran’s Isfahan city in the morning, a day after Dezful and Andimeshk in western Khuzestan and several other cities were hit.

Israeli warplanes also conducted two separate sets of precision strikes on privately-owned residential units located in small towns in the green provinces of Gilan and Mazandaran to the north on Saturday, which appeared to be assassination attempts on officials.

Local authorities confirmed that several people were killed, but did not elaborate. Israeli and US media said a senior drone commander is believed to have been killed.

Nevertheless, top officials in Tehran said they were unyielding and focused on retaliatory attacks.

Parliament speaker and former Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commander Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said the fact that Iranian missiles struck Israel’s Dimona overnight shows that a “new stage of battle” has started where “Israel’s skies are defenceless”.

Majid Mousavi, aerospace commander of the IRGC, echoed the same statement about control over Israeli skies in a post on X on Saturday night, which came in response to the US and Israel declaring dominance over Iranian airspace.

“Pinpoint precision Seyed Majid, hit Dimona again,” chanted flag-waving pro-establishment supporters shown on state television broadcasts, calling on Mousavi for action.

Israel said more than 180 people were injured in Dimona, a southern city where its key nuclear facilities are also located, in addition to nearby Arad.

Ahmad-Reza Radan – Iran’s hardline police chief, who has been cited by Israeli media as being a target for assassination along with Mousavi, Ghalibaf and others – was seen briefly addressing a group of supporters in Tehran on Saturday night.

“Trump first threatened the European Union, then begged. Today, he has said he will come take Greenland if the Europeans don’t come. I want to tell the European Union that if they can’t hold on to Greenland, then send a request and we will come preserve it,” he said, followed by chants of “Alla akbar” (God is greatest).

Defence Ministry spokesman Reza Talaei-Nik said in a statement that attacks across the region will continue “until the complete halt and surrender of the enemy”.

The taunts are in line with the state’s messaging in recent days, including a written statement attributed to Mojtaba Khamenei, who was selected as the supreme leader after his father Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was assassinated on the first day of the war, but who has not been seen or heard.

The message said Iran’s enemies were being “defeated” and there is “particular unity” among supporters of the theocratic establishment.

Over the past week, the country’s top security official, commanders of the paramilitary Basij force of the IRGC, the government’s intelligence minister, and a number of other military and security personnel have been among those killed.

The government reports that a large number of residential buildings, hospitals, schools and other civilian facilities have also been impacted during the war, as state supporters control the city streets, squares and mosques to counter potential anti-government protests.

‘Say goodbye to electricity!’

The Iranian rhetoric quickly escalated on Sunday after US President Donald Trump issued a 48-hour ultimatum for Tehran to reopen the strategic Strait of Hormuz, a key water route for global energy export, or face strikes on its power plants.

In response, Iranian politicians and armed forces said they would strike back harder against the region’s energy facilities.

The IRGC-affiliated Mehr news agency released a map with graphics that showed power plants across the region, including in the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait, that could be attacked if Iranian facilities are hit. An accompanying message read, “Say goodbye to electricity!”

On Saturday night, state and IRGC-affiliated media circulated a different map, showing Doha and also marking the central offices of Al Jazeera network as potential targets, and said all residents of the Qatari capital were advised to evacuate immediately.

State television quickly issued a retraction and cited unnamed sources as saying the map was not official, but no explanation was provided about who circulated the image and why.

The all-around promises of escalation, particularly around bombing electricity facilities and other critical civilian infrastructure, have created additional concerns among many Iranians about the impact on daily lives and implications on the country’s future.

“If the main power plants are bombed, it’s not going to be just a brief disruption; it could stop the flow of everything from water to gas,” a Tehran resident told Al Jazeera, asking to remain anonymous due to security concerns. “It would be foolish to just punish the population like that.”

The US-Israeli forces have also struck natural gas facilities in southern Iran and bombed fuel reserves across Tehran, but authorities said fires and damage were contained quickly without creating major disruptions.

In an Instagram post to mark Nowruz, the Persian New Year, iconic footballer and nationally respected figure Ali Daei said this year’s celebrations were different because Iran is grieving for its people killed in the war.

“Wishing for a prosperous and free Iran, away from war and bloodshed, all about welfare and calm,” he wrote, drawing the ire of a number of state media, including the IRGC-affiliated Tasnim, which criticised Daei for not specifically condemning the US and Israel.

Proclamations, warnings under blackout

Meanwhile, the internet remains cut for more than 92 million Iranians for a 23rd day, becoming the longest shutdown in the country’s history, trailed only by a 20-day blackout imposed during the killing of thousands of anti-government protesters in January.

State media outlets continue to focus on successful IRGC attacks and present Iran as a country on the brink of being recognised as a world power, as they refrain from communicating details about the US and Israeli attacks or significant damage sustained.

Alaeddin Boroujerdi, a member of the national security committee of Iran’s parliament, told the state television on Sunday that the IRGC’s overnight attacks against Israel “opened a new page in shifting the balance of power and showed the victory of the Islamic Republic in this imposed war”.

The parliamentary committee’s spokesman, Ebrahim Rezaei, stretched the same line of thinking even further, and said in a post on X that Iran should demand to become a veto-yielding permanent member of the United Nations Security Council as a condition for ending the war. The lawmaker did not say how or when he expected that to happen.

Iran’s government has also demanded war reparations and guarantees against future aggression, but the US and Israel have been pushing to overthrow the Islamic Republic that came to power in a 1979 revolution.

Intelligence authorities advised the Iranian population on Saturday that even being a member of foreign-based news and war footage channels on Telegram and all other social media outlets banned by the state could violate national security laws.

The Iranian judiciary said that such channels are considered “terrorist” outlets and that sending any videos of impact sites or armed state checkpoints on the streets to them could carry maximum penalties like confiscation of assets and even execution.

State security authorities have emphasised that anyone who engages in anti-establishment protests will be treated as an “enemy”.

Under the guise of preserving secularism, this law allows the exclusion of people based on their religious identity.

On Monday, the Supreme Court of Canada will begin a four-day hearing for one of the most consequential constitutional cases in the country’s recent history. At issue is Quebec’s so-called “secularism law”, known as Bill 21 – a law enacted in 2019 that prohibits certain public sector workers from wearing visible religious symbols at work.

It bars many public sector employees, including teachers, prosecutors, police officers, and judges, from wearing religious symbols such as hijabs, turbans, kippahs, and other visible expressions of faith while at work.

There is much at stake in this case that raises fundamental questions about religious freedom, equality, and the limits of state power in a constitutional democracy. In addition, another significant issue is that to get the bill passed, Quebec’s government had used the “notwithstanding clause”, a unique provision in Canadian law that allows it to override fundamental rights and freedoms. No other constitutional democracy in the world has a similar blanket override of fundamental rights and freedoms.

The Quebec government claims that the law is necessary to preserve the religious neutrality of the state. Yet Bill 21 does the opposite: by forcing some individuals to choose between their profession and their religious identity, the Quebec government is not remaining neutral – it is effectively excluding people of faith from public sector employment.

The use of this extraordinary, and until recently rarely used, constitutional mechanism has turned the spotlight on Bill 21 beyond the borders of Quebec and the debate over secularism and religious freedoms. It has become a test of how far a democratic government can go in limiting fundamental rights and freedoms.

Evidence before the courts shows that Bill 21 affects religious people of many faiths, including Jewish men who wear kippahs and Sikh men and women who wear turbans; but its impact falls particularly heavily on Muslim women who wear the hijab. For many Muslim women who wear headscarves, teaching and other public service careers have effectively been closed off.

The message of exclusion that this law sends to young people is especially troubling. Generations of young people in Quebec are being told that their full participation in public life requires abandoning visible aspects of their identity.

This is why the National Council of Canadian Muslims and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association launched the constitutional challenge against Bill 21. The Supreme Court of Canada must consider the implications, and possible limitations, of allowing governments to sidestep rights protections through pre-emptive use of constitutional override powers. The court’s decision will help determine whether constitutional rights in Canada remain meaningful constraints on government power, or whether they can be suspended whenever politically convenient.

These questions extend far beyond Canada. Across Europe and elsewhere, debates about secularism have increasingly centred on restrictions targeting religious expression, often impacting Muslim women in particular.

Canada often prides itself on being a model of multicultural democracy, one that accommodates diversity. Bill 21 challenges that reputation by testing whether neutrality can coexist with policies that effectively exclude people of visible faith from public service.

True secularism does not demand the erasure of religious identity. A neutral state does not require citizens to shed visible expressions of belief in order to participate fully in public life.

The Supreme Court of Canada now has the opportunity to reaffirm these principles and clarify that constitutional rights cannot be easily set aside. At a time when countries around the world are grappling with questions of belonging, pluralism, and the rights of minorities, the Canadian court’s ruling will send an important signal about whether liberal democracies are willing to uphold their commitments to freedom and equality.

We say this is not an abstract idea, but an imperative to demonstrate that commitments to freedom and equality are more than mere words.

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

Retired US Army officer Peter Mansoor explains why the US and Iran are at ‘stalemate’ and what the US needs to do to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

US President Donald Trump has threatened to ‘obliterate’ Iran’s power plants if Tehran fails to open the Strait of Hormuz to all vessels within 48 hours. This major escalation comes as Trump faces pressure over skyrocketing domestic energy prices due to the now three-week-long war.

Tehran responds to Trump’s threat by saying all US energy infrastructure in the region will be targeted if Iran is attacked.

United States President Donald Trump has threatened to attack Iran’s power plants if freedom of navigation is not fully restored at the Strait of Hormuz within 48 hours, a dramatic escalation as the US-Israeli war on Iran continues for a fourth week.

The statement on Saturday came as Trump faces increasing pressure to secure the vital waterway that Iran has promised to keep closed to “enemy ships”, leading to soaring oil prices and plunging stock markets.

“If Iran doesn’t FULLY OPEN, WITHOUT THREAT, the Strait of Hormuz, within 48 HOURS from this exact point in time, the United States of America will hit and obliterate their various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST,” Trump, who is in his Florida home for the weekend, wrote on Truth Social at 23:44 GMT.

He did not specify which plant he was referring to as the biggest.

Following Trump’s threat, the Iranian army said it would target all energy infrastructure belonging to the US in the region if Iran’s fuel and energy infrastructure were attacked.

Trump’s escalatory comments came barely a day after he talked about “winding down” the war that he launched alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on February 28, when the US and Iran were engaged in nuclear negotiations.

In a social media post on Friday, Trump said the US was “getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great Military efforts in the Middle East”.

Key waterway

Shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, where a fifth of the world’s oil and gas passes through during peacetime, has virtually ground to a halt since the early days of the war.

Iran has said the Strait of Hormuz is open to all except the US and its allies, with Minister of Foreign Affairs Abbas Araghchi saying last week that he had been “approached by a number of countries” seeking safe passage for their vessels.

“This is up to our military to decide,” he told the US television network CBS, adding that a group of ships from “different countries” had been allowed to pass, without providing details.

The head of US Central Command, Admiral Brad Cooper, asserted on Saturday that Iran’s ability to attack vessels on the strait had been “degraded” after US fighter jets dropped 5,000-pound (about 2,300kg) bombs on an underground Iranian coastal facility storing antiship cruise missiles and mobile launchers earlier this week.

The strike also destroyed “intelligence support sites and missile radar relays” used to monitor ship movements, Cooper said.

Reporting from Washington, DC, Al Jazeera’s Manuel Rapalo said there seemed to be a “gap between what the White House appears to want in the Strait of Hormuz and what the US military says they have already accomplished”.

“It is interesting, to say at the very least, to hear Trump talking about a major escalation, given the fact that we’ve been hearing throughout the course of the day how much damage the US has done, supposedly, to Iran’s ability to target oil tankers and vessels navigating through the strait.”

Israel’s air defence system failed to stop at least two Iranian missile strikes on southern Israel, in retaliation for an attack on Iran’s Natanz nuclear site. More than 100 Israelis have been injured in Arad and Dimona, with dozens of buildings destroyed. This is what we know.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has criticised what he called the return of a colonial approach towards developing nations during a summit in Colombia.

But while Lula did not mention United States President Donald Trump in his remarks, he gestured at actions undertaken by the Trump administration, including the January 3 abduction of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro and the fuel blockade in Cuba.

“It’s not possible for someone to think that they own other countries,” Lula said, in an apparent reference to US policy.

“What are they doing with Cuba now? What did they do with Venezuela? Is that democratic?”

Lula delivered his remarks at Saturday’s summit for the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), which featured a high-level forum with delegates from Africa.

He told delegates that their countries had already experienced being plundered for gold, silver, diamonds and minerals.

“After taking everything we had, now they want to own the critical minerals and rare earths that we have,” Lula said, without specifying who “they” might be. “They want to colonise us again.”

The left-wing Brazilian president also criticised the ongoing war launched by the US and Israel against Iran.

He drew a parallel between that conflict, which began on February 28, and the US-led Iraq war, which began in 2003 on the pretext of eliminating “weapons of mass destruction”.

“Iran has been invaded under the pretext that Iran was building a nuclear bomb,” Lula said, before pivoting to the US campaign in Iraq, which resulted in the overthrow of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

“Where are Saddam Hussein’s chemical weapons?” Lula asked. “Where are they? Who found them?”

A history of intervention

Washington’s history of intervention in Latin America goes back more than 200 years to when then-President James Monroe claimed the hemisphere as part of the US sphere of influence.

While large-scale, overt US involvement in the region mostly petered out after the Cold War, Trump has rekindled the legacy.

Since assuming office last year, Trump has launched boat strikes against alleged drug traffickers in the Caribbean, ordered a naval blockade on Venezuelan oil exports, and gotten involved in electoral politics in Honduras and Argentina.

Trump imposed a 50 percent tariff on Brazilian goods last year, citing the trial against the country’s former president, Jair Bolsonaro, as a motive. The US has also shown keen interest in Brazil’s rare earth deposits.

Then, on January 3, US forces abducted and imprisoned Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, flying him to New York to face drug and weapons charges.

While such actions have thrilled right-wing leaders across the continent, they have raised fears among left-wing politicians, who have voiced grave concerns over what they see as US bullying.

“We cannot allow anyone to interfere and violate the territorial integrity of each country,” Lula said Saturday.

Frustration with the UN

Lula, who has said he will run for a fourth, nonconsecutive term in Brazil’s upcoming October elections, also criticised the United Nations for its inability to stop multiple conflicts around the world.

“What we are witnessing is the total and absolute failure of the United Nations,” he said, pointing to the situations in Gaza, Ukraine and Iran.

He called, once again, for reform of the UN Security Council, which is mandated with ensuring international peace and security. But it has failed to stop major conflicts because of the veto power of its five permanent members: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States.

There have been decades of efforts to reform the Security Council. But they have all been unsuccessful.

Colombian President Gustavo Petro, whom the US Drug Enforcement Administration has designated a “priority target”, echoed Lula’s condemnation of the UN.

The body “is acting in impotence, and that is not what it was created for. It was created after World War II precisely to prevent wars. And yet, what we have today is war,” Petro said at the summit.

But the world needs the UN to provide climate solutions and curb global warming, Petro said.

“The more serious humanity’s problems become, the fewer tools we have for collective action. And that path leads only to barbarism.”

Relatively few presidents and prime ministers from Latin America and the Caribbean attended the summit in Colombia, a sign of the continent’s deep divisions.

Those present included the presidents of Brazil, Uruguay, Burundi and Colombia, as well as the prime ministers of Guyana and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, along with deputy ministers, foreign ministers and ambassadors.

US President Donald Trump threatens to ‘obliterate’ Iran’s power plants if it fails to open the Strait of Hormuz within 48 hours. 

The head of US Central Command says forces have struck Iranian coastal missile sites and infrastructure, degrading Tehran’s ability to threaten shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, as Washington vows to continue targeting its regional military capabilities.

Joe Kent says he resigned as director of the US National Counterterrorism Center over opposition to the war in Iran, telling an audience at a Washington prayer event that he couldn’t “send young men and women off to die on foreign battlefields” in “good conscience.”

Former FBI chief Robert Mueller, who probed the alleged Russian interference in the 2016 United States election, has died at age 81.

“With deep sadness, we are sharing the news that Bob passed away” on Friday night, his family said in a statement Saturday.

“His family asks that their privacy be respected.”

Mueller was appointed as director of the FBI by then-President George Bush in September 2001, a week before the 9/11 attacks that would push him into the centre of a national crisis.

He became the key figure behind changing the FBI from combating crime to now countering national security risks following the attack on New York’s World Trade Centre.

In 2013, Mueller stepped down from the bureau and later by 2017 was appointed as special counsel to oversee the Justice Department’s probe into possible Russian interference in the election, which saw Donald Trump secure his first term over Democratic nominee, Hilary Clinton.

Following the announcement of his death, Trump took to his Truth Social platform to write: “Robert Mueller just died. Good, I’m glad he’s dead. He can no longer hurt innocent people!”

Mueller is survived by his wife and two children.

The fate of an Iranian woman caught in a US-Israeli bomb attack is unknown, after video emerged of the moments she filmed the bombardment on her phone.

Jury finds that two tweets posted in May 2022 by Musk contained false statements responsible for a plunge in Twitter’s share price.

A federal jury in California has found that tech tycoon Elon Musk misled Twitter shareholders, driving down the company’s share price as he was poised to buy it in a $44bn deal.

The verdict delivered on Friday in the class action securities lawsuit means the world’s richest person could be ordered to pay billions of dollars, according to damages calculated by jurors.

After a three-week trial in a San Francisco federal court – which included in-person testimony from Musk – the jury found that two tweets posted in May 2022 by the Tesla and SpaceX CEO contained false statements responsible for a plunge in Twitter’s share price.

Investor Giuseppe Pampena had filed the suit on behalf of people who sold Twitter shares between mid-May and early October 2022.

Jurors agreed that Musk violated a securities rule that bars false and misleading statements that sink a stock price, in this case that of Twitter, the verdict form showed. A lawyer for the plaintiffs estimated the damages at about $2.6bn.

But the nine-person jury absolved Musk of some fraud allegations, finding that he did not “scheme” to mislead investors.

Minutes after the judgement was announced, lawyers for Musk, who acquired the social media platform in late October 2022 and later renamed it X, said their client will appeal the decision, characterising it as a “setback”.

Musk, who has a near-constant presence on X, did not immediately react to the verdict, which marks a rare legal defeat for the billionaire often dubbed “Teflon Elon” for his ability to emerge unscathed from lawsuits he is expected to lose.

In 2023, a jury in the same San Francisco federal court cleared him within hours of similar charges brought by Tesla shareholders, following his 2018 tweets claiming he had the funding to take the automaker private.

Musk abandoned his effort to get out of buying Twitter in late 2022 after the company took him to court to uphold the contract. He has since merged the social media platform with his artificial intelligence startup xAI and his private space exploration firm SpaceX.

Forbes magazine earlier this month estimated Elon Musk’s net worth at $839bn, a figure based primarily on his stakes in his portfolio of companies including Tesla and SpaceX.

No leakage of radioactive materials reported in the area in central Iran, Tehran’s atomic energy organisation says.

The United States and Israel have struck Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility, according to its atomic energy organisation.

“Following the criminal attacks by the United States and the usurping Zionist regime against our country, the … Natanz enrichment complex was targeted this morning,” the organisation said in a statement carried by the Tasnim news agency on Saturday.

It added that there was “no leakage of radioactive materials reported” at the Shahid Ahmadi Roshan enrichment facility in Natanz in central Iran, one of the country’s most important uranium enrichment sites, about 220km (135 miles) southeast of Tehran.

No radioactive material was released, Tasnim reported, quoting Iranian officials. There is no danger to the population living near the facility, according to the report.

The Natanz nuclear facility was also targeted by Israel in the 12-day war between Iran and Israel in June 2025.

Al Jazeera’s Mohamed Vall, reporting from Tehran, said the Iranian nuclear organisation’s statement did not say how Saturday’s attack happened and what types of bombs were used in it.

“We know that Natanz is one of the key nuclear sites in Iran, towards the middle of the country, along with the Isfahan nuclear facilities,” he said.

“And we know a major goal of this war by the Americans and Israelis was about the nuclear programme of Iran, how to destroy it and prevent Iran from producing a nuclear bomb.”

Call for restraint

In a post on X, the International Atomic Energy ⁠Agency (IAEA) said Iran has ⁠informed it about the US-Israeli attack on the ⁠Natanz site.

No increase ⁠in off-site radiation ⁠levels was reported, the United ⁠Nations nuclear ⁠watchdog said, adding that it was looking into ‌the report.

IAEA head Rafael Grossi repeated his “call for military restraint to avoid any risk of a nuclear accident” during the war on Iran.

The White House has said a key objective of the war it launched alongside Israel on February 28 is to prevent Iran from ever acquiring nuclear weapons.

The Natanz site was previously hit in the first week of the 22-day war, and several buildings were damaged, according to satellite images at the time.

The UN nuclear watchdog said on March 3 that the nuclear site suffered “recent damage”, a day after Iran said the underground uranium enrichment plant was attacked.

Russia has condemned the latest attack ⁠on the Natanz facility, calling it “a blatant ‌violation of international law,” the Russian Foreign Ministry’s spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said in a statement.

Meanwhile, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz warned the US and Israel would intensify their strikes on Iran in the week starting Sunday.

“This week, the intensity of the strikes to be carried out by the IDF [Israeli army] and the US military against the Iranian terror regime and the infrastructure on which it relies will rise significantly,” Katz said in a statement on Saturday.

Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro has been named in two separate criminal investigations led by prosecutors in the United States.

The New York Times was the first to report the existence of the two probes on Friday, citing sources familiar with the proceedings.

Media reports indicate that Petro is not personally the target of the investigations, which focus on drug-smuggling in Latin America.

But according to the Times, US attorneys in Brooklyn and Manhattan are looking into whether Petro met with drug traffickers and solicited donations from them for his 2022 presidential campaign. Al Jazeera has not independently verified the Times report.

By Friday afternoon, Petro had issued a statement denying the claims, which threaten to reopen the rift between the US and Colombia.

“In Colombia, there is not a single investigation into my relationship with drug traffickers, for one simple reason: I have never in my life spoken with a drug trafficker,” Petro wrote on the social media platform X.

He added that he told campaign managers to never accept donations from bankers or drug traffickers.

The investigations in the US, he argued, would ultimately exonerate him, and he blamed Colombia’s right-wing opposition for stirring controversy.

“So, the proceedings in the US will help me to dismantle the accusations of the Colombian far right, which is indeed closely linked to Colombian drug traffickers,” Petro said.

Petro has not been charged with any crimes, and the investigations are in their initial stages, according to the Times.

But experts say the timing of the report is significant, as it comes barely two and a half months before Colombia is set to hold a closely watched presidential election on May 31.

“If this would have happened a week before the first round, it would be election interference,” Sergio Guzman, director at Colombia Risk Analysis, a security think tank, told Al Jazeera.

“This seems to be more of a warning that shows how the US could influence the outcome of the election.”

Petro, Colombia’s first left-wing president, is limited to a single term in office, but the election is likely to be a referendum on his four years in office.

It will also be a test for Petro’s Historic Pact coalition, whose candidate, Ivan Cepeda, is currently leading in the polls.

But United States President Donald Trump has repeatedly sought to boost the prospects of right-wing candidates in Latin America. He and Petro have been at loggerheads since Trump returned to office in January 2025.

Their feud came to a head in January after the US attacked Venezuela and abducted its president, Nicolas Maduro.

Shortly afterwards, a reporter asked if the US would take military action against Colombia. Trump replied: “It sounds good to me.”

To cool tensions, Trump and Petro held a call afterwards and agreed to meet.

Petro then visited the White House in early February to mend his often-combative relationship with Trump. While there, the Colombian delegation interacted with their counterparts, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Republican Senator Bernie Moreno, a longtime critic of Petro’s government, was also in attendance. Guzman believes the senator’s presence was significant.

“We don’t have a lot of straightforward answers about what were the commitments during that meeting, but Bernie Moreno did say that he wanted Petro not to be as involved in elections,” Guzman told Al Jazeera.

“And guess what? Petro is fully involved in the elections.”

The meeting also addressed collaborative efforts to combat drug trafficking, an issue core to Trump’s foreign policy.

Both presidents walked away from the meeting in good spirits, with Petro sharing a photo signed by Trump that read, “Gustavo – a great honor. I love Colombia.”

But Petro and Trump have long been at odds over how to tamp down on narcotics smuggling.

Colombia, the region’s largest producer of cocaine, has been criticised by the Trump administration for what it sees as soft-on-crime policies, including negotiations with armed groups.

Petro, meanwhile, has denounced the US for its lethal tactics, calling them tantamount to murder.

The US, for instance, has bombed at least 46 alleged drug boats and vessels in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean. Some of the 159 people killed were Colombian citizens.

The US has also floated the idea of conducting military attacks in Latin America against suspected drug traffickers, and it recently began joint operations against gangs in Ecuador, Colombia’s neighbour.

Analysts say actions like these have Latin American leaders on edge.

Trump’s aggressive manoeuvres suggest that the US president is willing to jeopardise “the sovereignty and peace of every nation” in his campaign against illicit drugs, according to Rodrigo Pombo Cajiao, a constitutional law professor at the Pontificia Universidad Javeriana.

Pombo Cajaio pointed to the US abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro on January 3. Maduro was a longtime adversary of Trump, and he is currently being held in prison in New York on drug-related charges.

“Every political leader in the region has been put on notice” after that abduction, Pombo Cajiao said.

“As the world’s leading producer of cocaine, Colombia found itself at high risk of judicial prosecution” from the US, he added.

Currently, Petro’s Historic Pact is leading May’s presidential race. A GAD3 poll released this week suggested Cepeda is ahead in the polls with 35 percent voter approval, ahead of far-right candidate Abelardo de la Espriella, who had 21 percent.

Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian says his country is not seeking war with its neighbours, blaming the US and Israel for creating problems. Iran has justified its attacks on Gulf states as they host US military bases.

A federal judge in the United States has agreed to block the administration of President Donald Trump from enforcing a policy limiting news reporters’ access to the Pentagon.

Friday’s ruling sides with The New York Times in its argument that key portions of the new rules are unlawful.

US District Judge Paul Friedman in Washington, DC, ruled that the Pentagon policy illegally restricts the press credentials of reporters who walked out of the building rather than agree to the new rules.

The Times sued the Pentagon and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in December, claiming the credentialing policy violates the journalists’ constitutional rights to free speech and due process.

The current Pentagon press corps is comprised mostly of conservative outlets that agreed to the policy. Reporters from outlets that refused to consent to the new rules, including those from The Associated Press, have continued reporting on the military.

Friedman, who was nominated to the bench by Democratic President Bill Clinton, said the policy “fails to provide fair notice of what routine, lawful journalistic practices will result in the denial, suspension, or revocation” of Pentagon press credentials.

He ruled that the Pentagon policy ultimately violates the First and Fifth Amendment rights to free speech and due process.

“Those who drafted the First Amendment believed that the nation’s security requires a free press and an informed people and that such security is endangered by governmental suppression of political speech. That principle has preserved the nation’s security for almost 250 years. It must not be abandoned now,” the judge wrote.

Times lauds ruling

New York Times spokesperson Charlie Stadtlander said the newspaper believes the ruling “enforces the constitutionally protected rights for the free press in this country”.

“Americans deserve visibility into how their government is being run, and the actions the military is taking in their name and with their tax dollars,” Stadtlander said in a statement. “Today’s ruling reaffirms the right of The Times and other independent media to continue to ask questions on the public’s behalf.”

Theodore Boutrous, a lawyer who represented the Times at a hearing earlier this month, said in a statement that the court ruling is “a powerful rejection of the Pentagon’s effort to impede freedom of the press and the reporting of vital information to the American people during a time of war”.

The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling.

It has argued that the policy imposes “common sense” rules that protect the military from the disclosure of national security information.

“The goal of that process is to prevent those who pose a security risk from having broad access to American military headquarters,” government lawyers wrote.

The Times’ legal team, meanwhile, claimed the policy is designed to silence unfavourable press coverage of President Trump’s administration.

“The First Amendment flatly prohibits the government from granting itself the unbridled power to restrict speech because the mere existence of such arbitrary authority can lead to self-censorship,” they wrote.

Weeding out ‘disfavoured’ journalists

The judge said he recognises that “national security must be protected, the security of our troops must be protected, and war plans must be protected”.

“But especially in light of the country’s recent incursion into Venezuela and its ongoing war with Iran, it is more important than ever that the public have access to information from a variety of perspectives about what its government is doing,” Friedman wrote.

Friedman said the “undisputed evidence” shows that the policy is designed to weed out “disfavored journalists” and replace them with those who are “on board and willing to serve” the government, a clear instance of illegal viewpoint discrimination.

“In sum, the Policy on its face makes any newsgathering and reporting not blessed by the Department a potential basis for the denial, suspension, or revocation of a journalist’s [credentials],” he wrote. “It provides no way for journalists to know how they may do their jobs without losing their credentials.”

The Pentagon had asked the judge to suspend his ruling for a week for an appeal. Friedman refused.

The judge ordered the Pentagon to reinstate the press credentials of seven Times journalists. But he said his decision to vacate the challenged policy terms applies to “all regulated parties”.

Friedman gave the Pentagon a week to file a written report on its compliance with the order.

The Times argued that the Pentagon has applied its own rules inconsistently. The newspaper noted that Trump ally Laura Loomer, a right-wing personality who agreed to the Pentagon policy, appeared to violate the Pentagon’s prohibition on soliciting unauthorised information by promoting her “tip line”.

The government didn’t object to Loomer’s tip line but concluded that a Washington Post tip line does violate its policy because it purportedly “targets” military personnel and department employees.

The judge said he does not see any meaningful difference between the two tip lines.

“But the problem is that nothing in the Policy explicitly prevents the Department from treating these two nearly identical tip lines differently,” Friedman added.

The US is moving military assets to the Middle East that are key to providing support for ground troop operations. Al Jazeera’s Kimberly Halkett says it’s the clearest sign yet of potential US boots on the ground in Iran to secure the Strait of Hormuz.

Workers in India’s textile hub Surat are returning home after days without cooking gas, as an LPG crisis linked to Iran war disruptions halts supplies. Industries face shutdowns, while authorities invoke emergency measures to prioritise households.

After a US-Israeli strike killed Iran’s Ali Khamenei, the war on Iran escalates, and the Islamic Republic faces a critical moment. Mojtaba Khamenei has been elected supreme leader, marking a rare and controversial succession. This explainer breaks down how Iran’s power structure was built after the 1979 Islamic revolution led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, and how Ali Khamenei transformed that revolution into a complex political and security structure.

We examine how the supreme leader sits above all institutions in Iran, shaping decisions across government, the military, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and how this system is designed to endure beyond any single leader. As Mojtaba Khamenei takes power, questions grow over how Iran will be governed, how the IRGC will influence decision-making, and whether the system Ali Khamenei built can withstand both internal pressure and external conflict.

From Ali Khamenei to Mojtaba Khamenei, this is the story of Iran’s supreme leader, the system behind power in Iran, and what comes next.

First came the energy shock. Now, the Iran war is hitting something even more basic: Food.

With the Strait of Hormuz blocked, vessels are being rerouted and supply chains are under strain.

The disruption is pushing up the costs of almost everything from factories to supermarket shelves thousands of miles away.

The longer the Iran conflict continues, the greater the pressure on businesses and consumers worldwide.

The United Nations warns that rising food, oil and shipping costs could push an additional 45 million people into acute hunger – taking the global total above its record of 319 million.