USA

They came for the soccer.

We gave them Americana.

Their tickets entitled them to World Cup games.

We threw in an education in United States history, geography, and the economics of the $20 baseball cap.

They expected an athletic tournament.

We staged a county fair, featuring nine exhibits stretched across 3,000 miles, with people and surroundings as varied as our twangs.

Visitors to the Boston venue will remember the success of the Soccer Train, a commuter rail and site of opposing pep rallies on the 50-minute trip to Foxboro Stadium.

Classic stories from the Los Angeles Times’ 143-year archive

Imagine that, longtime Bostonians said. A culture clash where nobody gets hurt.

Visitors to the Dallas venue will remember our failures: the blight around the aging Cotton Bowl, the empty seats inside, the construction-hampered traffic flow that turned game days into nightmares.

For nearly a month, in nine locations, the world has applauded our wonders, cringed at our bruises, and, in some places, even felt our embrace.

So how did we do?

Sometimes, we shined. Other times, we stumbled.

Sometimes we yelled too much, pushed too much. When the rest of the world was rushing joyfully out of a subway or dancing through an alley, often we put up our dukes and played the frightened bullies.

But we also smiled a lot, and listened a lot, and sometimes accepted that which we did not understand.

Like those hourlong postgame fan celebrations that forced stadium police to work overtime. We eventually realized something could not be so bad if it made so many people so happy.

We hollered and hugged, we were impatient and helpful. In other words, we were ourselves.

Sometimes we thrilled. But other times, we disappointed.

Visitors to the New York venue will remember what Dublin sales representative Gerry Taylor remembers.

Nothing.

Taylor learned on the first weekend that despite slick World Cup advertisements, New York was not New York.

Just as Boston was not Boston, but Foxboro. And Detroit was not Detroit, but Pontiac. And Los Angeles was Pasadena.

And New York was actually a smelly, industrial area in northern New Jersey.

Taylor left his Manhattan room early one Saturday morning, four hours before the opener between Italy and Ireland.

He wrapped himself in an Irish flag and planned on a making a pregame stop in a pub next door to Giants Stadium.

“Do this all the time in Dublin,” he said. “Pop a few Guinness at the pub, talk to other fans, get ready for the game.”

But upon arriving in East Rutherford, N.J., he realized the only thing he could drink next door to the stadium was toxic waste.

There wasn’t a pub in sight. Or a store. Or a house. Or even a street that wasn’t an expressway.

He spent the next three hours sitting with two friends on a curb, cursing his introduction to sports in America.

“Are all stadiums like this, away from cities, in the middle of nothing?” he asked. “Seems to me it must be hard to have good sports in places like this, isn’t it? We are let down.”

The only thing we can assure him, and others as disillusioned as Taylor, is it wasn’t because we didn’t try.

Rating the 1994 World Cup venues, best and worst of show:

Chicago

BEST: We knew this would be a great spot from the moment we first bit into something called “the Belly Buster,” sold at a hot dog stand near Soldier Field.

Ingredients: Polish beef dog, relish, ketchup, mustard, onions and jalapeno peppers. It lived up to its billing. Trust us.

And so did everything else.

Soldier Field is the perfect location for an international event, being just a short cab ride from one of America’s great downtowns.

Michigan Avenue has been buzzing for a month, what with German tourists in Bermuda shorts buying black patent leather shoes to accompany their white socks. At night, horse-drawn carriages fought with taxis for street space in some of the best action since Ben Hur.

Bolivian Marco Etcheverry tackles German captain Lothar Matthaeus from behind in Chicago, Ill. (AP Photo/Santiago Lyon)

(Santiago Lyon / Ap)

WORST: The only people who didn’t enjoy themselves here were the Greeks, both the national soccer players and the large Chicago-area community that gathered to watch them one Sunday morning against Bulgaria.

Greece lost that game, 4-0. In the process, the teams drove Greek fans so crazy they started seeing things.

At one point during the game, a Greek tossed a smoke bomb on the field, later claiming it was tradition to do so after his team scored.

His team is back in Athens, and it still hasn’t scored.

IMPRESSIONS: The World Cup’s kind of town, Chicago is. Not only were the streets brimming with international flavor, the shuttle system to Soldier Field was so efficient that cabbies complained about not getting enough chances to rip people off.

Now that’s a venue.

YOU HAD TO BE HERE: During a bachelor party held on the 36th floor of a prominent local hotel, somebody poured beer down the elevator shaft. By morning, the ale had dripped to ground floor and short-circuited the electrical system.

Many hotel guests–some checking out with reams of World Cup-related luggage–were forced to carry everything down 20 flights of stairs.

Once at the bottom, they had to tip valet-parking drivers for walking 10 steps to pick up their cars.

Boston

BEST: We marveled not at a city’s effect upon a World Cup, but vice versa.

“What has happened to a town divided along ethnic lines has been remarkable,” said E.J. Kahn of the Boston Host Committee.

By order of Mayor Tom Menino, the historic City Hall area was turned over to foreigners of every imaginable color and tongue.

Old-timers who never thought they would see an African soccer team playing at the home of the New England Patriots also never thought they would see people dancing on their cobblestone streets in tribal costumes.

Police were particularly worried the night after Argentina had defeated Greece in a first-round game. While the Greeks partied in front of City Hall, the Argentines celebrated eight blocks away in Copley Square.

The fiestas drew closer and closer until five Argentine fans wearing blue-and-white uniform shorts stood directly behind a dozen Greeks dancing in a circle.

Just as security guards prepared to move in, the circle slowly opened, and the Greeks motioned for the Argentines to join them. The Argentines did.

The hardened city sighed.

WORST: Many fans apparently didn’t realize that the game would be played about 45 minutes south of Boston in the desolate suburb of Foxboro.

And nobody knew that once they arrived at the stadium, in a forested area where parking availability seemed unlimited, parking spaces would cost $20 each.

Visitors got even with the World Cup Organizing Committee, though, by leaving their hotels in Boston and staying closer to the stadium in places such as Providence, R.I.

Our smallest state as a World Cup host? Not quite what organizers had in mind.

IMPRESSIONS: The Northeast may have tried harder than any other area, and it showed.

The normally reserved Bostonians, ranked 28th out of 36 U.S. city residents in a recent survey rating kindness to strangers, discovered warmth and tolerance.

When dozens of Irish tourists were swindled out of tickets, Bostonians found them more. When foreigners didn’t understand those distinct accents, Bostonians spoke more slowly.

YOU HAD TO BE HERE: For an hour after Argentina’s victory over Greece, more than a hundred Argentine fans remained at Foxboro Stadium, dancing and singing.

Police politely asked them to leave their seats, but the group only moved as far as the lower concourse. Thirty minutes later, police finally escorted them down the concourse and out the front gates, where they continued to party.

Was the game that exciting? Well, yes and no. With this stadium being 20 miles from the nearest decent-sized city, they had nowhere else to go.

Dallas

BEST: From the World Cup volunteers to city cab drivers, we appreciated the people. Amid bleak surroundings and uncomfortable temperatures, they provided the venue with some badly needed touches of humanity.

One hero was Laura Addington, a schoolteacher from Louisiana. She served as an interpreter for everyone. Well, at least everyone who spoke English, French, Spanish, Italian, German or Arabic.

Other stars were the African taxi drivers. They knew the roads, and they knew soccer, which is the only reason we were able to find Maradona during rush hour.

WORST: Some nights were almost cool enough to hold a sporting event. Yet most of the games were held in the blazing afternoon or early evening sun to accommodate European television.

Those brave enough to attend games suffered through stifling heat. Don’t buy those happy expressions you saw on ESPN. It was torture.

IMPRESSIONS: Dallas is a Cowboy town. And not the Germans, Argentines or any of the soccer fanatics who came through here changed that.

With poor attendance and a distinct lack of any electricity other than that generated by the Cowboys’ new set of uniforms, this proves there are about a thousand better places in this country to hold an international event.

Not that Dallas is a bad place–it’s merely the wrong place.

We have learned that events such as the World Cup require diversity of thought and appreciation of differences. Dallas is just too danged American for any of that.

What Dallas’ failure here portends for the 1996 Olympics in another southern town called Atlanta, well, that’s for another story.

YOU HAD TO BE HERE: By some estimates, the World Cup games here were outdrawn even by the demolition of the Cotton Exchange building downtown one Saturday morning. But at least at the soccer games, nobody was treated for smoke inhalation.

New York-New Jersey

BEST: With the melting pot of New York City nearby, this was the only truly international venue.

The stadium rocked with the sounds, colors and even smells of those countries competing.

Except for its location in New Jersey, Giants Stadium was also the perfect World Cup facility, with a beautiful field and gleaming facilities that had foreigners gawking.

WORST: The only Cup fever to hit New York City involved the Stanley Cup.

Maybe it was because of the Rangers. Or Knicks. Or Gay Games. It certainly wasn’t the Yankees, whose attendance was routinely tripled by the World Cup games.

Maybe it was because every day in New York City feels like an international festival. Or maybe it was because New York City simply didn’t have the time.

Whatever, the city that doesn’t sleep also didn’t care. It was interesting to drive to the stadium listening to New York City sports-talk radio hosts rip soccer, then arrive to discover mile-long lines at the front gates.

New Jersey license plates, all of them.

IMPRESSIONS: Organizers could save tourists and taxi fare by dropping all pretenses that the game is being played in New York City.

The success of this venue proves it is time to start celebrating the ethnic charms and splendid facilities of northern New Jersey . . . and leave New York to worry about the Mets.

YOU HAD TO BE HERE: The location for the World Cup host committee in this country’s largest city? New Brunswick, N.J., 90 minutes from Manhattan.

The location of these New Jersey-played games as listed on commemorative postal stamps? New York.

Detroit

BEST: Do not underestimate the accomplishment of organizers who ran the Detroit venue by avoiding all traces of Detroit.

Games were staged an hour’s drive north in the suburb of Pontiac, a bedroom community dominated by large front lawns and strip malls. If Detroit street gangs possess missiles that can fly that far, we didn’t see them.

The venue MVP (Most Valuable Professor) was Trey Rogers, the god of sod. The assistant prof of turf-grass science at Michigan State actually made grass grow inside the Silverdome.

After three years of experiments, at a cost of $2.4 million, the indoor stuff held up admirably and was hailed by all but the most serious allergy sufferers.

The crowd cheers at the Pontiac, Mich., Silverdome as the United States and Switzerland play. (AP Photo/Bill Waugh)

(Bill Waugh/AP)

WORST: Much like East Rutherford and Foxboro, there was no there there. The venue lacked big-city energy and a pulse.

The streets emptied at 10 p.m. After night games, if you hadn’t paid someone to hold a spot in line at Herschel’s Deli, the happening spot was a Taco Bell drive-through.

Of course, after a game in the non-air-conditioned Silverdome, all anybody wanted to do was lie down in a nice comfortable meat locker.

IMPRESSIONS: Smiling faces, helpful people, but mostly sweat. Three-alarm, two-shirt sweat.

YOU HAD TO BE HERE: After the June 24 game between Brazil and Sweden, a thunderstorm passed directly over the media tent as hundreds of journalists were filing their stories. The thunder was deafening and the tent shook as if it were going to break.

Lightning threatened to knock out the power. The lights flickered, World Cup officials implored reporters to save their files or risk losing them.

This scene was repeated at media and hospitality tents in most of the venues. But aside from the Mexican team, nothing in the tournament has collapsed.

Washington

BEST: We never thought we’d say this, but we liked the subways.

The blue line, which stopped three blocks from RFK stadium, was a shoulder-to-shoulder mass of international passion.

The Dutch fans made their mark by pounding on the ceilings. The Swiss, by chanting through the underground terminals.

The Mexicans demonstrated their presence with songs, singing loud even though they could barely breathe while crushed in overloaded cars during the final 10 minutes of the trip.

It was all underground, but it was true democracy, rare even for our nation’s capital.

WORST: Everything was wonderful until you actually walked inside RFK.

The stadium is falling apart. The Mexican fans literally caused it to rock with their constant bouncing during Mexico’s emotional tie with Italy.

The stadium security officials were surly and overbearing. Maybe it was those horrible purple berets that made them so mad.

The stadium media-tent volunteers, mostly of college age, were the worst. This would be of no interest to the public, except many worldwide impressions of this country are created by foreign journalists.

And those foreign journalists were treated horribly. Little attempt was made to understand or deal with them.

Tickets were refused with no explanation given. Attempts to talk with media coordinators were denied. Questions about the facility were greeted with shrugs.

Translators working player interviews refused to even offer translated quotes until they had been typed and apparently approved by supervisors, which often took two or three hours.

When one Middle Eastern journalist complained about discrimination, one college girl working as a volunteer laughed in his face and replied, “I don’t think so.”

IMPRESSIONS: Sports organizers beware. Any further events staged here should not involve any local volunteers or officials from this World Cup.

This is a wonderful city, and as our capital, it should be the one of the first places promoters go for big events. But now we wonder if haughty attitudes and low-rent facilities haven’t kept the big games away.

The pre-game show at RFK Stadium prior to the Norway v Mexico group stage match of 1994 FIFA World Cup. (Photo by David Caban/Archive Photos/Getty Images)

(David Caban/David Caban)

YOU HAD TO BE HERE: A local activist hung a “Save Bosnia” sign in the stands during the opening game here between Mexico and Norway. It was taken down by local officials. He sued for the right to display it. He won.

Not that the guy wanted to rub it in, but visible the next game were two “Save Bosnia” signs.

San Fransisco-Palo Alto

BEST: We love Los Gatos. This mountain town of 28,000 near San Jose has adopted–and been adopted by–the Brazilians.

After Brazil’s games at Stanford Stadium in Palo Alto, Los Gatos became Little Rio, complete with samba music, incessant drumbeats and conga lines through Town Plaza Park.

“This is very exciting,” local resident Judy VanKampen said. “It is totally different than what you normally see in Los Gatos, which is people walking down the street with dogs and strollers.”

Even though crowds were lively, they were orderly. Some of the women might have strained the city’s public decency codes with their skimpy bikinis, but city officials, to their credit, looked the other way.

Sure they did.

Brazilian forward Romario beats United States defender Alexi Lalas at Stanford Stadium, July 4, 1994 in Stanford, Calif. (AP Photo/Thomas Kienzle)

(Thomas Kienzle / Associated Press)

WORST: The whining of Palo Alto politicians because World Cup organizers identified the venue as San Francisco.

But unless we are missing something, nobody has written a song called, “I Left My Heart in Palo Alto.”

IMPRESSIONS: Of all the venues, Stanford University was the worst in creating obstacles for World Cup organizers.

University officials were in position to drive a hard bargain because FIFA, soccer’s organizing body, wanted a presence in San Francisco but did not want to use Candlestick Park because of its smaller size.

Thus, Stanford Stadium is by far the least modern of the venues. Even though some improvements were made, World Cup organizers did not get all of their demands met.

Yet those academics learned that the World Cup is just the type of event that educational institutions should be encouraging.

The excellent soccer is the least of its legacies. Teams from four continents played here, and the visitors who followed those teams to Palo Alto left something of themselves behind.

Unfortunately for the merchants, it was not money. They were disappointed in their take.

But the visitors contributed something more valuable, their cultures. Los Gatos, one feels, will never be the same.

YOU HAD TO BE HERE: A Brazilian woman walked into an ice cream store in Los Gatos one hot day and ordered a beer.

Los Angeles-Pasadena

BEST: My, but the old lady still can sing. Our Rose Bowl looked wonderful with its face lift and colorful frills.

When the air is clear and the heat isn’t oppressive, there is no better view in this World Cup than that of the San Gabriel mountains looming behind the Rose Bowl scoreboard.

Well, OK, the view of that scoreboard after the United States played Columbia was pretty nice too.

Soccer fans inside the Rose Bowl stadium in Pasadena, Calif., prior to World Cup Final match between Brazil and Italy, Sunday July 17, 1994. (AP Photo/Lois Bernstein)

(Lois Bernstein / Associated Press)

WORST: That World Cup chief Alan Rothenberg would allow his hometown facility to rip off hungry and thirsty soccer fans–many of them his neighbors–with inflated prices is inexcusable. Two dollars and fifty cents for a Sno-cone? Fish and chips for $7.50?

IMPRESSIONS: The scene reminds us of the 1984 Olympics, causing emotions we never thought we would feel again. Traffic flowing smoothly, the city clean and pressed, citizens talking about something fun.

Surveys say that many people here couldn’t care less about the event, but the ones who do have made it memorable.

YOU HAD TO BE HERE: With so many men ignoring the “Women” signs on the portable toilets outside the Rose Bowl, officials placed “Out of Order” signs on several working potties and secretly passed around the word that women should use those.

Orlando

BEST: Quick, somebody get this town an NFL team. There was no better stadium-area atmosphere than here, where fans congregated less than a mile from the Florida Citrus Bowl at a trendy shopping and dining area called Church Street Station.

One night the Dutch fans were having so much fun, they started stealing baseball caps from policemen. Another night, the Mexicans were having so much fun they lay down on the railroad tracks upon hearing an oncoming train.

OK, so maybe we don’t all have the same kinds of fun.

Expensive restaurants became rollicking pubs. Thousands of foreigners became wailing, wandering messes.

Did we mention that the Irish were also in town?

WORST: This was soccer in a sauna. Every team that played under the unforgiving midday sun recorded a triumph of spirit.

For fans, merely getting to the games was a similar triumph. Ten dollars to ride a parking lot shuttle? Fifteen dollars to park at a local school, with the money being handed to a member of the PTA?

This was central Florida hucksterism at its worst. But then, they learned from the experts down the street, those guys wearing the ears.

IMPRESSIONS: With the Dutch and Belgians in town, this was supposed to be the site of hooliganism. Police from around the state were summoned for 12-hour shifts. But nothing happened. The most serious crime involved people refusing to leave bars at closing time.

Already our vacation capital, Orlando proved that it deserves to become a sports capital as well. It knows how to turn a game into an event without anybody getting hurt.

After existing for so long in the shadow of fantasyland, it acts as if it loves this real stuff.

YOU HAD TO BE HERE: In the downtown area on July 4, fans from everywhere joined to sing “Happy Birthday.”

To whom? To the United States, of course. Considering how we came of age in yet another international sporting scene this summer, it was a happy birthday indeed.

Times staff writers Elliott Almond, Julie Cart, Lisa Dillman, Chris Dufresne, Helene Elliott, Randy Harvey, Mike Penner and Times Sports Editor Bill Dwyre contributed to this story.

Turkey emerged as one of the biggest diplomatic winners from the NATO summit in Ankara after President Donald Trump lavished praise on Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, promised to lift U.S. sanctions and signalled openness to restoring Turkey’s access to the F-35 fighter jet programme.

The public display of warmth contrasted sharply with Trump’s criticism of several NATO allies during the summit and highlighted improving U.S.-Turkey relations after years of tensions.

Turkey rolls out high-profile welcome for Trump

Turkey spared little effort in welcoming Trump to Ankara.

The visit featured a red, white and blue aerial display by Turkish jets, while a newly opened airport terminal was named after the U.S. president. Erdogan personally greeted Trump at the airport before the two leaders walked together, exchanged warm remarks and held talks ahead of the summit.

Trump later described Erdogan as a close friend and repeatedly praised the Turkish leader during the two-day gathering.

Trump says Erdogan convinced him to attend

For Turkish officials, securing Trump’s attendance was itself considered a diplomatic achievement.

Trump, who has frequently criticised NATO and questioned the alliance’s value, said he attended the summit because Erdogan was hosting it.

Erdogan welcomed the remarks after the summit.

“It was valuable that Trump emphasised the importance he places on myself and our friendship,” Erdogan said.

US signals shift on sanctions and F-35 fighter jets

The most significant outcome for Ankara was Trump’s indication that he intends to remove U.S. sanctions imposed after Turkey purchased Russia’s S-400 missile defence system in 2019.

Trump also said he was willing to consider allowing Turkey back into the F-35 stealth fighter programme, although he later clarified that he had not made a final decision.

If implemented, both moves would reverse major elements of U.S. policy that had severely strained bilateral relations during Trump’s first presidency.

Congress and Russia remain potential obstacles

Despite Trump’s promises, significant hurdles remain.

U.S. lawmakers have previously insisted Turkey cannot participate in the F-35 programme while retaining the Russian-made S-400 system, making congressional approval uncertain.

Turkey could also face complications with Russia because agreements governing the S-400 purchase include end-user obligations that may limit Ankara’s options.

As a result, the announcements currently represent political commitments rather than guaranteed policy changes.

Erdogan strengthens Turkey’s position inside NATO

The summit reinforced Turkey’s ambition to play a larger role within NATO.

As the alliance’s second-largest military, Turkey has increasingly promoted itself as an indispensable security partner while seeking greater participation in European defence initiatives.

Trump also publicly defended Erdogan against criticism from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who opposed potential U.S. sales of F-35 fighter jets to Turkey.

The episode underscored Ankara’s growing diplomatic influence within the alliance.

Trump overshadows summit with disputes involving allies

While relations with Turkey improved, Trump generated fresh tensions elsewhere during the summit.

He threatened to halt U.S. trade with Spain over defence spending disputes and repeated claims regarding Greenland, drawing criticism from fellow NATO members.

Despite those disagreements, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte later described the summit as demonstrating alliance unity.

Human rights concerns receive limited attention

The summit also highlighted how Turkey’s strategic importance has reduced public Western criticism over democratic issues.

The gathering took place amid arrests of opposition figures, journalists and a prominent comedian in Turkey, prompting questions about democratic freedoms.

Rutte reiterated that democracy includes freedom of expression, free media and the right to protest.

Opposition figures argued Erdogan’s increasingly close relationship with Washington reflects growing political dependence on the United States, while critics contend Western governments have become less vocal about human rights as Turkey’s military and geopolitical importance has grown.

Future outlook

The NATO summit could mark a turning point in U.S.-Turkey relations if Trump’s pledges on sanctions relief and the F-35 programme translate into policy. However, congressional resistance, Turkey’s continued possession of the Russian S-400 system and wider geopolitical considerations remain significant obstacles. Ankara is also expected to continue pushing for greater influence within NATO and broader participation in European defence initiatives.

Analysis

The NATO summit marked one of the strongest public displays of U.S.-Turkey relations in years, with President Donald Trump using the gathering to signal a willingness to reset ties with Ankara after years of friction over Turkey’s purchase of Russia’s S-400 missile defence system. For President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, simply hosting Trump and receiving repeated public praise from him represented a significant diplomatic victory that reinforced Turkey’s strategic importance within the alliance.

Trump’s promises to lift sanctions and reconsider Turkey’s return to the F-35 fighter jet programme address two of Ankara’s longest-standing demands. However, turning those pledges into reality will be far more difficult. U.S. law and congressional opposition remain major obstacles, particularly while Turkey continues to possess the Russian-made S-400 system. Moscow could also object if Ankara takes steps that undermine agreements linked to the missile purchase.

The summit also highlighted a broader shift in Western priorities. During previous U.S. administrations, especially under Joe Biden, democratic backsliding and human rights concerns were central issues in relations with Turkey. This time, those concerns received relatively little attention as NATO focused on defence spending, military cooperation and regional security, reflecting Turkey’s growing value as a defence producer and a key NATO member on the alliance’s southeastern flank.

Trump’s warm embrace of Erdogan contrasted sharply with his confrontational approach toward several other NATO allies, including Spain and Denmark. That dynamic allowed Turkey to emerge from the summit with enhanced diplomatic standing even as broader alliance tensions persisted.

Whether this diplomatic momentum produces lasting policy changes will depend on decisions in Washington after the summit. If sanctions are eased and progress is made on the F-35 issue, bilateral ties could enter their most constructive phase in years. If congressional or legal barriers prevent those moves, however, the summit may ultimately be remembered more for its symbolism than for delivering concrete strategic gains.

With information from Reuters.

Iran said on Thursday it had targeted U.S. military infrastructure across the Gulf in retaliation for fresh American strikes on Iranian territory, marking the latest escalation in a conflict that is increasingly testing a fragile ceasefire brokered just weeks ago.

The renewed exchange of attacks came as Iran prepared to bury its late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei at the holy city of Mashhad following a week of nationwide funeral processions.

Although oil prices eased after surging on fears of wider disruption, investors and governments remained focused on whether the latest violence represented a temporary escalation or the beginning of a broader collapse of efforts to end the conflict.

Iran retaliates after U.S. strikes

Iranian armed forces said they targeted U.S. military facilities in neighbouring Gulf states after American forces struck military infrastructure across Iran’s southern coast and eastern provinces.

According to Iranian officials quoted by state media, the latest U.S. attacks killed 14 people and wounded 78 others across five provinces on July 8 and 9.

The semi-official Fars news agency reported that one strike hit a railway bridge used for trade links with Russia and China.

Explosions were also reported on Thursday morning in Bushehr province, home to Iran’s only operational nuclear power plant, though authorities did not immediately provide details on the cause.

Gulf military installations targeted

Iran’s military said it launched drone and missile attacks against several U.S.-linked military facilities across the Gulf region.

According to Iranian state media, the targets included:

• U.S. Patriot missile systems in Kuwait
• An early-warning installation in Qatar
• A U.S. military fuel storage facility in Bahrain

Kuwaiti authorities said their air defences intercepted a cruise missile, three ballistic missiles and ten drones. Officials reported one person was injured by falling debris.

Qatar, which hosts the largest U.S. military base in the Middle East, called for restraint and urged all sides to return to diplomatic negotiations.

During a phone call with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani also condemned attacks on commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.

Strait of Hormuz remains at the centre of tensions

The latest military confrontation follows attacks on commercial tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important energy shipping routes.

The U.S. military said Wednesday’s strikes were designed to protect international navigation after blaming Iran for attacks on three commercial vessels.

Although Tehran has not officially claimed responsibility for those attacks, analysts say Iran has increasingly used pressure around the Strait of Hormuz as leverage in negotiations with Washington.

Before the war began in late February, roughly one-fifth of global oil supplies passed through the narrow waterway.

Iran has since exercised significant control over maritime traffic in the strait, giving it considerable strategic influence over global energy markets.

The U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) said American forces struck around 90 Iranian military targets.

According to CENTCOM, the operation targeted:

• Air defence systems
• Coastal surveillance infrastructure
• Missile and drone storage facilities
• Naval assets
• Military logistics centres along Iran’s coastline

“The United States is holding Iran accountable for recent unjustified aggression against commercial shipping and civilian crews freely navigating a vital international waterway,” CENTCOM said.

President Donald Trump defended the operation on Wednesday, writing on Truth Social: “This is in retribution for yesterday’s bombing of ships by Iran. If it happens again, it will get much worse.”

Trump says ceasefire agreement is effectively over

While attending the NATO summit in Ankara, Trump said he believed the memorandum of understanding signed with Iran to halt the fighting had effectively collapsed.

Asked whether the agreement remained in force, Trump replied:”It’s a very interesting question. To me, I think it’s over. I don’t want to deal with them.”

He later added that even if another agreement were reached, he doubted Tehran would honour it.

Despite the renewed military exchanges, Trump said he did not expect the confrontation to develop into another prolonged war.

“Anything that happens is going to be over very quickly… and will only make it safer, including for oil,” he told reporters.

Iran vows continued retaliation

Iranian officials condemned the latest U.S. military operation as another breach of understandings reached after the ceasefire.

Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf warned Washington that future attacks would receive a military response.

“The U.S. has yet to learn that bullying and breaking its commitments no longer come without a cost,” he wrote on social media.

“The Strait of Hormuz will be reopened only under Iranian arrangements, not through U.S. threats.”

Oil markets remain on edge

Oil prices retreated on Thursday after jumping sharply a day earlier, as traders assessed whether the latest fighting would significantly disrupt Gulf energy exports.

Shipping also remains under close watch.

One of the vessels struck this week the Qatari LNG tanker Al Rekayyat remains stranded off Oman after suffering an engine-room fire following a projectile strike.

Industry sources said its liquefied natural gas cargo appears secure and that the immediate risk of explosion remains low.

Future outlook

The latest exchange of strikes has significantly weakened confidence in the U.S.-Iran ceasefire, even if neither side appears ready for a return to full-scale war.

Attention is now focused on whether further attacks occur around the Strait of Hormuz, where any prolonged disruption could quickly tighten global energy supplies and drive oil prices higher.

Diplomatic efforts led by Gulf states are likely to intensify, but Trump’s declaration that the interim agreement is “over” and Iran’s vow to continue retaliating have raised doubts over whether negotiations can still produce a lasting settlement.

With information from Reuters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘FIFA mafia’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Do our talking on the pitch’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Belgium ease past a defensively sloppy United States in a match shrouded in controversy surrounding the delayed suspension of co-hosts’ striker Folarin Balogun.

MATCH REPORT: US limp out of World Cup as Belgium reach quarter-finals

Available to UK users only.

United States goalkeeper Matt Freese makes a huge error in judgement when he gifts Belgium’s Hans Vanaken the ball, leaving him with an easy finish. Errors all around as Belgium take control of the last-16 tie.

REPORT: US 1-4 Belgium

Available to UK users only.

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

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

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

It depends on who you ask.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FIFA responds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mamdani invokes Mourinho

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Belgium’s football federation (RBFA) says it is “astonished” by FIFA’s controversial decision to suspend the one-match red card ban on USA striker Folarin Balogun and is “investigating all potential options” to uphold integrity in the sport.

The World Cup was plunged into uproar on Sunday after FIFA suspended a red card given to Balogun ahead of the host nation’s clash with Belgium, in a bombshell move welcomed by US President Donald Trump but slammed by Belgian officials.

The extraordinary FIFA ruling means that Balogun is now free to play for the USA against Belgium on Monday in Seattle, with a place in the quarterfinals at stake.

The Royal Belgian Football Association said it is “investigating all potential options” to “safeguard the legitimate rights of all participating teams and to protect the fundamental principles of fair play in our sport”.

“I didn’t know that at the FIFA World Cup, the 5th of July is now the 1st of April, and that it’s April Fool’s Day,” added Belgium coach Rudi Garcia at a news conference.

“A lot of our thoughts and opinions are in the release,” Garcia said.

“We’re not defending the national team or the federation, we are defending football.”

Balogun had been set to miss Monday’s last-16 knockout clash with the Belgians after receiving a straight red card following a video review for stepping on the foot of a Bosnian defender in a round-of-32 clash that the US won 2-0.

Under FIFA rules, a straight red card automatically triggers a one-game ban, which cannot be appealed by the player’s team.

But FIFA said on Sunday that the ban will now be suspended for a year, in a stunning move for which no specific explanation was offered.

It is the first instance of a red-carded player being allowed to play in his team’s subsequent match since the introduction of the yellow and red card rules at the 1970 edition of the World Cup.

‘We are not the bad men’

Top scorer Balogun has been key to the USA’s progress in the tournament, netting three times, and his absence against Belgium would have been a blow to the team in Seattle.

The stakes are huge for the cohosts, whose strong start to the tournament has raised expectations to fever-pitch levels among the American public, and they are targeting a run to at least the quarterfinals. The last time the USA reached the quarters was in 2002.

Balogun himself had said on Friday that the red card ban was “something I have to just accept”.

However, the 25-year-old celebrated FIFA’s U-turn with an Instagram post of himself in the US team jersey and Michael Jackson’s Bad attached as the audio.

USA players and officials welcomed the news, which they received on their way to training on Sunday morning.

“I think a lot of us thought it was AI at first,” defender Chris Richards said. “I think we were really excited because we found out through social media; it was cool. It was a lot of question marks, but just very, very happy and excited overall.”

“It feels right,” forward Christian Pulisic added. “Really excited for him to have this opportunity. To see the smile on his face and to be able to give us a boost tomorrow is great.”

Head coach Mauricio Pochettino said that “it’s a fair decision because it should have never been a red card”, calling the punishment “too big” for an unintentional foul.

“It’s not that we are victims, but we are not the bad men, the mean ones here,” he said.

FIFA decision ‘a bit of a surprise’

In its statement, FIFA pointed to “article 27 of the FIFA disciplinary code”, which allows the suspension to be “suspended for a probationary period of one year”.

Balogun would serve the ban only if he commits another similar foul in the next year, it said.

There is some precedent for the decision.

Portugal superstar Cristiano Ronaldo earned a three-game ban for an elbow during qualifying last year, but had two matches of his ban suspended.

The move, which allowed Ronaldo to play in Portugal’s World Cup opener, drew criticism at the time.

Belgium goalkeeper Thibaut Courtois said it was “a bit of a surprise” that Balogun was cleared to play just a day before the match.

“Had it been done earlier, we’d have been able to be mentally more prepared, perhaps,” he said.

FIFA’s decision has stirred up a social media storm, with mixed reactions to the suspension.

DR Congo footballer Yannick Bolasie expressed his dismay at the decision by saying the reaction to FIFA’s U-turn would have been quite different had it been taken in the Africa Cup of Nations.

The Iranians have come out on top after the conflict. They have demonstrated themselves as a pure and united nation by not dividing into small factions during the recent militarily confrontation with the United States and Israel. The Americans and Israelis were seemed to be launching a shock and awe strategy against the Iranians to overwhelm them and easily bring down their regime. 

However, they were unable to accomplish their task, resulting in social pressure from within the United States, as 61% people were not in favor of launching a war of choice against Iran while the escalation concluded in huge financial setbacks for both the U.S and Israel.

According to John Kiriakou – the former CIA officer, Trump was told by the Israeli Prime Minister that they could easily topple the regime of Iran due to prevailing social unrest at that time. But the Iranians remained intact and united, rallying behind their government. This shattered Americans and Israelis ambitions.

On the day Americans and Israelis launched an unprovoked aggression against Tehran, Iran imposed a closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which made Iran to maintain upper hand throughout the confrontation and sustain its position against the enemy.

Strait of Hormuz was open before 28^th February, but during the war it was observed that the United States presented its closure as a cause of war, whereas it was obviously a consequence of the war. In addition to this context, Tehran laid a lot of mines in the waters of the Strait of Hormuz to hinder the flow of maritime trade across the strait.

From the beginning, the Iranians adopted a military strategy called Mosaic Defense, in which they decentralized their defense system, dividing their military into 31 factions which were able to take any decision on spot without asking from the central command of Tehran. This gave their military to take sudden military decisions and hit military targets as per their choice. This strategy significantly helped the Iranians hold the upper hand in the conflict, maintain their position, and stand firm against their enemy.  

The Iranians also pursued the strategy of asymmetric warfare, attacking with cheap Shahed-136 drones and using different types of missiles to overwhelm the enemy. They used drones of worth around  20000 to 50000 $ while the Americans and Israelis were using expensive defensive equipment of worth 1 million to 4million dollars.

Iran fought Americans forces using a strategy called horizontal warfare, broadening the conflict across the Middle East by attacking Americans bases in the region and making the region increasingly vulnerable and unstable for the other countries there. This helped Iran consolidate their hard power in the region.

Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) eliminated the most expensive radars of the US situated in different countries of the region. They blew up AN/FPS-132 and AN/TPY-2 Radar systems of the US in Qatar and Jordan respectively. 

Along with that, they decimated American 5^th fleet headquarter in Bahrain, which held 75% of the US military power in the region, resulting in heavy losses for Washington. Furthermore, Iran inflicted pain on more than dozen American bases in the Middle East. 

It was seemed that Tehran converted this war into a war of attrition by slowly weakening the Americans over time. They were fully prepared for this protracted war but it did not go in favor of the United States, as Washington was unable to afford a protracted war at lot. 

Therefore, President Trump was increasingly perceived as pursuing a deal with Tehran over time, emphasizing that a deal was in progress and would be reached soon.  As a result, president trump had to sign a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Tehran on 17^th June 27, 2026 to save the world economy from another Great Depression.

The extent which Washington achieved its objectives remain open to debate. These goals included the overthrow of the regime, the de-weaponization of Iran, and the weakening of the country’s strategic potential.  

According to the U.S political scientist Robert Pape, Iran has emerged as the fourth center of power, following the US, China, and Russia. It was obvious that Iran had been preparing for possible military misadventure by the U.S and Israel since 1979. 

One of the crucial steps that Iran took after the Islamic revolution was the creation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) parallel to its national army. Consequently, it had huge leverage over the US and Israel during overall confrontation.

Moreover, this military confrontation between the U.S and Iran gave huge advantage to Tehran, making its position stronger in the regional politics and globally. Resultantly, Tehran has achieved what it had been unable to gain over the last 47 years. It successfully gained the removal of sanctions, the release of its $24B frozen assets, dominance over the Strait of Hormuz, and recognition as a regional power. Apart from that, it still retains its regional proxies and ballistic missile program. 

While the Americans and Israelis miscalculated the war, assuming that they could win a quick and decisive victory by decapitating the regime. For that they orchestrated a plan to quickly topple the regime through a shock-and-awe campaign and they wanted to place people on the top that were subservient to them. However, the Iranian military emerged as a key deterrent against the adversary and made the pursuit of Washington’s objectives complicated.

Until not so long ago Latin America had been considered a quiet region, located far from the world’s superpower main strategic confrontations, with sporadic but crucial moments that helped to shape the international order as we know it today. The Cuban Missile Crisis is the clearest example: it became the starting point for a series of agreements and treaties on nuclear and strategic security, involving both the US and the Soviet Union at first, and later extending to other actors of the international community, from Europe, Asia and Latin America, which became the first region free from nuclear weapons after the signing of the Treaty of Tlatelolco in 1967, 5 years after the crisis. After this episode, the region’s relevance seemed to fade, and Latin American countries appeared condemned to a destiny of surfing between weak political cohesion internally and relatively stable economies, even as most of its governments remained closely aligned with Washington on foreign policy matters.

It was precisely during this period of perceived irrelevance that China began building its presence in the region, very gradually and over the course of a little more than two decades. Washington largely ignored this process, even as it became clear that the Asian giant was becoming the largest trading partner for several South American countries, such as Peru and Brazil, and in many cases also the main investor in their economies. This neglect was not born of ignorance: it reflected, instead, a confidence that local governments would remain compliant regardless of who was investing in them. President Trump’s first term illustrates this well. Despite isolated clashes with the governments of Mexico and Venezuela, these episodes looked minor when compared to the “tariff wars” waged against the EU and China. In fact, the only time Trump ever set foot in the region during his entire first term was in November 2018 when he attended the G20 Forum in Buenos Aires. Significantly, there was a planned short visit in Colombia after this event, but I was cancelled. This was widely read at the time as a confirmation that Latin America remained a low priority for Washington’s foreign policy agenda, more due to the expectable compliance of local governments than ignorance of the importance of the region as a resource base capable of fueling US power projection in other regions.

It was only during Trump’s second term that American foreign policy has shifted towards the Western Hemisphere, attributing strategic importance to the region and setting the objective to maintain a near-absolute dominant presence, involving both economic and military dimensions, as is stated in the latest National Security Strategy of 2025.

By the time this shift was formalized, China’s footprint in the region was already deep and country-specific. In Brazil, China had been the largest trading partner since 2009; bilateral trade hit a record $171 billion in 2025, with China accounting for 27.2% of Brazil’s total foreign trade, besides, EV plants and a still planned bi-oceanic railway linking Brazil to Peru’s Pacific coast were being negotiated as part of the Chinese investment strategy in both countries. In Argentina, China became the primary supplier of mobile network infrastructure, part of a broader Chinese push into Latin American 5G and data-center markets. And in Peru, China invested around $1.3 billion in the strategic port of Chancay, a deepwater facility that entered full operation stage in November 2024, and set a new phase for trade between China and South America, bypassing the traditional deepwater ports located in the US, like the ports of Oakland and Stockton. Reinforcing this, China pledged in May 2025, at the CELAC forum ministerial meeting in Beijing, to ramp up its regional engagement even further. These were not isolated transactions but a structural presence, one that the 2025 National Security Strategy now identifies strictly as the rival foothold it intends to dislodge.

Now, within this context in 2026 the declared shift of interests proved it wasn’t merely rhetorical. The year started with the launching of Operation Resolve, when a group of American special military forces conducted a military raid and captured President Nicolás Maduro and his wife in Caracas, transporting them to New York to face narcoterrorism charges. Trump declared that the US was now “in charge” of Venezuela until a transition takes place. This meant in practice that the US would hold control over the country’s oil exports, which during the first four months after Maduro’s capture were estimated at $8 billion, but the data on how much oil has been sold, the revenue from it and the use given to those funds remains secret. The main importers of Venezuelan oil during this period were the United States (43 percent), India (26 percent, part of the strategy to reduce Indian import of Russian oil), and Spain (8 percent). This episode, condemned by critics as a return to the old days of imperialism, set the tone for the rest of the year: a hemisphere where Washington would use military force, tariffs, and other mechanics for pressuring countries to sign economic deals where American core interests prevail.

An example of this is the new and controversial Trade and Investment agreement signed by the United States and Argentina in February of this year. According to the text, Argentina shall adapt the regulatory framework to implement US trade standards and prioritize American direct investment in the country, while the counterpart shall “try to review its tariffs” and “consider supporting investment financing”. Milei’s government has justified this as the price for ideological loyalty and continued financial support after the $20 billion credit line that helped to stabilize the local currency (peso) last year.

On the other hand, Brazil took the opposite path: rather than just seeking accommodation to this policy, the government of Lula da Silva accelerated diversification, finalizing the long-delayed EU-Mercosur agreement in January, deepening trade with China and signing a memorandum of understanding with aims for further strategic partnership with Russia. Notably, the US has implemented another mechanism of pressure here, condemning the imprisonment of former president Jair Bolsonaro and holding a meeting with his son Flavio Bolsonaro, who will participate in the presidential elections this October. This gives clear signs of indirect support for this far-right candidate, following the regional trend with Milei in Argentina and Keiko Fujimori in Peru.

Peru, meanwhile, illustrates a third pattern and an interesting case, because alignment here is imposed less by negotiation than by sheer state fragility. Amid a presidency turning over for the ninth time in a decade, the US State Department warned in February that China’s control over the Chancay megaport threatens Peru’s sovereignty, following a Peruvian court ruling that exempted the port from national oversight. Peru’s case pictures a scenario where both counterparts keep pushing for concessions and more privileges. Under the government of José María Balcázar, the ninth president in 10 years, the country has been involved in the controversial purchase of 12 F-16 jetfighters with a cost of around $3.5 billion. On April he postponed the official ceremony where this deal was supposed to be signed arguing that it would have to be the responsibility of a new president, the decision was met with pushback, both internally, with declarations from the Ministry of Defense and in the US Embassy, with ambassador Bernardo Navarro declaring “If you deal with the U.S. in bad faith and undermine U.S. interests, rest assured, I, on behalf of [President] Trump and his administration, will use every available tool to protect and promote the prosperity and security of the United States and our region.” After this, with both internal and diplomatic pressure, the deal was signed on the 17th of April.

Taken together, these cases suggest the current US approach to Latin America is not fueled by a single ideological logic, but by transactional calculations that value compliance and heavily punishes resistance, exploiting weaknesses here and there and aiming to these policy goal indifferently to whether the country in question is led by a right, left or ideologically undefined government. What seems quite clear is that the decades of quietness in Latin America have ended, not necessarily because the region has changed, many of the deep challenges for development are still present, but because the rivalry that once defined the Cuban Missile Crisis has returned, this time fought over trade tariffs, infrastructure and technology access rather than missiles.

Wednesday’s win over Bosnia-Herzegovina in San Francisco Bay Area Stadium was thoroughly deserved and earned Pochettino’s side a date with Belgium in Seattle on Monday evening (01:00 BST on Tuesday).

It did not, however, come without a price.

Folarin Balogun, the 24-year-old former Arsenal youngster, who inspired the US to a thumping win over Paraguay with two goals to begin their campaign, added his third of the tournament to break the deadlock shortly before half-time.

He might have had a hat-trick, firing one effort wide of the near post, seeing an effort ruled out for offside and slicing a shot onto the bar from close range, but just after the hour mark his night, and potentially his World Cup was ended.

What looked an innocuous tussle with Bosnia defender Tarik Muharemovic for a looping ball down the left channel ended with the forward being shown a straight red card.

As Balogun attempted to shield the ball, Muharemovic managed to get in front of him, and as the forward’s boot returned to the ground it landed on the back of the Bosnian’s ankle, causing it to twist gruesomely.

In real time, and in all likelihood in reality, it looked entirely accidental, but Brazilian referee Raphael Claus was sent to the monitor to watch a super slow-motion replay, which gave him little choice but to brandish the red card.

It etched Balogun’s name further into the record books.

On the night when he became just the third American to score three goals in a World Cup edition, he also became the fourth player to both score and be sent off in a knockout match, following Brazil’s Garrincha in the 1962 semi-final, his compatriot Ronaldinho in the 2002 quarter-final against England, and France’s Zinedine Zidane in the infamous 2006 final against Italy.

The sending-off brings an immediate one-game ban, ruling him out of the Belgium match, but it could yet be extended by Fifa officials to potentially rule him out of the quarter-final and semi-final, should the Americans make it.

Long-time Fulham target Ricardo Pepi is the man most likely to fill Balogun’s boots , though he has not scored in his 184 minutes on the pitch at this tournament, nor in the four friendly games before it.

The PSV man’s last international goal came in a Nations League game in November 2024.

Crystal Palace and US defender Chris Richards said the players were supporting Balogun.

“We told him we have got his back,” he said. “We are a team of 26, not just one.

“Ultimately we are going to miss him for the next game but we know whoever is going to step up is going to do a job just as well as he did.

“I think it’ll keep us stronger. One man is down, the next guy steps up. We are a team, we are more than just one player, we are more than just 11 players.”

Pochettino added: “When Balogun received the red card, I thought that is the moment we need to show we are a team and the eyes of the players were [saying], ‘Coach, we are ready to go and fight’ and that is amazing.

“These guys are creating a legacy in this country and with our amazing fans everything is possible. Why not us?”

The United States is expected to formally notify its North American partners that it will not extend the United States Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA), triggering the pact’s sunset review process and beginning a potential 10-year countdown to its expiry in 2036. While the move does not immediately terminate the agreement, it opens a prolonged period of negotiations during which the three countries will seek to resolve disputes over automotive rules, regional manufacturing, market access and measures to prevent Chinese goods from benefiting from preferential trade provisions.

The decision reflects the Trump administration’s push to reshape North American trade around greater US manufacturing content and stricter supply chain rules rather than preserving the agreement in its current form.

Sunset clause launches a decade of negotiations

The notification activates the USMCA’s sunset review mechanism, requiring annual consultations if no agreement is reached to renew the pact for another 16 years. Rather than ending the agreement immediately, the process creates a structured but uncertain negotiation period that could last until the agreement expires in 2036 unless the three countries reach a revised deal.

The review mechanism is intended to keep the agreement under continuous assessment but also introduces long-term uncertainty for businesses operating across North America.

Washington pushes for tougher automotive rules

The United States is seeking significant changes to the agreement’s rules of origin, particularly in the automotive sector. Washington wants a substantially larger share of vehicle components to be produced in the United States while increasing overall North American content requirements to reduce dependence on Asian supply chains.

The proposals form part of a broader industrial strategy aimed at strengthening domestic manufacturing, creating more US jobs and preventing third-country producers, particularly China, from indirectly accessing preferential North American trade benefits.

US and Mexico lead negotiations while Canada remains sidelined

Current negotiations are taking place primarily between Washington and Mexico, with Canada playing a more limited role amid ongoing bilateral trade disputes with the United States.

The narrower negotiating format highlights differing priorities within the three-country partnership and raises questions about whether a comprehensive trilateral agreement can be achieved without parallel negotiations involving Ottawa.

Trade policy reflects broader supply chain strategy

The proposed revisions extend beyond traditional tariff issues and reflect a wider effort to reorganise North American manufacturing. By tightening content requirements and strengthening origin rules, the United States aims to encourage companies to relocate production closer to home while limiting opportunities for Chinese manufacturers to circumvent trade restrictions through regional supply chains.

This shift illustrates how trade policy has become increasingly intertwined with industrial policy and national economic security objectives.

Businesses face prolonged policy uncertainty

The activation of the sunset clause is unlikely to disrupt trade immediately, but it introduces a prolonged period of uncertainty for manufacturers, exporters and investors whose operations depend on integrated North American supply chains.

Companies may delay long-term investment decisions until greater clarity emerges on future tariff structures, production requirements and the overall direction of regional trade policy.

Future Outlook

Negotiations are expected to intensify over the coming months as the United States continues pressing for stricter manufacturing rules and stronger regional content requirements. While Mexico appears willing to negotiate toward shared industrial objectives, Canada’s future role remains less certain given unresolved bilateral trade disputes.

Unless the three countries reach a mutually acceptable compromise, the USMCA could remain under annual review for the next decade, prolonging uncertainty for businesses while reshaping North America’s manufacturing landscape. The outcome of these negotiations will likely determine not only the future of the trade agreement but also the competitiveness of regional supply chains and the balance between economic integration and national industrial policy.

With information from Reuters.

The United States’ head of homeland security said he “danced a happy dance” when Iran were eliminated from the World Cup.

Iran missed out on qualifying from the group stage on goal difference after having a stoppage-time winner against Egypt disallowed for a marginal offside.

Coach Amir Ghalenoei said his team were the “most oppressed” at the tournament amid the backdrop of the country’s conflict with the US and Israel.

Iran’s training base was switched from Arizona to Tijuana in Mexico before the World Cup began and they faced travel restrictions throughout.

Despite Saturday’s 1-1 draw with Egypt, Iran still had a chance of qualifying as one of the eight best third-placed teams.

But their elimination was confirmed when Algeria and Austria played out a dramatic 3-3 draw on Sunday.

Speaking to reporters on Monday, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin said: “I’m just glad they’re done, and they’re not coming back.

“I was so happy when we were able to pull their visas and said they could leave the US soil, and I might’ve sung a song or two or maybe even danced a happy dance.”

He added: “There wasn’t a single team that we had to spend more time dealing with than Iran.”

Iran were only permitted to enter the US the day before their first two matches and had to leave on the same day as the game, under the terms of their visas.

Those restrictions were eased for their final group game in Seattle, allowing them to arrive two days early, but they again had to return to Tijuana after Saturday’s match.

Iran coach Ghalenoei said that the US, co-hosts of the World Cup with Canada and Mexico, had “treated us very unfairly” and that his squad had been given “less than half” the training window it needed to prepare.

Iran captain Mehdi Taremi added: “This kind of tension undermines the joy of the World Cup. I felt the tension from the first moment we arrived.”

The international order is falling apart, happening visibly, rapidly, and in ways that no longer surprise even the most committed defenders of the post-1945 liberal framework. The United Nations Security Council has not been able to do anything about the problems in Gaza and Ukraine. The group of countries known as BRICS is getting bigger. Now has nine members. Some countries in the Gulf are thinking about using a currency to price oil instead of using the US dollar. All of these things are putting a lot of pressure on the system that the United States has been in charge of.

Many people in the Global South think this is a thing. They do not think the United States has been fair in the way it has enforced the rules. They think the United States has only looked out for its interests and the interests of its friends. This is not a thing to say. The United States has been inconsistent in the way it has applied the rules about weapons, sanctions, and international crime.

The problem is that just because the old system is falling apart, it does not mean that something better will take its place. The question is not whether the United States is losing its power because it is clear that this is happening. The question is what will happen next. Will the new system be fair, more stable, and better at dealing with global problems?

The Architecture of Decline

The truth is that the United States has been losing its power for a time, but this has happened much faster since 2022. When Russia invaded Ukraine, it showed that big countries can still go to war with each other. It also showed that the United States and its friends cannot stop this from happening. The war in Ukraine has led to the use of financial sanctions in history, with over $300 billion in Russian assets being frozen.

This has made other countries want to reduce their dependence on the US dollar. They are afraid that if they rely much on the United States, they will be vulnerable to its power. According to International Monetary Fund estimates, the group of countries known as BRICS has expanded to include Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Iran, Ethiopia, and Egypt. This group now accounts for over 40 percent of the economy. The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation has also gotten bigger. Now includes Pakistan, India, and Iran in addition to Russia and China. This organization is now the regional security group in the world. These changes are not just symbolic; they show a shift in where power is concentrated in the world.

New Poles, Old Problems

The problem with a world is that it does not necessarily mean that things will be more fair or more stable. In the century Europe had a multipolar system, but it still had many wars. The same thing happened in the 20th century. Just because there are powerful countries does not mean that they will behave in a certain way.

The problem with a world is that it does not necessarily mean that things will be more fair or more stable. In the century Europe had a multipolar system, but it still had many wars. The same thing happened in the 20th century. Just because there are powerful countries does not mean that they will behave in a certain way.

The Institutional Vacuum

The biggest risk of the situation is that the international institutions that we have will become useless. The United Nations Security Council has not been able to do anything about the security crises of the past few years. The World Trade Organization is also not working properly.

When powerful countries use these institutions for their purposes, it undermines their legitimacy. This is a problem because it means that smaller countries will suffer the most. The rules of law are only useful if they are applied equally to everyone.

The Global South’s Strategic Dilemma

For countries in the Global South, the transition to a world is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it gives them space to maneuver and more access to financing for infrastructure projects. On the other hand, it also means that they will have to navigate a more complex and uncertain world.

The best way forward is to try to shape the transition to a world in a way that preserves the international institutions that we have. This means reforming the United Nations Security Council to make it more representative of the world. It also means strengthening the courts and the World Trade Organization.

Towards a Legitimate Multipolarity

This will not be easy. It is necessary. If we do not do this, we risk creating a world where might makes right. There is no shared set of rules to govern the behavior of states. This would be a disaster for everyone, for the smallest and weakest countries.

The multipolar world may signal the end of the order, but it does not have to mean the end of order itself. We have to work to create a system that is fairer, more stable, and more just.

In May 2026, just hours before President Donald Trump met President Xi Jinping, OpenAI’s Vice President of Global Affairs Chris Lehane floated the idea of a US-led global governance body for artificial intelligence that would include China as a member. The model, according to media reports, was compared to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a familiar reference for managing strategic technologies with global consequences.

One month later, at the G7 summit in Évian-les-Bains, a different tone emerged. Several influential AI executives joined leaders from advanced economies to discuss AI governance, online safety, and global security. According to Axios, Anthropic’s Dario Amodei and Google DeepMind’s Demis Hassabis leaned towards a more selective framework among democratic countries, while OpenAI’s Sam Altman used broader language, calling for an international forum to develop shared testing standards and risk assessments.

These two moments reveal something important: the meaning of “global AI governance” remains unsettled. In one setting, global means including China for legitimacy. In another, it can mean a trusted coalition designed to manage access, capability, and strategic risk. AI governance is becoming part of the architecture of global power.

Three Voices, Different Emphases

Their presence at the G7 showed how quickly AI firms have moved from building systems to helping shape the politics around them. The leaders of OpenAI, Anthropic, Google DeepMind, Mistral, Cohere, and other firms were not simply observers of geopolitics. They were part of the conversation about how technological power should be governed.

Their positions were not identical. Amodei reportedly urged democratic countries to coordinate more closely so that AI governance would not fragment. Hassabis stressed the strategic importance of frontier capability. Altman, by contrast, used more institutionally neutral language, suggesting that advanced AI should not be shaped only by the companies building the most capable systems.

Even among frontier AI developers, there is no settled imagination of global governance. Should it include all major AI powers, including strategic rivals? Should it be built around trusted coalitions? Should it prioritize safety, democratic values, geopolitical advantage, or public legitimacy?

The question became more complicated because the G7 discussions came shortly after the US government imposed export controls that forced Anthropic to suspend foreign access to its Fable 5 and Mythos 5 models. Reuters reported that the order required Anthropic to block access to the models for foreign nationals, leading the company to disable them more broadly to ensure compliance. The episode showed how frontier AI governance can move from abstract principles to abrupt restrictions. Even among democratic allies, technological solidarity has limits. When AI becomes strategic infrastructure, every country begins to think about its own room for maneuver.

The Asymmetry of “Global”

The deeper issue lies in who has the power to define the word “global” in the first place. In May, global governance could mean a US-led institution that includes China. In June, it could mean coordination among democracies to manage frontier capability and strategic access. The definition changed because the political room changed.

This reveals a double asymmetry. The first is technical: only a small number of firms can define what counts as a frontier model, how its capabilities should be tested, and who should be allowed to access it. The second is narrative: the same ecosystem also helps frame the language through which the world discusses governance.

For countries outside the frontier AI circle, they may be invited to conversations but not always to the stage where categories, thresholds, and governance priorities are first shaped. They may be asked to adopt best practices whose assumptions were formed elsewhere. They may be told that risks are global, even when preparedness remains highly unequal.

G7 outreach to partner countries such as India, Brazil, Kenya, South Korea, and Egypt is important. It recognizes that AI governance cannot remain a conversation among advanced economies alone. Yet there remains a difference between being present in a forum and helping design the architecture of the forum itself. The question is who defines the table, the agenda, the risk categories, and the meaning of global governance itself.

When the AI Frontier Moves Towards the Market

There is another reason why a broader governance imagination is necessary. Frontier AI innovation is no longer centered primarily in universities or public research institutions. It is increasingly shaped by private firms with the capital, compute, talent, data access, and infrastructure required to train and deploy the most capable models.

Stanford’s AI Index 2025 noted that nearly 90 per cent of notable AI models in 2024 came from industry, up from 60 per cent in 2023. A report prepared for the European Economic and Social Committee on generative AI and foundation models also described significant US dominance across the value chain. These findings point to a structural shift: the frontier is becoming more concentrated, more expensive, and more closely tied to corporate and geopolitical capacity.

Much of AI’s progress has come from companies willing to take risks, scale products, and build technical capability at extraordinary speed. But the center of gravity has shifted. When frontier AI is largely financed, defined, and deployed by market actors, the default imagination of AI development can tilt towards commercial viability, platform advantage, user growth, and strategic positioning.

Public interest does not disappear in such a system. It risks becoming secondary unless other actors are strong enough to bring it back into the room.

Open Future, a European digital policy organization, has warned that concentrations of power in AI can make public activities dependent on “a narrow group of monopolists.” The phrase matters because infrastructure-level dependency can weaken society’s ability to negotiate the terms of the technologies it relies on.

A Wider Public-Interest Layer

In a multiplex digital world, power does not flow only through states or markets. It also moves through universities, civil society organizations, professional associations, media, labor groups, open-source communities, public-interest technologists, and moral institutions. Together, these actors form the society layer often missing from discussions dominated by states and markets.

States define security priorities. Companies define technical possibility. Society must help test legitimacy. Who bears the risk? Who benefits from deployment? Who is excluded from design? What harms are being normalized because they are commercially convenient or geopolitically useful?

This is why Pope Leo XIV’s recent intervention on AI is politically relevant beyond its religious context. In his encyclical Magnifica Humanitas, he argues that protecting the human person in the age of AI requires renewed reflection on the common good, solidarity, social justice, and human dignity. Such interventions will not replace regulation or technical standards. They help recover a truth easily lost in frontier AI politics: governance is also about preserving the human meaning of technological progress.

The same question of authorship is beginning to appear in empirical research. Ongoing fieldwork-based research at the University of Oxford has started to examine whether countries in the Global South are developing approaches to AI governance that are neither simple copies of Western regulatory templates nor rejections of international cooperation but pragmatic syntheses shaped by local institutional capacity, regulatory sequencing, and historical experience with technology transfer. Indonesia has appeared as one of the country cases in this line of inquiry.

Governance models worth studying are not only those negotiated in Évian, Brussels, Washington, or New York. They are also being improvised, often informally, by mid-sized digital economies navigating dependency and ambition at the same time.

The United Nations’ Global Digital Compact (GDC), adopted in September 2024, offers a useful multilateral reference point. It frames digital cooperation and AI governance around inclusion, human rights, open standards, interoperability, digital public goods, and multi-stakeholder cooperation. The Compact does not resolve the power asymmetries of frontier AI by itself, but it gives societies, alongside states and firms, a language for claiming a legitimate role in digital governance.

The practical task is to strengthen public-interest evaluation: the ability to test social impact, language bias, local risks, institutional misuse, and deployment consequences in different societies. The aim is to preserve enough room for public reasoning so that the future of AI is not defined only by those with the largest models, the biggest markets, or the strongest strategic leverage.

Imagining a More Inclusive AI Governance

The lesson from the IAEA analogy and the G7 discussions is not that one model is right and the other is wrong. Both reflect real concerns. A broadly inclusive governance arrangement may be necessary for legitimacy, especially when AI risks cross borders. A trusted coalition may also be necessary when capability access raises genuine security concerns. The problem begins when either model claims to be global while leaving too many societies downstream of decisions made elsewhere.

For emerging economies, the strategic challenge is not simply to wait for a better invitation to the next summit. Participation matters, but it is not enough. Countries and societies need stronger capacity to evaluate AI systems, understand their dependencies, articulate local risks, and negotiate governance terms with greater confidence.

This is a call for a more plural architecture of governance, where states, markets, and society all have meaningful roles. The uncomfortable question is not whether AI requires international coordination. It clearly does. The harder question is whether that coordination can remain open enough for societies, not only states and companies, to shape the terms of technological power.

In the age of frontier AI, the future will not be determined only by who builds the largest models. It will also be shaped by who gets to define risk, test systems, question assumptions, and decide what counts as progress.

Every era that has tried to govern a transformative technology eventually learns the same lesson: legitimacy borrowed from power is not the same as legitimacy earned through participation. The IAEA’s own history shows that global trust is rarely built at the moment institutions are created; it is earned over time, through broader representation, credible restraint, and shared accountability. The real question for AI governance is whether it can shorten that distance by design, rather than waiting for legitimacy to arrive only after contestation.

Artificial intelligence is increasingly being used in the military for planning and operations as a decision support tool at multiple stages. The US’s use of Anthropic’s Claude model against Iran marks a significant moment in the history of warfare. Integrated via Palantir’s Maven Smart System, AI-supported intelligence analysis, target identification, and operational simulations enabled planners to process information faster than human capabilities. While analysts have framed this as an “AI war,” the more significant shift lies in the growing influence of algorithmic systems in shaping military decision-making architectures.

Admiral Brad Cooper, who led Operation Epic Fury, said that AI systems processed massive amounts of intelligence and surveillance data, allowing commanders to gain insights within seconds. This is part of a wider movement to shift more complex intelligence tasks to algorithmic systems, raising questions about transparency, oversight, and reliance on algorithmic assessments.

This is also observed in other conflict zones, but in different operational roles. In Gaza, Israel’s Lavender system, developed by Unit 8200, assisted in the targeting of 37,000 suspected individuals, based on reported affiliations, using AI. Structural strikes and real-time tracking were made possible through the use of additional tools like “The Gospel” and “Where’s Daddy?” These systems reduced human review into quick, seconds-long “stamp of approval” decisions, moving targeting to machine-driven validation. In Ukraine, AI tools were used to assist in drone operations and battlefield analysis by training datasets. Initial programs, like Project Maven, relied on manually labeling 150,000 images. Currently, the Brave1 has enabled over 100 defense-tech firms to train combat AI on millions of annotated images from ongoing missions to improve these AI models.

The modern battlefield produces unprecedented volumes of data from interwoven sensor networks, drones, satellite imagery, and localized communications streams. This information comes at high speed and volume, which can overload the human brain. AI is being used to deal with this information overload, but there are concerns about the accuracy of AI-driven assessments and how much human oversight might be required to rely on AI. Military officials emphasize that humans have the final authority, but systematic integration poses challenges to oversight quality. The other predicament is automation bias, a psychological phenomenon in which a human operator, particularly under pressure or high stress, is likely to rely on the system’s recommendations. Therefore, striking a balance between speed and responsibility, ethical judgment, and accountability in the use of force is a key challenge.

Another area of concern pertains to legal and ethical issues. International humanitarian law is based on the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution. With the growing use of AI in military operations, it becomes more difficult to apply these principles, thereby making accountability and scrutiny more difficult. The International Committee of the Red Cross has warned that, when algorithmic systems provide input for analysis, targeting, or operational planning, it is hard to assign responsibility for any errors. Even with humans “in the loop,” the black-box nature of machine learning limits transparency and complicates legal review. It is not just a theoretical problem; it has been seen in practice. In the early US campaign against Iran, an AI-assisted missile struck a girls’ school near an IRGC compound, killing 120 children, likely due to a classification error. Anthropic’s CEO’s admission of limited awareness over Claude’s use in the strike highlights a broader issue. AI developers are fully aware of the risks associated with delegating autonomous functions to AI, yet they continue to promote its adoption. As AI assumes greater decision-making roles, concerns over misidentification and the possibility of AI acting against human directives are often overshadowed by narratives emphasizing its benefits.

For Pakistan, these developments are neither distant nor theoretical. In a region where crises can escalate quickly, AI-enabled decision support offers advantages but also carries risks. It improves situational awareness and accelerates analysis but compresses decision time, limits verification, and heightens the risk of miscalculation. Considering both, Pakistan is accelerating efforts to build AI capacity and strengthen its supporting infrastructure. At the policy level, this translates to a recognition that successful adoption is not just about adopting algorithms but about enhancing data governance, institutional maturity, and a skilled workforce capable of embedding AI into decision-making processes. Thus, Pakistan’s approach remains focused on leveraging AI to bolster human judgment in intelligence fusion, surveillance, logistics, and cyber defense.

There is a clear lesson from the academic literature and initial operational experience: algorithmic systems are transforming military information processing. However, as their role in decision-making grows, they also entail bias, error propagation, lack of transparency, and overreliance on machine-generated recommendations. AI, therefore, must be used as a support system, with humans retaining final decision-making responsibility. This requires investment in training, auditability, and institutional safeguards to ensure that human decision-makers are meaningfully engaged, rather than merely present in form. The future of warfare will likely be defined not by machines acting alone, but by humans making increasingly time-pressured decisions shaped by machine-generated insights. The central strategic challenge is not whether to adopt algorithmic tools, but how to ensure that their speed never outpaces sound judgment.

It seems “Love Island USA” producers pulled one bombshell aside for a chat, one that has led to her firing from the hit reality dating series.

Contestant Alannah Keyser’s time in Fiji has officially come to an end as she faces backlash for apparently using a racial slur in a video and social media comments that recently resurfaced on social media. “Love Island USA” streamer Peacock confirmed to The Times on Friday that Keyser, a film student at USC from Miami, will no longer appear on the series. She is the second contestant Peacock dismissed this season over a racial slur scandal.

Keyser made her “Love Island USA” debut last week as one of the six women hopeful to strike up a connection with the male contestants in Casa Amor, testing the men’s relationship with their partners back in the villa. Keyser appeared to pair up with contestant Zach Georgiou. In her debut episode, she informed Georgiou she had a brief romance with his older brother Charlie, a previous “Love Island USA” contestant.

“Love Island USA” parted ways with contestant Alannah Keyser after she used a racial slur in social media comments and posts.

(Ben Symons / Peacock)

She faced allegations of racism amid her first “Love Island USA” episode when a social media user surfaced screenshots of Keyser allegedly using the N-word on Snapchat and Instagram. A user on X (formerly Twitter) also published video of Keyser seemingly saying the slur as she sings along to Roddy Ricch’s “The Box” at a party. Some viewers — and other contestants on the series — also observed that Keyser interacted less with the Black men on the series in her debut episode.

A source familiar with “Love Island USA” production said the controversial video and posts only became public on social media after Keyser’s first episode and that the posts were not viewable during the series’ vetting process. Peacock confirmed Kesyer’s firing hours after the U.S. Sun reported her exit and minimized screen time. “Producers were disappointed and embarrassed that this has become another mishap,” a source told the outlet.

Keyser did not immediately respond to a request for comment via social media.

Keyser is the fourth “Love Island USA” contestant in two years to face scrutiny for her past use of racial slurs. Earlier this month, Peacock pulled beauty technician Vasana Montgomery from its Season 8 lineup before the season started. Last year, contestant Cierra Ortega prematurely left the villa as she faced criticism for her past social media posts that included a slur for Chinese (and, more generally, Asian) people. A month before that, contestant Yulissa Escobar was dismissed by the season’s second episode amid social media outcry over her use of the N-word.

Those three contestants have since publicly apologized for their posts.

The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz has restored the flow of oil and natural gas after more than 100 days of disruption, but the crisis has already left a lasting mark on global energy markets. The prolonged closure exposed the vulnerability of the world’s energy supply chain and has prompted governments to reconsider how they secure fuel supplies.

Analysts say the crisis mirrors the impact of the 1973 Arab oil embargo, which transformed global energy policy by encouraging conservation, diversification, and strategic stockpiling. While today’s energy system proved more resilient, the Hormuz disruption may accelerate a broader shift away from fossil fuels.

What Happened?

The Strait of Hormuz, through which nearly 20 percent of global oil and liquefied natural gas supplies normally pass, remained effectively closed for more than three months during the US Israeli conflict with Iran.

Despite the disruption, global markets avoided a severe supply crisis through rapid rerouting of cargoes, the release of strategic reserves, reduced Chinese imports, and shifting demand patterns.

However, analysts say these emergency measures were only temporary. Energy inventories fell sharply during the crisis, and markets were approaching a critical point before shipping resumed.

Why the Crisis Matters

The Hormuz disruption demonstrated that even today’s highly interconnected global energy system remains vulnerable to geopolitical conflict.

Unlike previous crises, the world avoided a complete energy collapse because governments, traders, and shipping companies quickly adapted. Nevertheless, the episode exposed the limits of those emergency responses and reinforced concerns about overreliance on a single strategic chokepoint.

The crisis is expected to influence long term energy investment decisions far beyond the Middle East.

Lessons From the 1973 Oil Embargo

The 1973 Arab oil embargo fundamentally changed global energy policy after oil producing nations restricted exports to countries supporting Israel during the Yom Kippur War.

The embargo caused oil prices to surge, triggering inflation and prompting governments to adopt fuel efficiency standards, develop domestic oil production, establish strategic petroleum reserves, and create the International Energy Agency.

Rather than ending fossil fuel use, the crisis encouraged countries to consume energy more efficiently while reducing dependence on imported oil.

A New Energy Strategy Emerges

The Hormuz crisis appears to be driving another major strategic shift, particularly across Asia.

Countries heavily dependent on Middle Eastern oil and gas are increasingly prioritizing energy security over low fuel costs. Governments are expected to expand strategic petroleum reserves while accelerating investment in domestic renewable energy, nuclear power, and alternative fuel sources.

India, Pakistan, Japan, and South Korea are among the countries reviewing long term strategies aimed at reducing exposure to overseas energy disruptions.

Europe Continues Its Energy Transition

Europe entered the Hormuz crisis after already reshaping its energy system following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

The loss of Russian energy supplies forced European countries to cut gas consumption, diversify imports, and rapidly expand renewable energy capacity.

The latest Middle East disruption is expected to reinforce that trend by encouraging further investment in clean energy and energy efficiency while reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels.

Investment Trends Support the Shift

Global investment patterns already suggest that energy markets are evolving.

According to the International Energy Agency, worldwide energy investment is projected to reach 3.4 trillion dollars this year, with much of the growth directed toward renewable energy, electricity infrastructure, battery storage, and grid resilience rather than new oil production.

Electric vehicle sales continue to rise rapidly across Europe, Latin America, and Asia Pacific, while Chinese solar panel exports have surged across Africa and Southeast Asia.

Governments are also increasing spending on energy efficiency, with around 20 countries introducing new conservation measures directly in response to the Hormuz crisis.

Why It Matters

The Hormuz crisis has reinforced that energy security is becoming just as important as energy affordability.

Rather than relying solely on global oil markets, governments are increasingly pursuing diversified energy systems that combine fossil fuels with renewables, nuclear power, strategic reserves, and domestic production.

This transition is expected to influence investment, industrial policy, and international trade for years to come.

Future Outlook

Oil and natural gas are expected to remain central to the global economy for decades, particularly in transportation, manufacturing, aviation, and power generation.

However, future growth in fossil fuel demand may become significantly slower as governments invest more heavily in renewable energy, electric vehicles, battery storage, and efficiency improvements.

The Hormuz crisis may ultimately be remembered not as the event that ended the oil era, but as the moment many countries accelerated preparations for a more diversified energy future.

Implications

The Hormuz crisis is likely to have consequences that extend far beyond the immediate recovery in oil and gas flows. Governments that experienced supply disruptions are expected to place greater emphasis on energy security, even if it comes at a higher economic cost. This could accelerate the expansion of strategic petroleum reserves, diversify import sources, and increase investment in domestic energy production, including renewables, nuclear power, and critical energy infrastructure.

For oil exporters in the Gulf, the crisis may strengthen the case for developing alternative export routes that bypass the Strait of Hormuz, reducing dependence on a single maritime chokepoint. Import dependent economies, particularly across Asia, are also likely to rethink long term procurement strategies by securing more flexible supply contracts and expanding storage capacity.

Financial markets are also expected to assign a higher geopolitical risk premium to energy prices. Even after shipping has resumed, investors may continue to price in the possibility of future disruptions, increasing volatility across oil, gas, shipping, and insurance markets. The crisis could also accelerate capital flows into technologies that reduce dependence on imported fossil fuels, including electric vehicles, battery storage, hydrogen, and energy efficiency.

Analysis

The Hormuz crisis may ultimately prove more significant for what it revealed than for the physical disruption it caused. Although global energy markets demonstrated remarkable resilience, that resilience depended on temporary measures such as drawing down inventories, rerouting cargoes, reducing consumption, and relying on spare production capacity. These mechanisms bought time rather than solving the underlying vulnerability of the global energy system.

Unlike the 1973 Arab oil embargo, which primarily forced consuming nations to improve efficiency while expanding fossil fuel production elsewhere, today’s crisis occurred at a time when commercially competitive alternatives to oil and gas already exist. Renewable energy, electric vehicles, battery storage, and advanced power grids have matured into viable strategic assets rather than purely environmental investments. As a result, governments are increasingly viewing clean energy not only as a climate policy but also as a national security priority.

Another important distinction is the shift in investment behavior. Historically, supply disruptions often encouraged greater investment in oil exploration and production. Following the Hormuz crisis, however, a growing share of capital is moving toward energy diversification instead of simply increasing fossil fuel output. This suggests policymakers increasingly see reducing oil dependence as a more sustainable way to improve resilience than expanding strategic reserves alone.

The crisis also exposed a structural imbalance in global energy markets. While production remains concentrated in politically sensitive regions, demand growth is increasingly centered in Asia, leaving major importers highly exposed to geopolitical instability. Countries such as India, Pakistan, Japan, and South Korea may therefore pursue parallel strategies of securing diversified hydrocarbon supplies while rapidly expanding domestic renewable generation, nuclear power, and energy storage.

Perhaps the most important takeaway is that energy security has overtaken cost as the dominant driver of policy decisions. For decades, governments largely optimized their energy systems for affordability and efficiency. The Hormuz disruption demonstrated that the cheapest energy source can quickly become the most expensive if geopolitical events interrupt supply. That realization is likely to reshape government policy, corporate investment, and global energy trade for years to come.

The crisis does not signal the immediate end of the oil era. Oil and natural gas will remain indispensable for transportation, petrochemicals, aviation, heavy industry, and electricity generation in many regions. However, it may represent an inflection point where the trajectory of fossil fuel demand begins to flatten as countries systematically reduce their strategic dependence on imported hydrocarbons. In that sense, the Hormuz crisis could be remembered less as an energy supply shock and more as the catalyst that accelerated the next phase of the global energy transition.

With information from Reuters.