US & Canada

Iran’s foreign minister is pushing back after the killings of top officials Ali Larijani and Basij commander Gholamreza Soleimani. Abbas Araghchi says the Islamic Republic is built to withstand shocks, insisting that no single figure, no matter how powerful, can destabilise the system.

The US defence secretary designated the AI company a ‘supply chain risk’ after it refused to remove guardrails on its technology.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has said in a court filing that the Pentagon’s blacklisting of Anthropic was justified and lawful, opposing the artificial intelligence company’s high-stakes lawsuit challenging the decision.

The administration made its comments in a court filing on Tuesday.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth designated Anthropic, the maker of popular AI assistant Claude, a national security supply chain risk on March 3 after the company refused to remove guardrails against its technology being used for autonomous weapons and domestic surveillance.

The Trump administration’s filing says Anthropic is unlikely to succeed in its claims that the US government’s action violated speech protections under the US Constitution’s First Amendment, asserting that the dispute stems from contract negotiations and national security concerns, not retaliation.

“It was only when Anthropic refused to release the restrictions on the use of its products — which refusal is conduct, not protected speech — that the President directed all federal agencies to terminate their business relationships with Anthropic,” the administration’s legal filing said. The filing, from the US Justice Department, said that “no one has purported to restrict Anthropic’s expressive activity”.

Anthropic’s lawsuit in California federal court asks a judge to block the Pentagon’s decision while the case plays out. Some legal experts say the company appears to have a strong case that the government overreached.

In a statement, Anthropic said it was reviewing the government’s filing. The company said that “seeking judicial review does not change our longstanding commitment to harnessing AI to protect our national security, but this is a necessary step to protect our business, our customers, and our partners.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Supply chain risk

Trump has backed Hegseth’s move, which excludes Anthropic from a limited set of military contracts. But it could damage the company’s reputation and cause billions of dollars in losses this year, according to its executives.

The designation came after months of negotiations between the Pentagon and Anthropic reached an impasse, prompting Trump and Hegseth to denounce the company and accuse it of endangering American lives with its use restrictions.

Anthropic has disputed those claims and said AI is not yet safe enough to be used in autonomous weapons. The company said it opposes domestic surveillance as a matter of principle.

In its March 9 lawsuit, Anthropic said that the “unprecedented and unlawful” designation violated its free speech and due process rights, while running afoul of a law requiring federal agencies to follow specific procedures when making decisions.

The Pentagon separately designated Anthropic a supply chain risk under a different law that could expand the order to the entire government.

Anthropic is challenging that move in a second lawsuit in a Washington, DC, appeals court.

Ukrainian President Zelenskyy says Moscow and Tehran are ‘brothers in hatred’; claims Iran’s drones ‘contain Russian components’.

More than 200 Ukrainian military experts are in the Gulf region and wider Middle East helping governments in their defence against Iran’s drone attacks, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said.

In an address to dozens of members of the United Kingdom Parliament in London on Tuesday, the Ukrainian leader said 201 Ukrainian anti-drone experts are in the region and another 34 “are ready to deploy”.

“These are military experts, experts who know how to help, how to defend against Shahed drones,” Zelenskyy said in his speech, referring to the Iranian-designed “kamikaze” drones that Russia has been using in its war against Ukraine since 2022.

“Our teams are already in the Emirates, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and on the way to Kuwait,” the Ukrainian leader said.

“We are working with several other countries – agreements are already in place. We do not want this terror of the Iranian regime against its neighbours to succeed,” he said.

Last week, the Ukrainian leader said military teams had been sent to several Gulf states and Jordan.

Zelenskyy, who met with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and NATO chief Mark Rutte earlier on Tuesday, said Russia had received the Shahed-136 drones from the Iranians, who had “taught Russia how to launch them and gave it the technology to produce them”.

“Russia then upgraded them. And now we have clear evidence that Iranian Shaheds used in the region contain Russian components,” Zelenskyy said, describing the drones as designed for “low-cost destruction of expensive critical infrastructure”.

“So what is happening around Iran today is not a faraway war for us, because of the cooperation between Russia and Iran,” he said.

“The regimes in Russia and Iran are brothers in hatred, and that is why they are brothers in weapons. And we want regimes built on hatred to never win – in anything,” he added.

The Ukrainian leader then addressed his country’s newly developed prowess in drone warfare and manufacturing, claiming that 90 percent of Russian losses on the front lines in Ukraine are being “caused by our drones”.

Ukraine has moved on from making sea and aerial drones to producing interceptors that target drones, he said, adding that Ukraine is capable of producing at least 2,000 interceptors per day – half of which are required for its own defence and the remainder available for use by Kyiv’s allies.

“If a Shahed needs to be stopped in the Emirates – we can do it. If it needs to be stopped in Europe or the United Kingdom – we can do it. It is a matter of technology, investment, and cooperation,” he said.

While Ukraine has become one of the world’s leading producers of sophisticated, battlefield-proven drone interceptors, US President Donald Trump has said he does not need Ukraine’s help with countering Tehran’s drones targeting military targets in the Middle East.

After meeting with Zelenskyy at 10 Downing Street, Starmer said Russian President Vladimir Putin “can’t be the one who benefits from the conflict in Iran, whether that’s oil prices or the dropping of sanctions”.

During Zelenskyy’s visit on Tuesday, London and Kyiv signed a deal on a “defence partnership”, which is said to combine “Ukraine’s expertise and the UK’s industrial base to manufacture and supply drones and innovative capabilities”.

Washington continues to block fuel to island nation, as Trump floats ‘doing something with Cuba very soon’.

United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said that Cuba “has to get new people in charge,” and the administration of US President Donald Trump continues to heap pressure on the island nation.

Rubio made the comment on Tuesday during an Oval Office event, saying Cuba “has an economy that doesn’t work in a political and governmental system”.

He spoke as the US has continued to impose a de facto fuel embargo on Cuba since the abduction of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro. The threat of sanctions against any country that delivers fuel to the island has worsened a years-long economic crisis and stoked humanitarian fallout.

Rubio said that Cuba’s decision announced this week to let citizens living in exile invest and own businesses in the country did not go far enough.

“What they announced yesterday is not dramatic enough. It’s not going to fix it. So they’ve got some big decisions to make,” he said.

Rubio further said Cuba has survived “on subsidies” since the Cuban revolution in the 1950s, adding “the people in charge, they don’t know how to fix it”.

“So they have to get new people in charge,” he said.

Trump floats imminent action

For his part, Trump, who on Monday said he could “take” Cuba, and has previously floated a “friendly takeover” of the country, said on Tuesday that a new action was imminent.

“We’ll be doing something with Cuba very soon,” he said.

Last week, the US and Cuba announced they had entered into talks to end the pressure campaign.

Several US media outlets have since reported that the Trump administration is calling for President Miguel Diaz-Canel to step down, although no details have emerged about his possible replacement.

The US has maintained a decades-long trade embargo against Cuba and its communist government.

On Monday, a national power outage further underscored the dire situation on the island, where periodic blackouts have long been common.

By early Tuesday, power had been restored to two-thirds of the country, including to 45 percent of the capital Havana, which is home to 1.7 million people.

The 2026 World Cup matches will be played as per schedule announced last year, the football organisation says.

The world’s top football organisation, FIFA, has said the 2026 World Cup matches will take place per the schedule announced last year, shutting down Iran’s hopes of having its matches moved from the United States to Mexico due to the ongoing US-Israeli war on Iran.

“FIFA is in regular contact with all participating member associations, including Iran, to discuss planning for the FIFA World Cup 2026,” the organisation’s statement said. “FIFA is looking forward to all participating teams competing as per the match schedule announced on 6 December 2025.”

Following the outbreak of the war on February 28, Iran’s participation in the games has been cast in doubt.

Last week, US President Donald Trump said Iran was welcome to come to his country for its matches, but added: “I really don’t believe it is appropriate that they be there, for their own life and safety.”

In response to Trump’s comments, Iran’s football team said in a post on social media that “no one can exclude Iran’s national team from the World Cup”.

More recently, on Monday, Iranian football chief Mehdi Taj said on social media that “when Trump has explicitly stated that he cannot ensure the security of the Iranian national team, we will certainly not travel to America”.

“We are currently negotiating with FIFA to hold Iran’s matches in the World Cup in Mexico,” Taj said.

Iran’s Ambassador to Mexico Abolfazl Pasandideh also condemned on Monday Washington’s “lack of cooperation regarding visa issuance and the provisions of logistical support” for the Iranian delegation.

The 2026 World Cup is set to be played in three countries for the first time ever: the US, Mexico and Canada.

The first game is scheduled for June 11, and will be played between South Africa and Mexico.

But when asked if Mexico could host Iran’s games, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said on Tuesday that the country was prepared to host its first-round matches.

“Mexico maintains diplomatic relations with every country in the world, therefore, we will wait to see what FIFA decides,” Sheinbaum said.

Iran was the second Asian team, after Japan, to qualify for the World Cup, securing its place almost a year ago after topping its qualifying group.

They are currently scheduled to play New Zealand and Belgium in Los Angeles, and Egypt in Seattle.

Defence official tells Congress that 47 alleged drug-trafficking vessels have been struck since campaign began.

The United States military has confirmed that at least 157 people have been killed in lethal strikes against alleged drug-trafficking boats off Latin America, described as a campaign of extrajudicial killings by legal experts.

Senior defence official Joseph Humire said that 47 “narco-trafficking vessels” have been struck in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific since the campaign began in September, in a written statement to members of the US Congress.

Asked by lawmakers on Tuesday whether the quantity of drugs entering the US has gone down, Humire stated that the movement of drug-trafficking vessels had decreased by 20 percent in the Caribbean.

“We’ve measured the decrease in the movement of the vessels,” said Humire.

“But that’s a no in terms of the drugs actually getting into the US,” Representative Adam Smith responded.

Experts have expressed scepticism that the strikes are having any significant impact on the drug trade, and legal scholars have said that the campaign is a clear violation of international law and is blurring the distinction between armed conflict and criminal activity. Under international law, military force is permitted for the former, but not the latter.

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) is holding hearings on the strikes, and advocates hope that the hearings could open the door to possible legal accountability for those responsible.

The Pentagon has shared videos on social media showing strikes on the vessels, but has provided few details about those killed or evidence of their status as drug vessels.

The administration of US President Donald Trump has embraced a militarised approach to combatting drug trafficking that has allowed the US to expand its military footprint across the region.

The US has stepped up collaboration with friendly governments such as Ecuador and threatened military strikes against countries like Mexico and Colombia if they do not do more to accommodate US demands.

US President Donald Trump has reacted to the resignation of the US National Counterterrorism Centre’s director, Joe Kent, saying that he couldn’t work with somebody who didn’t believe Iran was a threat. Trump also said his decision to bomb Iran avoided a ‘nuclear holocaust’.

In a devastated enclave where more than two million Palestinians remain crammed into a shrinking strip of land under the overwhelming shadow of Israeli military occupation and bombardment, daily survival is tethered to a fragile October “ceasefire”.

But as Israeli and US bombs rain down on Iran, and Tehran retaliates across the region, that battered truce faces a breaking point, prompting an unprecedented diplomatic manoeuvre: direct talks between United States President Donald Trump’s “Board of Peace” and Hamas.

Envoys from the new body, personally headed by Trump to oversee post-war Gaza, but with more far-reaching designs, met with Hamas representatives in the Egyptian capital over the weekend, according to the Reuters news agency.

The meetings aimed to safeguard the “ceasefire”, which has been under even more severe strain since the regional war began on February 28.

Following the talks, Israel announced it would partially reopen the Rafah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt on Wednesday. The crossing, Gaza’s sole pedestrian lifeline outside direct Israeli control, was shut when the Iran offensive began.

Despite the diplomatic push, violence in the enclave persists. Israeli strikes on Sunday killed at least 13 Palestinians including two boys, a pregnant woman, and nine police officers, serving as a stark reminder of Israel’s all-encompassing military grip on the territory.

A pragmatic shift or tactical ploy?

While the talks mark a notable engagement by Washington, analysts view the move not as a legitimisation of the Palestinian group, but as a calculated tactic underpinned by the threat of renewed violence.

Abdullah Aqrabawi, a Palestinian political analyst, noted that Washington’s willingness to meet Hamas reflects a stark reality on the ground. “There is a comprehensive, realistic acknowledgement that the main military, political, and social actor in the Gaza Strip is Hamas,” Aqrabawi told Al Jazeera.

However, he warned against viewing the meetings as a fundamental shift in US policy. In the era of the Trump administration, diplomatic meetings do not equate with political recognition. Instead, Aqrabawi argued, the approach is framed by the constant threat of a return to a “war of extermination”.

The ultimate goal of these talks, he explained, is to empower a newly formed technocratic committee in Gaza to build a social base capable of challenging the armed group.

The illusion of ‘reverse blackmail’

Initial reports suggested that Hamas had threatened to abandon the “ceasefire” if Gaza border restrictions continued, purportedly using the regional chaos of the Iran war to force Israel’s hand.

Aqrabawi dismissed this assessment, noting that Hamas has consistently expressed a desire to avoid a return to full-scale war. Rather than a successful Palestinian pressure campaign, he said the reopening of the Rafah crossing serves a different strategic purpose for Washington and Tel Aviv.

“Any facilities, whether the Rafah crossing or allowing aid entry, come through the “Board of Peace” and the new technocratic committee formed in the Gaza Strip,” Aqrabawi said. “It is not a response to negotiations or Palestinian pressure, but rather in the context of allowing this committee to penetrate Palestinian society.”

He added that this aims to establish a security foundation that allows for the disarmament of the resistance, even if it leads to internal Palestinian civil conflict.

Disarmament and the 20-point plan

Prior to the regional escalation, Trump’s flagship Middle East initiative – a 20-point plan for Gaza – had partially halted the mass killings and secured the release of Israeli military captives and some Palestinian prisoners. In exchange, Hamas accepted a ceasefire that left the Israeli military occupying more than half of the enclave.

But the second phase of Trump’s plan, which hinges on Hamas laying down its weapons in exchange for amnesty and reconstruction, remains deadlocked. While some might assume the regional conflict gives Hamas leverage to scrap the disarmament clause entirely, Aqrabawi suggested the opposite is unfolding.

The US and Israel, heavily engaged in Iran, are likely intensifying pressure on the Palestinian group to secure a swift, enforceable victory in Gaza. “The pressure happening today on the occupation government and the American perspective of the war with Iran may push them to pressure Hamas to accomplish this task as quickly as possible,” Aqrabawi said.

Yet, Hamas remains resolute. The group views its weapons as essential for resisting the occupation and forming the foundation of future Palestinian security institutions.

As Washington and Tel Aviv attempt to use the spectre of renewed genocide to engineer Gaza’s political future, the reality for the Palestinians trapped inside the enclave remains unchanged. For them, the partial reopening of a single border crossing is not a diplomatic breakthrough, but a fleeting gasp of air in a besieged Gaza Strip where daily survival is held hostage to the demands of the military occupation.

All eyes are on the Strait of Hormuz.

The longer it remains closed, the greater the damage to the global economy.

Iran continues to block tankers from shipping close to 20 percent of the world’s oil supply.

That is roughly twice the disruption the world suffered during the energy shock of the 1970s.

Big oil shocks have historically led to considerable economic turmoil, high inflation, stagnation and recession.

Oil and gas prices are already surging, and economies are expected to slow.

From American consumers to Chinese factories and European households, people across the world are already feeling the effect.

Jeffrey Epstein urged Canadian-American media and real estate mogul Mortimer Zuckerman to relinquish control of his financial affairs over what he claimed was the magnate’s “potentially dangerous” cognitive impairment, according to files released by the United States Department of Justice.

While Epstein’s business ties with Zuckerman, now 88 years old, have been a matter of public record for over two decades, the files suggest that the late sex offender also served as a confidant with access to the most intimate details of the billionaire mogul’s personal life.

After a meeting with Zuckerman and the Norwegian diplomat Terje Rod-Larsen in October 2015, Epstein wrote an email urging the tycoon to enter a guardianship or conservatorship for his own protection.

Epstein told Zuckerman, the owner and publisher of US News & World Report, that the mogul had requested his help during their meeting several days earlier, but that he “might not remember”.

“Your friends including me are very concerned that your cognitive impairment has now reached a serious and potentially dangerous level. There is serious concern for your financail, emotional physical and psychological safety,” Epstein wrote, using his typically idiosyncratic approach to spelling, punctuation and grammar.

Epstein suggested that Zuckerman grant Rod-Larsen, Zuckerman’s nephews, and “anyone else you trust” authority to manage his affairs, warning that his “remarkable abilities” were no longer enough to protect him.

“I am aware that your condition makes you prone to suspicion but that being said, the future predictable decline will be an ever increasing danger,” Epstein wrote.

“Admittting you have a problem will take courage and determination.”

Zuckerman, who previously owned The Atlantic and the New York Daily News, appeared to take Epstein’s advice seriously, thanking him for his “thoughtfulness and friendship” and asking for recommendations for a lawyer with “experience in such matters”.

Zuckerman suggested the two men meet after he returned from an upcoming trip to San Francisco, but Epstein advised him to cancel the trip and said the mogul had told him about his travel plans on four separate occasions.

“I know you dont remember each time. . MORT , you need a Guardian,” Epstein wrote. “you should choose one now, while your judgment peeks through the haze. waiting too long. will mean most likely a court imposed solution. NOT FUN.”

Epstein also discussed Zuckerman’s health with his nephew, Eric Gertler, advising the relative to oversee the sale of the businessman’s stocks, art collection, helicopter and plane.

“my expertise is the financial . take any other suggestion as merely transmitting from others skilled in this terrible situation,” Epstein wrote to Gertler, who is the current executive chairman of US News & World Report, in one email.

It is not clear if Zuckerman followed Epstein’s advice to pass over control of his affairs.

Zuckerman announced that he would step down as chairman of Boston Properties, one of the largest real estate investment trusts in the US, about six months after his correspondence with Epstein.

Zuckerman did not cite any health concerns at the time and kept the title of chairman emeritus at the company, which he cofounded in 1970.

His philanthropic organisations – the Zuckerman Institute and Zuckerman STEM Leadership Program – and Gertler did not reply to Al Jazeera’s requests for comment.

Zuckerman’s relationship with Epstein, who died in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges, occasionally made headlines during the early 2000s, before Epstein’s 2008 conviction for soliciting a minor for prostitution.

In 2003, Zuckerman partnered with Epstein and several other prominent businessmen, including the disgraced Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, in an unsuccessful bid to buy New York Magazine.

The two men teamed up again the following year to invest $25m in the short-lived relaunch of the entertainment and gossip magazine Radar.

Investigative files released by the US Department of Justice in January showed that the late financier viewed Zuckerman as a client and close associate, as well as a business partner.

In 2013, Epstein drew up a $21m proposal to provide Zuckerman with “analysing, evaluating, planning and other services” related to the passing on of his estate, according to emails in the files.

It is unclear whether Zuckerman accepted Epstein’s proposal or otherwise employed him to manage his estate planning.

Epstein also pressured Zuckerman to alter coverage of his alleged sexual abuse of girls in the New York Daily News, suggesting a “proposed answer” to questions put to him by the newspaper in 2009. Zuckerman owned the New York Daily News at the time.

“Right is right, wrong is wrong, and Trump’s wrong.” Former Marine Brian McGinnis, whose hand was broken by police and a congressman earlier this month in a protest at the US Capitol, says Donald Trump is “wrong” when it comes to the joint US-Israeli war on Iran.

“Reckless war of choice.” US House of Representatives Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries criticised Donald Trump for what he called a failure to adequately prepare for the consequences of launching a war on Iran.

The 33-year-old Columbia University protester had been held in immigration detention centre for a year.

Leqaa Kordia, a Palestinian woman detained in the United States after taking part in pro-Palestine demonstrations in 2024, has been released after a year in custody.

The 33-year-old, who grew up in the occupied West Bank before moving to the US in 2016, was held at a detention facility in the state of Texas since March last year.

“I don’t know what to say. I’m free! I’m free! Finally, after one year,” a smiling Kordia told reporters after leaving the detention centre on Monday.

An immigration judge had ruled Kordia was eligible to be released on bond three times. Immigration officials appealed the first two rulings but Kordia was freed on $100,000 bond after government lawyers did not challenge the third.

After her release, Kordia said she was looking forward to going home and hugging her mother “so hard.” But she also said she would keep fighting on behalf of people still being held at the detention centre

“There is a lot of injustice in this place,” she said. “There is a lot of people that shouldn’t be here the first place.”

Kordia, who lost nearly 200 members of his family during Israel’s genocidal war against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, was among several protesters targeted by immigration officials for taking part in pro-Palestine demonstrations at Columbia University in 2024.

Until Monday, she was the only person targeted in connection with the demonstration who was still in immigration detention after the release of others, including Mahmoud Khalil and Mohsen Mahdawi.

Kordia, who was held at Prairieland Detention Center in Alvarado, was recently hospitalised for three days following a seizure after fainting and hitting her head at the privately run detention facility.

At a hearing on Friday, Kordia’s lawyers said she had a neurological condition that had worsened while in custody, putting her at an elevated risk of seizure. They reiterated that she could stay with US citizen family members and did not pose a flight risk.

The immigration judge, Tara Naslow, agreed.

“I’ve heard testimony. I’ve seen thousands of pages of evidence presented by the respondent, and very little evidence presented by the government in any of this,” Naslow said.

Offering another rationale for the US-Israeli war on Iran, Donald Trump claimed he ordered strikes to prevent a nuclear conflict that would have turned into World War III. He also said not even the “greatest experts” thought Iran would retaliate with attacks on Gulf states.

Speaking at the Oval office, US President Donald Trump stated that Somalia is a “fourth world nation” while repeating claims without evidence that Congresswoman Ilhan Omar had illegally entered the country by marrying her brother. Omar has consistently denied the “sick” allegations.

Israeli forces have attacked multiple towns in southern Lebanon after announcing “limited and targeted ground operations” against Hezbollah. Israel has warned residents will not be able to return to their homes until the military says so.

Joint attacks by the United States and Israel have severely reduced Iran’s capacity to fire missiles and drones, experts say, but Iran retains enough capabilities to inflict significant damage.

“Iran’s ballistic missile capacity is functionally destroyed. Their navy assessed combat ineffective. Complete and total aerial dominance over Iran,” the White House said on Saturday. “Operation Epic Fury is yielding massive results,” it said in reference to the war launched by Israel and the US on February 28.

On Sunday, President Donald Trump said US forces had decimated Iran’s drone manufacturing capacity.

Still, on Monday afternoon, Qatar announced it had intercepted the latest in a series of missiles fired from Iran towards the country. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain also issued alerts. A missile landed on a car in Abu Dhabi, killing a person.

So are Iran’s missile capabilities severely reduced? And how is it still firing projectiles at its neighbours and Israel?

Is Iran firing fewer missiles now?

Indeed, the number of retaliatory missiles and drones that Iran has fired towards Gulf countries, Israel and other nations in the region has seen a steep decline since the start of the war.

In the first 24 hours of the conflict, Iran had fired 167 missiles (ballistic and cruise) and 541 drones at the United Arab Emirates, for instance. By contrast, on day 15 of the conflict, it had shot four missiles and six drones, according to a tally compiled by Al Jazeera based on the emirate’s Defence Ministry statements.

The barrage against Israel has also decreased, from nearly 100 projectiles over the first two days to a single-digit number in the past few days, according to Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies.

Last week, the Pentagon said missile launches were down 90 percent from the first day of fighting and drone attacks were down by 86 percent.

How big is Iran’s missile arsenal – and how much has it been hit?

Iran has the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the region, the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence assessed in 2022. While there are no official accounts on how many missiles it has, Israeli intelligence reports suggest it counted around 3,000 missiles, a figure that dropped to 2,500 following the 12-day war last June.

Key to the US-Israel strategy has been hunting down Iran’s launchers. Each missile launch generates a signature, such as a large explosion, that can be picked up by a satellite and radar systems.

According to a senior Israeli military official cited by the Institute for the Study of the War, Israel has put up to 290 launchers out of service, out of an estimated 410 to 440 launchers.

But Iran is a vast country, and without boots on the ground, it will be hard to completely eliminate Iran’s capacity to shoot despite the US and Israel having nearly full control of the country’s airspace, said David Des Roches, an associate professor at the National Defense University in Washington, DC.

“It is not obvious to identify launchers,” Des Roches told Al Jazeera. “What we see are missiles that were put in hidden places or places not associated with the military before the war, when there was less observation”.

According to Des Roches, the slowdown in launches is due to Iranian forces having lost the capacity to launch volleys. As a result, Iran has been firing one or two missiles at a time towards civilian and commercial infrastructure, especially in Gulf countries, instead of aiming volleys at military targets. Iran insists that it is targeting only US interests in the region.

“Militarily speaking [Iran’s action] is not significant – this is what is called harassment fire to exhaust alert systems in nearby countries and scare people off,” Des Roches said.

What’s Iran’s strategy?

According to Hamidreza Azizi, an expert on Iran and visiting fellow with the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWB), Tehran’s central calculation is that the Gulf and Israel may run out of their defensive capabilities before Iran runs out of missiles.

“There might be some interest in making this a war of attrition,” he said, pointing at the lower, yet constant, number of weapons launched from Iran each day.

“Although the US and Israel have been successful in taking out some of the launchers and major missile bases, the Iranians have decentralised the missile bases and missile command and they have been increasingly relying on mobile launchers which makes it more difficult for the other side to detect and target,” Azizi said. “This is a race about time.”

And in that race, Iran believes it has a chance, say experts.

“It does not matter how many you launch as long as you maintain a credible threat,” Muhanad Seloom, an assistant professor in critical security studies at the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies, told Al Jazeera. “It takes one successful drone to shatter a sense of security.”

Iran has long experience in producing cheap yet effective drones. The Shahed 136 can be made quickly and in large numbers in relatively simple factories, and several of them can be fired at once, overwhelming defences. It also doesn’t need complex launchers that can be targeted in air strikes. With a speed of just 185km/h (115mph), Shaheds can be shot down by helicopters. Still, many have managed to get through US and Gulf air defence systems.

Just on Monday, a fire broke out near the UAE’s Dubai International Airport in a drone-related incident that temporarily disrupted flights; another drone attack caused a fire at the Fujairah industrial area, also in the UAE; air sirens sounded in central Israel due to a missile fired from Iran; and in the Strait of Hormuz – a key waterway through which 20 percent of global energy supplies are shipped – hundreds of vessels remain paralysed over fear of being struck despite few attacks on ships. Since the start of the war, a maritime tracker has reported 20 incidents related to vessels.

This, say experts, is part of Iran’s defensive doctrine of asymmetric warfare against militarily superior powers, such as the US and Israel. The weaker party, Iran in this case, turns to unconventional methods of warfare, wearing down the enemy by targeting key infrastructure to inflict economic pain.

Tehran has already pushed oil prices to higher than $100 a barrel and sent global markets into panic mode. The second-biggest exporter of natural gas, Qatar, continues to keep shut its production; Bahrain’s state oil company has declared force majeure on its shipments, and oil production from Iraq’s main southern ⁠oilfields has plunged 70 percent.

If Iran can keep raising global oil prices, “it will inflict equal or more damage to the US than American bombs in Iran,” said Vali Nasr, a professor of international affairs and Middle East studies at Johns Hopkins University.

Sometimes, journalists indulge in myths and delusions they claim to decry.

This grating inclination has been on almost giddy display in the still evolving aftermath of United States President Donald Trump’s rash decision to join Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in launching a war with Iran.

Like falling dominoes, a “narrative” gathered momentum among the America’s “progressive” commentariat, insisting that Trump’s order to go to war offended large swaths of the MAGA movement and set off a seismic split in his ardent base.

It is a silly myth and a seductive delusion.

Sure, a handful of familiar MAGA personalities have grumbled that another Middle East conflict betrays the “America First” pledge that helped propel Trump back to the White House.

Conservative commentator Megyn Kelly has questioned whether the US is drifting, yet again, into an endless war without purpose or meaning. Podcaster Joe Rogan has talked about the conflict’s disastrous, unintended consequences. Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson has warned that the unprovoked attack could trigger chaos across an already volatile region.

Trump, of course, parried the backlash with trademark coarseness. He lashed out. He dismissed the naysayers. He mocked allies who briefly turned detractors.

Headlines blared that a domestic quarrel threatened to engulf his MAGA disciples in a “civil war.”

The idea that MAGA has fractured is fantasy. Disquiet is not rupture. Dissent is not rebellion.

The MAGA “movement” is not a conventional coalition held together by consensus around a coherent, considered set of principles or policies.

MAGA remains what it has always been: a political phenomenon built to burnish one man’s ego and narcissism. As long as that man is Trump, the “movement” bends to his designs and whims. It adjusts; and, inevitably, snaps back into loyal line.

That loyalty remains the movement’s signature force.

For nearly a decade, Trump has tested its limits. He has weathered scandals that would have devoured most politicians. Two impeachments. Criminal convictions. A litany of controversies, including his close and lengthy friendship with the architect of a worldwide sex trafficking ring, the notorious paedophile, Jeffrey Epstein.

Through it all, MAGA has, if anything, tightened its loving embrace of Trump.

The notion that a fraternal dispute over foreign policy would shatter the vice-like bond is absurd. That bond is emotion. It is visceral.

For his embittered supporters, Trump is the embodiment of grievance-fuelled defiance. He is a charismatic champion against enemies in Washington — the gilded establishment, the media, the global order who treats them with derision and contempt.

Within that parochial framework, Trump’s actions at home and abroad are filtered through the prism of fidelity. When Trump unleashes a war that he once opposed, his devout followers accept his shifting rationales — however obtuse or contradictory. They believe he sees threats others ignore. They believe he acts when others hesitate.

Indeed, polls confirm their steadfast confidence in Trump’s judgement and his enduring appeal.

The Republican Party has always harboured different instincts. Some supporters lean towards isolationism. Others favour aggressive displays of the America’s unparalleled power.

While there may be hints of unease among Republicans about the prospect of a long, costly war with Iran, that unease has not led, and likely will not lead, to a broad revolt anytime soon.

Trump’s standing within the Republican Party remains strong. His approval among Republican voters remains high. They trust him.

That trust trumps the simmering doubts raised by a small, albeit prominent, slice of MAGA fawning pundits and a few recalcitrant members of Congress.

Kelly knows it. Rogan knows it. Carlson knows it.

The trio understands that they operate inside a MAGA universe fashioned and controlled by Trump. Their popularity and influence depend on staying there. They know the defining rule of Trump’s gravitational pull: stray too far and you will be cast out.

Predictably, Carlson avoided escalation.

Instead, he declared his allegiance. He made plain that he still “loves” Trump. He reminded listeners that Trump had reshaped American politics.

Kelly and Rogan may question the risks and dangers of war, but neither would wage a sustained attack on the president. Neither would dare tell Trump’s loyalists to abandon him.

A fleeting disagreement over Trump’s reckless adventure in Iran will not translate into a lasting break.

Even the most high-profile MAGA hucksters recognise that confronting Trump invites retribution and disaster. Their audiences overlap. Their reach thrives in the same ideological ecosystem.

Picking an ultimately losing fight with the ecosystem’s vengeful anchor is rarely good business.

So, MAGA is, at the moment, experiencing a touch of turbulence. It will pass.

Which is why the constant search by establishment media for a dramatic MAGA schism keeps producing the standard result.

Nothing much changes.

Every time Trump sparks outrage, the same prediction appears. This time, the base will rebel. This time, the coalition will splinter.

This forecast is a tired ritual. It ignores the fundamental nature of the MAGA compact. That connection is not rooted in briefs or blueprints. It is a secular religion where the leader is never wrong.

Myopic scribes mistake a fracas for a collapse. They see tension and hope for a divorce. The believers are not preoccupied with the logistics of war or the mercurial logic of “America First”. They care about the man who gave them a voice.

Once the friction fades, the sceptics will retreat. They have nowhere else to go. The undeniable magnetism of Trump’s celebrity and command of MAGA reels most reluctant strays back.

To leave that agreeable orbit permanently is to vanish into irrelevance — a bleak fate for provocateurs who have forged lucrative careers amplifying Trump’s ignorance, intolerance, and fury.

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

Oscar winner Pavel Talankin called for ‘an end to all wars’ as he received the best documentary award for “Mr Nobody Against Putin”.

As anticipated, it ended up being One Battle After Another’s night at the 98th annual Academy Awards, with the political thriller carting away six Oscars out of a total of 13 nominations.

But while Paul Thomas Anderson’s magnum opus continued its march towards award-season domination, there were moments of genuine surprise and subversion in Sunday’s ceremony.

Some of those moments had to do with the current political climate in the United States.

Host Conan O’Brien and his fellow presenters deftly avoided mentioning President Donald Trump by name, but their barbs took direct aim at his policies since returning to office.

Other surprises came from within the filmmaking community itself. For only the seventh time in Oscar history, a tie was announced: Two films had gotten an equal number of votes for Best Live Action Short.

As a result, both the surrealist thriller Two People Exchanging Saliva and the moody bar-room drama The Singers shared the Academy Award.

Here are six key takeaways from the night.

A two-horse race between Sinners and One Battle

The vampire film Sinners came into Sunday night’s ceremony with a record 16 Oscar nominations. But the big question of the night was: How many nods could it actually convert into wins?

Its biggest competition was, of course, Anderson’s One Battle After Another, which had the second highest tally of nominations.

Sinners director Ryan Coogler and Anderson were in direct competition in several top categories, including Best Picture and Best Director.

In both cases, Anderson came out ahead, though he acknowledged how fickle such awards can be.

“ I just want to say that, in 1975, the Oscar nominees for Best Picture were Dog Day Afternoon, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, Jaws, Nashville and Barry Lyndon,” the four-time Best Director nominee said, listing films now considered to be Hollywood classics.

“There is no best among them. There is just what the mood might be that day.”

In the categories for Best Supporting Actor and Best Film Editing, One Battle After Another also triumphed, as well as for the inaugural award for Best Casting.

But in a sign of how well matched their two films were, both Coogler and Anderson emerged from the night with writing Oscars.

Anderson picked up Best Adapted Screenplay award for his use of the Thomas Pynchon novel Vineland, while Coogler made off with the Best Original Screenplay Oscar for Sinners, a work inspired by his uncle’s love of the blues.

Jordan dunks on Chalamet in Best Actor race

Sinners, which won four Academy Awards overall, earned some of the most emotional, nail-biting victories of the night.

In the Best Cinematography category, for instance, Autumn Durald Arkapaw became the first woman to top the field.

It was her first nomination and first win, with Arkapaw besting veteran cinematographers like Marty Supreme’s Darius Khondji and Frankenstein’s Dan Laustsen, both multiple nominees.

Another big win for Sinners came in the form of Michael B Jordan, the actor whom Coogler has cast in every film since his directorial breakout in 2013’s Fruitvale Station.

Jordan, 39, was in a tight race for Best Actor with another young performer, 30-year-old Timothee Chalamet of the 1950s ping-pong drama Marty Supreme.

But Chalamet’s aggressive campaigning may have ultimately sabotaged his prospects. Multiple cracks were taken throughout the night at Chalamet’s recent comments disparaging opera and ballet.

“Nobody cares anymore” about either art form, Chalamet said in an interview last month.

“We can change society through art, through creativity, through theatre and ballet and also cinema,” director Alexandre Singh said pointedly during his acceptance speech for Best Live Action Short.

O’Brien, meanwhile, acknowledged the backlash with a joke about heightened security at the night’s Oscar ceremony.

“I’m told there are concerns about attacks from both the opera and ballet communities,” O’Brien said, before turning to Chalamet. “They’re just mad you left out jazz.”

A conga line of snubs

Given the dominant performances from Sinners and One Battle After Another, plenty of critically acclaimed films left empty-handed, or nearly so.

Guillermo del Toro’s Frankenstein, as expected, earned three wins in technical categories, including Best Production Design, Best Costumes and Best Hairstyling and Makeup.

Netflix’s smash hit KPop Demon Hunters, meanwhile, also fulfilled expectations that it would dominate in its categories, Best Animated Feature and Best Original Song.

But then there were former frontrunners like Hamnet that failed to generate much traction, including for director Chloe Zhao, a past Oscar winner. Out of eight nominations total, it only came away with one win: a Best Actress trophy for Irish performer Jessie Buckley.

Marty Supreme and the Brazilian film The Secret Agent fared worse, however. Despite having nine nominations and being considered an early shoo-in for Best Actor, Marty Supreme scored no wins.

The Secret Agent, which swept the Best Actor and Best Director categories at the 2025 Cannes Film Festival, also earned nothing at this year’s Oscars.

Same was true for the quirky kidnapping drama Bugonia, from Oscar darling Yorgos Lanthimos.

Fears about artificial intelligence

The ceremony, however, did occasionally veer away from the competition between the films to discuss issues facing the film industry and the country as a whole.

Among those was the creeping growth of artificial intelligence (AI) in the creative sector.

In the weeks leading up to the 98th Oscars, an AI-generated video clip had gone viral, appearing to show Hollywood icons Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise in a rooftop brawl worthy of a James Bond movie.

The clip had been generated through AI software developed by the Chinese firm ByteDance, and Hollywood leaders quickly denounced it as a threat to their livelihood, not to mention a copyright infringement.

Those concerns reverberated on the Oscar stage on Sunday, with O’Brien and others addressing the growing use of AI.

“Tonight we are celebrating people, not AI, because animation – it’s more than a prompt,” actor Will Arnett said emphatically as he introduced the animation awards.

O’Brien, meanwhile, joked that, by next year, his hosting gig would be taken by “a Waymo in a tux”.

Trump skewered for threatening free speech

Another concern looming over the night’s Oscar ceremony came in the form of President Donald Trump, who has courted controversy by launching deadly military attacks in Venezuela and Iran, as well as leading a violent immigration crackdown in the US.

At no point was Trump mentioned by name. But his leadership was alluded to throughout the night.

O’Brien, the host, set the tone early on with his oblique jabs at the Republican president in his opening monologue.

“When I hosted last year, Los Angeles was on fire,” the two-time Oscar emcee said in remarks dripping with sarcasm. “But this year, everything’s going great.”

Fellow comedian Jimmy Kimmel was even more direct. Last September, his show was briefly suspended after Trump criticised the comedian.

The head of the Federal Communications Commission, a Trump appointee, subsequently threatened the broadcasting license of the TV channel Kimmel performs on.

“There are some countries whose leaders don’t support free speech. I’m not at liberty to say which. Let’s just leave it at North Korea and CBS,” Kimmel quipped, referring to another channel that cancelled a fellow late-night comedy show.

Several filmmakers honoured at the Oscars likewise waded into the controversies surrounding Trump.

Best Documentary Feature winner David Borenstein, for instance, implied a parallel between his film — an exploration of authoritarianism in Russia — and what is currently happening in the US.

“Mr Nobody against Putin is about how you lose your country,” Borenstein explained.

“What we saw when working with this footage is that you lose it through countless small little acts of complicity: when we act complicit, when a government murders people on the streets of our major cities, when we don’t say anything, when oligarchs take over the media.”

Political speeches avoid mention of Iran war

The Oscars come roughly seven months ahead of the pivotal midterm elections in the US, which could see Trump’s Republican Party lose its majorities in Congress.

But while several filmmakers did hint at their anti-Trump stances, few explicitly denounced his policies.

For example, Norway’s Joaquim Trier, the winner of the Best International Feature category, veiled his criticism in a James Baldwin quote about the duty to protect children.

“Let’s not vote for politicians who don’t take this seriously into account,” Trier said.

No artist during the night referenced the US and Israeli war against Iran either, though its effects were felt among the participants of this year’s Oscar crop.

Writer-director Jafar Panahi, whose work was up for two Oscars on Sunday, has already said he plans to return to his native Iran after the awards season concludes.

Meanwhile, Iranian politician Sara Shahverdi — the subject of a nominee in the Best Documentary Short category — was prevented from attending the Oscars at all due to Trump’s ban on visas for 39 countries.

Palestinian actor Motaz Malhees, star of the Oscar nominee The Voice of Hind Rajab, likewise told media outlets he could not be present at the ceremony due to the travel ban.

The most pointed acknowledgements of the US-led and US-backed conflicts in the world were brief. When Spanish actor Javier Barden took the Oscar stage to present an award, he offered up six words, “No to war, and free Palestine!”

Russian filmmaker Pavel Talankin, meanwhile, made a similar appeal to the audience. “In the name of our future, in the name of all of our children, stop all of these wars now,” he said.

But by and large, the Oscar winners and presenters kept their remarks vague, emphasising global unity over political criticism.

“If I can be serious for just a moment, everyone watching right now around the world is all too aware that these are very chaotic, frightening times,” O’Brien told the audience at the outset of the night.

“It is at moments like these that I believe that the Oscars are particularly resonant. Check it out. Thirty-one countries across six continents are represented this evening, and every film we salute is the product of thousands of people speaking different languages.”

Cinema, he and others argued, transcended borders. The talent on stage was not the US’s alone.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi says Tehran never sought a ceasefire with the US, and is ready for a long war.