war

I rose from my living room couch before Mexico’s World Cup match against Czechia when the Telemundo announcer stated it was time for the Mexican national anthem.

The public address system at Azteca Stadium in Mexico City played a short string intro. My back straightened. I pressed my right hand against my chest horizontally in the traditional gesture that accompanies the tune. And then I recited the opening lyrics to a song I’ve heard all my life but that I only began committing to memory this month:

Mexicanos al grito de guerra/El acero aprestad y bridón/Y retiemble en sus centros la tierra/Al sonoro rugir del cañon

Those florid 19th century words — “Mexicans, at the cry of war/Ready the steel and the bridle/and may the Earth tremble to its core/at the cannon’s resounding roar” — make “The Star-Spangled Banner” seem as anti-war as “Give Peace a Chance.” My kumbaya heart nevertheless jumped as the anthem continued.

Goosebumps blossomed on my skin as Mexico’s head coach Javier Aguirre, he of a stern face and gray haircut worthy of a drill sergeant, beamed while singing. My eyes watered as the camera panned over his arm-in-arm players as they shouted the line, “Think, o beloved homeland! That heaven/gave you a soldier in each son.”

Millions of Mexican Americans like myself have stumbled through the himno nacional during this World Cup, whereas in previous years, we might have just hummed some bars or stayed silent. It’s a boisterous way to connect with one half of our hyphenated lives and get in the right mindset to root for El Tri, but otherwise something we don’t really have to know all the way through given we’re in the U.S.

Yet seeing stadiums and bars packed with Latinos wearing the jerseys of their ancestral homes and warbling their national anthems during this World Cup has been a jolt of inspiration I wasn’t expecting. Those few minutes before each match have become a reminder of what we’re up against at this moment in the Western Hemisphere, as President Trump thirsts to smash Latin America into submission while persecuting too many of us stateside.

In downtown Santa Ana earlier this week, Alicia Rojas quietly recited Colombia’s national anthem word for word before a game against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, even though she was just one of a handful of Colombian fans at Chapter One: The Modern Bistro.

“It reconnects me to my roots, my family and the memories of home,” said Rojas, who was born in Bogotá and moved to the U.S. at age 12. The artist has helped to organize against federal immigration raids in Orange County and volunteers for local political races. “Those few minutes remind me that beyond our differences, we share a history, a culture and a love for the land that made us who we are.”

Latinos are a famously divided bunch, to the point that we don’t even like a catch-all label for “us.” A 2024 Pew Research Center survey found that 52% of Latinos prefer to refer to themselves by their family’s country of origin, while only 30% identify as Hispanic or Latino and just 17% use plain ol’ American.

One thing that can unite us all — and all lovers of liberty, for that matter — is those Latin American national anthems. Many were written in the aftermath of wars for independence. Most are bright, rousing listens, even if you don’t understand Spanish, because their chords reflect the Romantic classical music popular at the time of their composition in the 19th century. All call for their countrymen to fight against tyranny.

Fans cheer after Lionel Messi scores a goal against Algeria during a World Cup watch party at Mercado Buenos Aires on Tuesday, June 16 in Van Nuys.

(Ronaldo Bolaños/Los Angeles Times)

Cue up this soundtrack for your summer:

Paraguay’s national anthem starts by stating that the people of the Americas were “oppressed for three centuries” until they rebelled. Ecuador’s recalls how its founding fathers “cried out a holy voice to the heavens/that noble voice of a unbreakable pledge/to defeat that [Spanish] monster of blood.” Colombia’s similarly doesn’t shy away from how violent its fight for independence was, but takes solace that “in furrows of pain/good now germinates.”

On and on, these songs stir the soul. Argentina: “Hear the sound of broken chains/See noble equality enthroned.” Uruguay: “Tyrants: Tremble!/We shall cry out ‘Liberty’ in battle!” — a boast backed by flutes and violins that make it sound like a Rossini overture. I especially like how Panama’s national anthem concludes by urging “shovel and pick/to work without delay” — a reminder that the job of creating a better society is never done.

Conservatives have, unsurprisingly, long railed at the very idea of singing the national anthems of other countries on American soil. But that just reinforces Samuel Johnson’s adage that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

There’s nothing wrong with taking inspiration from the clarion calls of other countries. “O Canada” is as soaring as “God Save the King,” while revolutionaries across the world have chanted “La Marseillaise” for centuries. And yes: I sing “The Star-Spangled Banner” with all my heart as well — and I definitely know the words to it.

But the message of the U.S. national anthem isn’t enough for Latinos right now. Hailing survival against an invading force is important, but it’s a mindset too many of us have resigned ourselves to under Trump.

The theme of Latin America’s national anthems is the demand that we stand against despotism and push for a better world through sacrifice and valor. They should be a wake-up call, especially for Latinos, to lead the electoral charge against Trump this November. We helped put him in the Oval Office in 2024, and we have the power to take Congress away from his GOP vassals.

Alas, all those paeans to freedom have played out better in song than in real life. Latin America is swinging rightward again, electing presidents who promise to channel the strongmen of yore and rule the region through might, not right.

On the same night that Rojas was cheering on Colombia, she was bemoaning that her homeland had elected Abelardo de la Espriella, a millionaire criminal defense lawyer and political novice who earned Trump’s endorsement for his “tremendous accomplishments in life” — which include claiming that female voters would pick him because of the supposed size of his genitals.

We must channel the hopes and dreams of Simón Bolívar, Emiliano, Zapata, José Martí and other heroes of the Americas who fought for freedom for their countrymen, sought to cast off the long reach of colonialism and imperialism and urged pan-American alliances over forever wars.

Nothing like the World Cup’s unofficial pre-game soundtrack to reinforce this eternal, universal message.

Mexico dominated Czechia 3-0 and finished first in its group. When El Tri plays again on Tuesday in the first round of the knockout stage, I will stand at a packed Chapter One with other fans and so many more across the U.S. and sing again Mexico’s national anthem.

I will hope to have it all memorized by then instead of reading off my smartphone — the thing is hard! The Spanish is archaic, the intonations are complicated, and the words tumble over themselves like a hard charge toward the goal posts.

But I will do it — a little victory in the long battle for freedom that never ends.

Doha, Qatar – Gulf states have welcomed a breakthrough agreement between the United States and Iran to end a war they never wanted.

Six countries – Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman – form the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), which was created in 1981 following fears of the perceived expansionist ambitions of the new Iranian government.

Since the 1979 Islamic revolution, Israel has attempted to isolate Iran and its wide network of regional proxy groups. But in a twist of irony, Israeli aggression in this pursuit has pushed some Gulf states closer to Tehran.

When Israel and the US launched strikes on Iran on February 28 – and Tehran responded by attacking Gulf states – they were again forced to reassess their relationship with their neighbour.

Gulf relations with Iran, at present, appear more shaped by realism than reconciliation, but this approach could help them navigate the uncertain road ahead.

“The ongoing conflict … compelled the Gulf states to pursue a more pragmatic relationship with Tehran, one that will include enhanced dialogue to deter conflict,” Farah al-Qawasmi, a researcher at the Gulf Studies Center at Qatar University, told Al Jazeera.

Embracing de-escalation – not Iran

All six GCC member states have welcomed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed by Iran and the US last week. But this is shaped more by the Gulf states wanting the war to end rather than a newfound trust of Iran.

“An agreement between the two parties is being [highly] advocated by the Gulf states in [an] attempt to prevent and contain regional conflicts,” al-Qawasmi said.

Shortly after the US and Iran agreed in 2015 to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – putting guardrails on Tehran’s nuclear programme – Gulf states remained sceptical about their neighbour.

The current war has only heightened these suspicions, but it has also seen regional states seek diplomacy with Tehran rather than military confrontation, despite Iran directly attacking Gulf cities.

“The Gulf states still feel like diplomacy is better than using force to get a deal … to change Iran’s behaviour and to insulate them from Iran’s destabilising actions,” Rob Geist Pinfold, a lecturer on security studies at King’s College London, told Al Jazeera.

Pinfold points out that Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz via drones and missiles, not nuclear weapons, making dealing with that threat a priority for Gulf states rather than Tehran’s nuclear programme.

Gulf states will want a more comprehensive agreement between Iran and the US, rather than the nuclear-focused JCPOA, said Pinfold.

“If you talk to people in Gulf capitals, they will tell you that the nuclear programme is a tomorrow problem for them,” he said.

“The today problem is Iran’s use of drones and proxies to destabilise and undermine the sovereignty of Gulf states, but also states throughout the region.”

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s three-day tour of the Gulf, which ends Thursday, is seen as a way of allaying these fears and assuring the GCC that Tehran will not be strengthened by the agreement.

Seat at the table

Mehran Haghirian, the director of research and programmes at the Bourse & Bazaar Foundation, believes Gulf states are in a better position to guide the outcome of the current US-Iran talks than in 2015.

“They are at the heart of the negotiations,” Haghirian said regarding the Gulf states’ role in the current talks.

In its role as a co-mediator, Qatar is essentially representing the GCC and their interests during the talks, while articles five and six of the Iran-US MoU place Gulf states at the centre of the agreement.

Among the biggest concerns for the GCC are the future of the Strait of Hormuz, with Tehran demanding tolls on shipping, and calls for the creation of a regional investment fund for Iran.

“There really cannot be any new Hormuz authority by Iran that would not include other GCC countries,” Haghirian told Al Jazeera.

US Vice President JD Vance claimed last week that the investment fund would be financed by the Gulf coalition, but Rubio said this week that regional allies would not be asked to contribute to any reconstruction fund for Iran.

Qatar’s Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani has described the reported $300bn figure as “aspirational” in an interview with the Financial Times, while no Gulf state has yet said if it will contribute to the fund.

‘Maximum pressure era’

The analysts stress that the GCC is not a monolith – with Gulf states having contrasting and changing approaches towards Iran.

Oman, Qatar and Kuwait were broadly supportive of the JCPOA. Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain were more sceptical, but even these states publicly backed the agreement, said Haghirian.

When Trump pulled the US out of the JCPOA in 2018, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain believed they had “found a partner in DC”.

That led to a “maximum pressure era” that brought a period of brinkmanship in the region, said Haghirian.

Suspected Iran-linked attacks on Saudi Arabia’s Abqaiq-Khurais oil facilities and vessels off the coast of Fujairah in 2019 were “the initial reaction by the Iranians to that maximum pressure” campaign, he added, but paradoxically, this also triggered a recalibration of relations.

The UAE and Iran restored ties in 2022, and a China-brokered Saudi-Iran agreement took place in 2023.

“That was enough of a reason for Saudi Arabia [and] the UAE, particularly, to basically restructure their approach towards Iran,” Haghirian said.

The war and accelerated pragmatic rapprochement

While Israel has used war to attempt to increase its presence in the Gulf region – reportedly sending an Iron Dome battery to the UAE – other Gulf states view both Iran and Israel as unsettling forces in the region.

“Israel started the war, which was a destabilising act, and then Iran escalated by targeting the Gulf states, which was in turn a destabilising act,” Pinfold said.

Despite this, the Gulf states targeted by Iran still demonstrated patience and pragmatism in dealing with their neighbour.

Qatar, for example, has played a leading role in mediating between the US and Iran, even after being on the receiving end of Iranian drone and missile attacks.

“All six got attacked, and that’s really a level of foreign policy decision-making that is very difficult for any state to be able to really undertake, considering the fact that it was a military attack,” Haghirian said.

“But again, this pragmatism came out within this context to engage Iran and to actually speak for themselves at these negotiations. This war has really initiated a complete rebalancing of the entire region.”

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans who were berated by President Trump over opposition to his war in Iran held a late-night vote Wednesday to try to appease him, rejecting a war powers resolution a day after a similar measure passed.

Trump harangued GOP senators face to face earlier in the day for allowing a vote to block his war in Iran on Tuesday, further escalating a feud that has diverted GOP efforts to focus on election-year affordability issues and brought much of the chamber’s business to a halt. He exchanged particularly harsh words with Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, one of four Republicans who had voted with Democrats on the measure.

Hours later, though, Cassidy was invited to receive a personal briefing on the war at the White House from Vice President JD Vance and envoy Steve Witkoff. Cassidy then returned to the Capitol to vote against a separate but nearly identical war powers resolution.

“I want to thank Vice President Vance and Special Envoy Witkoff for the thorough briefing this afternoon on Iran. I appreciate the quick invitation to the White House to address many of my concerns,” said Cassidy, who lost reelection last month after Trump endorsed his opponent, in a post on X.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, a Republican who has repeatedly voted with Democrats to halt the war, voted present this time “to give the President more space and leverage to negotiate a lasting peace,” he said on X. The measure failed 47-50-1 just before midnight on Wednesday, and the Senate then left town for a two-week recess.

It’s unclear whether the move will be enough to appease Trump, who had called the Republicans “losers” for voting against his war and had called Cassidy a “lunatic” at the lunch after their tense exchange. But the vote was a clear signal to the president from Republican senators who still want to placate him, despite increasing tensions in recent weeks and his decision Wednesday morning to reverse himself and delay signing a housing bill that received overwhelming bipartisan support.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and a small group of his Senate GOP colleagues called Trump after the vote. Thune told reporters that the president was “pleased with the outcome.”

Trump later thanked Thune in a social media post and noted that Cassidy and Paul had switched their votes. “This vote puts Iran on notice!” he wrote.

The war powers measure blocked by the Senate on Wednesday was on a separate track from the nearly identical resolution adopted on Tuesday, which had also been passed by the House. Both votes were largely symbolic, and the measures do not carry the full force of law.

Cassidy had sharp words for Trump

Invited by Florida Sen. Rick Scott to speak at a GOP luncheon in the Capitol, Trump had signaled ahead of time that he would use the closed-door meeting to push senators to pass his proof-of-citizenship voting bill. But the conversation was more focused on Tuesday’s vote on war powers.

Most Republicans stayed quiet. But Cassidy stood up and defended his vote.

“I stood and said, ‘You have not told the American people what’s going on,’” Cassidy told reporters after the meeting. “This was supposed to last four weeks, it’s lasted four months. Our original objectives have not been achieved.”

The two men “went back and forth,” Cassidy said, and he “matched his tone and volume.” Cassidy said that he eventually de-escalated, but he did not want to be bullied.

“I am voting for war powers until I get a briefing,” he said afterward.

Trump repeatedly told Cassidy to sit down, according to a person familiar with the private meeting who was not authorized to discuss it. At one point, the president called the senator a “lunatic.”

Publicly, Trump said afterward that they had “a really great meeting.” But he hinted at the discord.

“We like everyone in the room,” Trump told reporters on his way out. “I don’t like a few people, but that’s OK.”

The luncheon capped weeks of friction between Trump and Senate Republicans and added a new layer of frustration as Tuesday’s vote was the first time the Senate had adopted a war powers resolution on the Iran war. Trump made clear he was in no mood to compromise before it even started, calling off a scheduled signing ceremony on a housing bill that passed both chambers overwhelmingly this week and that GOP lawmakers were touting as an election-year achievement.

Trump reverses on housing bill

Republican senators were eager for a conciliatory meeting with the president after escalating tensions in recent weeks. But Trump upended their plans when he declared on social media just beforehand that he wouldn’t sign the legislation until they send him the SAVE America Act, his bill to require proof of citizenship for all voters.

North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis said he doesn’t know why Trump is holding the housing bill “hostage” for the voting bill that “will never pass in this Congress.”

“It makes no sense to me,” Tillis said as he walked into the luncheon.

Thune said the housing legislation, which aims to lower costs, is “an affordability issue,” and that ”eventually I hope he finds a way to sign it.”

It’s unclear if Trump might veto the legislation or if the late Wednesday night vote will change his outlook. But by rejecting a public bill signing, Republicans worry that Trump is indicating a level of indifference to voters’ affordability concerns heading into November’s midterm elections.

Trump and Senate Republicans have been at odds

Trump’s move on the housing bill is his latest reversal after weeks of being at odds with Senate Republicans.

Trump has blocked the Senate from confirming one of his own nominees, asked them to fund parts of his White House ballroom project despite opposition and forced them to defend the Iran war even as they question the strategy and endgame.

Trump has also helped whittle down his own support in the Senate after endorsing primary challengers to two GOP incumbents who were previously reliable votes for his agenda — Cassidy and Texas Sen. John Cornyn. Both men have become more critical of Trump since losing reelection.

“If we’re going to win the midterm elections, we need to get on the same page,” Cornyn said ahead of the meeting. “We’re not on the same page now, and that I think is dangerous.”

Trump pushes Thune on SAVE America Act

Trump has pressed Republicans for months to kill the Senate filibuster and focus on the proof-of-citizenship voting bill, even though Thune has repeatedly told him that neither has the votes.

While Thune remains popular in his conference and cordial with the president, he has spent much of his time lately telling Trump what he doesn’t want to hear. Thune said Tuesday that while Trump and some in their conference want to see the voting bill pass, “it’s just not realistic.”

Thune devoted weeks of floor time to the voting bill earlier this year and has said he supports it. But he has repeatedly said there aren’t enough votes to scrap the filibuster that triggers a 60-vote threshold to pass most bills in the 53-47 Senate. And Democrats are uniformly opposed to the bill.

“I think people at some point have to come to grips with that,” Thune said.

Jalonick, Sloan, Cappelletti and Mascaro write for the Associated Press. AP writers Josh Boak and Kevin Freking contributed to this report.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has warned commercial vessels to only use routes through the Strait of Hormuz approved by Tehran, reopening a point of friction in fragile negotiations between the United States and Iran over the future of the strategic waterway.

The warning came after Oman announced a new shipping transit route through the strait on Wednesday, saying it had coordinated the route with the International Maritime Organization (IMO) as maritime traffic slowly resumes following weeks of disruption.

The dispute remains one of the unresolved issues after a memorandum of understanding (MoU) was signed by the United States and Iran last week, which largely halted hostilities in the four-month US-Israel war on Iran and which launched a 60-day negotiation process aimed at reaching a broader peace agreement.

The MoU, which includes the reopening of the strait, followed months of severe disruption to shipping after Iran effectively closed it, and the US imposed a corresponding naval blockade on Iranian ports.

Both Washington and Tehran have declared the strait open to commercial shipping, but questions remain over whether Iran will seek greater control over vessel movements, whether it will impose transit or service fees on ships using the strait following the 60-day negotiating period, and whether disagreements over the waterway could derail efforts to reach a permanent agreement altogether.

Why is the Strait of Hormuz so important?

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most strategically significant waterways, with around one-fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies normally being shipped through the narrow passage linking the Gulf to the Arabian Sea.

Bordered by Iran to the north and Oman and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to the south, the strait is only about 50km (31 miles) wide at its entrance and exit, narrowing to about 33km (21 miles) at its tightest point. Despite its width, it is deep enough to accommodate the world’s largest oil tankers.

According to the US Energy Information Administration, about 20 million barrels of oil and petroleum products transited the strait each day in 2025, representing hundreds of billions of dollars in annual energy trade.

The route is used not only by Iran but also by Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. It is also vital for global fertiliser exports, with roughly one-third of international fertiliser trade normally passing through the strait.

Because disruptions to shipping there rapidly push up global energy prices and destabilise US markets, control of the waterway has become one of Iran’s strongest sources of strategic leverage in its conflict with the US.

Why is Iran objecting to Oman’s new route?

The IRGC says Oman and the IMO announced the new shipping corridor without consulting Tehran. “Certain authorities have announced a new shipping route through the Strait of Hormuz without prior notification to or coordination with the Islamic Republic of Iran. The proposed route is unacceptable and poses serious safety risks,” the force said.

“The only authorised transit routes through the Strait of Hormuz are those designated by the Islamic Republic of Iran,” it said, adding that ships must maintain contact with the IRGC Navy while transiting the waterway.

Iran first issued its own map of acceptable routes through the strait in April, showing that ships should pass much closer to the Iranian coast than they had previously.

The IRGC’s warning came after a Liberian oil tanker passed through the strait on Thursday using a route much closer to Oman’s coastline.

Al Jazeera’s Resul Serdar, reporting from Tehran, said the IRGC appeared frustrated because the Omani route partially bypasses Iran’s direct control over shipping.

“The control of the Strait of Hormuz has been a huge leverage for Iran to put pressure on its adversaries and the global economy since the beginning of the war,” Serdar said.

Oman defended the corridor route it had announced, saying it was intended to restore safe navigation while complying with international law. Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi said Oman remained committed to ensuring freedom of navigation through the waterway and stressed that “future arrangements related to the strait do not involve imposing any transit fees”.

What does the US-Iran agreement say about the strait?

In the MoU signed last week, Iran agreed that it would “make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge, for 60 days only, from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa”.

While the agreement states that “the traffic of commercial vessels will immediately start”, it also acknowledges that demining operations will be required before normal shipping routes can fully resume, stating that “demining by the Islamic Republic of Iran will be instated within 30 days”. It also provides for discussions between Iran, Oman and other Gulf states on future arrangements for managing the waterway.

However, the memorandum does not specify what will happen after the initial 60-day period. Ali Vaez, Iran project director at the International Crisis Group, said the temporary rerouting of vessels had always been expected because of the mine-clearing operations outlined in the agreement.

“We always knew that if there was a deal, there would be several weeks of mine-clearing operations in the international shipping lane running through the middle of the Strait of Hormuz,” he said.

“During that period, vessels would have to transit through Iranian and Omani territorial waters instead.”

However, Vaez said the latest announcement by Iran was unexpected. “The important thing now is that the Iranians do not start taking fees or other tolls,” he said, “because that is not provided for in the memorandum of understanding.”

Asked whether the IRGC’s position differed from that of Iran’s government, Vaez said: “There is no distinction between the IRGC and the state. They are effectively one and the same. The IRGC is calling the shots.”

Can Iran charge ships fees?

International law generally protects the right of transit through international straits, including Hormuz, making it difficult for coastal states to impose unilateral transit fees on vessels simply passing through international shipping lanes, even where they are within territorial waters.

Last week, Iran announced it would waive planned fees through the strait for 60 days while talks with the US continue in Switzerland, suggesting charges may be introduced once the negotiating period expires.

Iran’s chief negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, has signalled that Tehran views the post-war arrangement as fundamentally different from the status quo that existed before the conflict.

“Hormuz will never return” to its prewar status, Ghalibaf said.

The suggestion that Iran could charge fees was dismissed by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio this week. Speaking at the start of a regional tour in the United Arab Emirates, he said: “It’s an international waterway. No country is allowed to charge tolls or fees on an international waterway.”

Rubio added that he believed “all the countries in this region would agree”.

Speaking in Manama, Bahrain, after meeting with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) – a bloc comprising Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE – on Thursday, Rubio also told reporters: “Iranians are saying one thing, but then something else is actually happening.

“It’s now obvious to us that … the Iranian system is going to produce all sorts of maximalist rhetoric. What we’re interested in is not their press conferences. What we’re interested in is whether or not ships are moving. If ships are moving as they should be moving, then that’s what we’re going to judge.

“If, on the other hand, this rhetoric is backed up by actual ships being threatened and ships are not moving, then that’s a violation of the agreement, and we’re going to have a problem with it.”

Rubio claimed there is no regional support for Iranian transit fees, saying, “There is zero support among Gulf countries for any sort of toll or fees charged for the use of international waters … that isn’t going to happen.”

His comments came after UAE presidential adviser Anwar Gargash said that new “geopolitical facts” could not be imposed on the Arab Gulf states as a result of what he described as the “treacherous aggression against them”.

Are ships returning – and which route are they taking?

Some commercial shipping through the strait has resumed, although traffic remains well below normal levels. Before the conflict, between 120 and 140 vessels typically transited the strait each day.

According to shipping analytics company Kpler, confirmed crossings rose to 70 vessels on Wednesday as demining progressed and more operators began using the Omani route.

“The US-Iran MoU framework and apparent lifting of the US blockade appear to have supported a short-term confidence boost, although IRGC warnings against use of the Omani route could create a new source of contention,” Kpler reported.

The company added that incomplete demining, continued “dark” routing by some vessels – when ships limit or switch off their tracking transponders – and unresolved questions over inspections, sanctions and future governance meant shipping had not yet returned to prewar conditions.

This comes as oil prices drop to the lowest level since before the Iran war, with Brent crude, the global benchmark, falling to a low of $72.24 a barrel on Thursday. This remains above the prewar price of $66, however.

The chart below shows how shipping through the strait before the war compares to its status in recent weeks:

Is a peace deal achievable?

The future administration of the Strait of Hormuz is only one of several issues still to be resolved before negotiators hope to reach a comprehensive agreement within 60 days, with another major sticking point being Iran’s nuclear programme.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director-General Rafael Grossi has said the agreement explicitly provides for international monitoring of Iran’s nuclear activities.

However, Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister for legal and international affairs, has said inspectors’ access to nuclear sites damaged during the conflict will only be considered as part of a final agreement.

Questions also remain over the fate of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile, the sequencing of sanctions relief and the release of frozen Iranian assets, while regional tensions continue to pose additional risks.

Israeli forces remain deployed in parts of southern Lebanon occupied during the conflict, according to a Lebanese military source, while Israeli strikes have continued, despite the MoU explicitly calling for “a permanent end to the war on all fronts, including Lebanon”.

Vaez said visible progress would be essential if negotiations are to survive, noting, “Both sides have to see progress, whether that’s greater access for UN nuclear inspectors, sanctions relief, or resolving the issue of Iran’s uranium stockpile.”

He cautioned against viewing the interim agreement as a series of smaller deals. “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed,” Vaez said.

“They [the Iranians] are determined to reach a comprehensive agreement within 60 days. That’s a very ambitious timetable, but there has to be visible momentum or the process risks falling apart.”

However, Vaez said both Washington and Tehran have strong economic incentives to bring about a lasting peace. “The situation in the Strait had become one of mutually assured economic destruction,” he said.

“The United States was facing rising energy and oil prices ahead of the midterm elections … At the same time, Iran was already in a deep economic hole before this conflict began. The war only made that worse.

“It became a lose-lose dynamic, and both sides needed a way out.”

The recent opinion article by senior Ethiopian officials Redwan Hussein and Getachew Reda, published on Al Jazeera English’s website, attempts to portray Ethiopia as an innocent victim being reluctantly “dragged” into conflict by external actors. In doing so, the piece seeks to absolve the ruling Prosperity Party of responsibility for Ethiopia’s mounting domestic crises.

More dangerously, this narrative serves as a diplomatic smoke screen designed to normalise the unprovoked hostility, state-sponsored inflammatory rhetoric and aggressive military mobilisations that the Ethiopian government has directed towards Eritrea since late 2023.

By trying to reframe contemporary internal tensions as the direct product of external overreach or unresolved past grievances, the current Ethiopian security discourse represents a profound and dangerous inversion of reality. It distorts the true drivers of instability in the region to shield the federal authorities from international scrutiny.

The catastrophic war that engulfed northern Ethiopia for two years, from the initial outbreak of hostilities on November 4, 2020, until the signing of the cessation of hostilities agreement on November 2, 2022, did not arise from regional external manipulation or cross-border instigation. It was the product of Ethiopia’s long-standing internal ethnic cleavages and institutionalised political polarisation, rather than any external machinations.

The historical record confirms that Eritrea did not instigate this conflict, nor did it harbour expansionist designs on sovereign Ethiopian territory. Instead, Eritrea was reluctantly drawn into an imposed war at the explicit request and formal invitation of the Ethiopian federal government and for cogent reasons of self-defence.

Indeed, the broader objectives of the war agenda explicitly included and targeted the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Eritrea from its very inception. This reality is not a matter of speculative interpretation; it is an unalterable component of the public record.

Getachew’s own extensive public statements and numerous real-time posts under his official X handle during those tragic years easily validate that the targeting of Eritrea was a deliberate, premeditated strategy by regional forces rather than an accidental byproduct of a domestic policing action.

Following the formal cessation of hostilities, the political and military leadership of the Prosperity Party, extending from Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed downward, profusely and publicly expressed their profound gratitude to Eritrea. These acknowledgements were made through official statements, parliamentary discussions, state media and remarks by senior military officials. For Redwan and senior Prosperity Party officials to now retroactively frame Eritrea as an inherent antagonist or a constant spoiler of domestic peace runs completely counter to these explicit, recorded admissions.

This tendency towards revisionism is further illustrated by the highly romanticised anecdotes propagated by Getachew and Redwan regarding the tense environment during the Pretoria peace talks. Both officials have concocted a heavily theatrical and entirely fictitious story concerning the alleged consternation of their South African hosts, who supposedly feared that “the negotiating teams from the two warring Ethiopian parties might get into a fistfight in the middle of the conference hall if not continuously shepherded to steer clear of one another”.

According to this manufactured narrative, the hosts were then stunned to witness a “cordial tone”. This narrative of sudden, miraculous reconciliation between bitter enemies serves a specific propaganda purpose: it portrays the Pretoria Agreement as a spontaneous triumph of domestic unity over external division.

However, this narrative ignores the reality that months before the formal talks in South Africa, confidential contacts had already taken place in Djibouti and the Seychelles under the sponsorship of external mediators. As later acknowledged by Getachew himself, the warring parties had already established channels of communication while the war was still raging.

Under the deliberate prodding of elements within the Prosperity Party, the two teams explored options to join forces and redirect their combined military capacities towards a war of aggression against Eritrea. In their contorted views, a sovereign and stable Eritrea constituted the ultimate threat to their respective political futures.

When the Permanent Cessation of Hostilities Agreement was finally signed, it was fundamentally understood as a peace pact between internal warring sides within Ethiopia. It is, and remains, an Ethiopian affair, purely and exclusively. Its provisions concerned domestic constitutional arrangements, the disarmament of armed groups, and the restoration of federal authority.

Eritrea’s position regarding Pretoria has remained consistent and principled. It supports any genuine effort that promotes peace, stability, and predictability in Ethiopia and the wider region. A peaceful, stable, and united Ethiopia that respects the sovereignty of its neighbours is in the strategic interest of every state in the Horn of Africa. Eritrea possesses neither the political appetite nor the strategic interest to scuttle an agreement between competing Ethiopian political forces. A peaceful, unified, and stable Ethiopia that respects its neighbours is in the vital national security interest of every state in the region.

Against this backdrop, the current propaganda campaigns and transparent disinformation efforts, as epitomised by the recent opinion article, are systematically designed to re-package an unprovoked agenda of conflict and hostility that Addis Ababa has unleashed against Eritrea since December 2023.

During this period, the Prosperity Party abruptly shifted its state rhetoric, launching a manufactured campaign centred on what it termed “sovereign access to the sea”. To build legitimacy for this legally untenable and historically flawed narrative, the ruling party has systematically mobilised a vast, state-backed apparatus. Instructors, researchers, media figures, cultural icons and academic lecturers, both Ethiopian nationals and co-opted foreign commentators, have been aggressively deployed across international forums, television networks and digital platforms to push this warped sovereign access narrative.

This coordinated campaign seeks to normalise the idea that colonial boundaries in the Horn of Africa are negotiable in order to attempt to challenge inviolable principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity that have long underpinned regional stability.

This aggressive rhetoric has not been confined to speeches and opinion pieces. In a direct attempt to pull Eritrea into a militarised conflict, the ruling party has massed substantial military formations, heavy artillery, and mechanised divisions in close proximity to the Eritrean border.

This pattern of behaviour is directly mirrored along the northern frontier, where provocative pronouncements are accompanied by unremitting sabre-rattling regarding the acquisition of Assab and other Eritrean coastal lands through negotiations if possible, and by force if necessary.

The broader pattern extends beyond Eritrea. Ethiopia’s recent foreign policy conduct has increasingly generated tensions with several neighbouring states. The Memorandum of Understanding signed with Somaliland, which sought access to coastal territory without the consent of Somalia’s central government, triggered a major diplomatic crisis and raised serious questions regarding respect for established principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Similarly, Ethiopia has repeatedly pursued interventionist policies in neighbouring conflicts in the quest for short-term geopolitical objectives. Whether in Somalia, Sudan or elsewhere, Addis Ababa’s reckless regional agenda of expansionism has contributed significantly to regional mistrust and destabilisation.

Thus, the narrative that Ethiopia is an involuntary victim being dragged back into war by external forces ignores the reality of the ruling party actively moving military assets, signing illegal treaties and threatening the borders of sovereign states. This explicitly coercive stance directly undermines the foundational principles of peaceful coexistence and good neighbourliness that are essential for the Horn’s stability.

Ultimately, peace in the Horn of Africa cannot be bargained away to appease the shifting calculations of a restless neighbour. The path forward demands an immediate end to the reckless sabre-rattling in pursuit of illicit “sovereign maritime access”, the unconditional cessation of cross-border proxy alignments, and a return to the foundational principles of non-interference and territorial integrity.

Until the international community confronts the true internal drivers of Addis Ababa’s aggressive posture rather than entertaining its manufactured grievances, the region will remain perilously vulnerable to dangerous miscalculation. Eritrea stands firm in its resolve, anchored in legal permanence and historical facts. Those who look to externalise their domestic ruin through regional destabilisation will find that Eritrea’s sovereignty is neither negotiable nor penetrable, and that lasting security can only be achieved when boundaries are respected and international law is upheld without exception.

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

Thousands gathered in Tehran on the eve of Ashura, the first since the killing of Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei. Mourners carried flags, banners and images of Khamenei as Iran prepared to commemorate one of the most significant events in the Shia calendar.

NATO chief Mark Rutte visited the White House to ease tensions with US President Trump ahead of next month’s NATO summit. Trump has said NATO isn’t doing enough, ordering a review of US forces in Europe after saying allies did not support the US war on Iran.

NEW YORK — When Varun Venkatesh cast his ballot in New York’s primary this week, he thought about “a good litmus test for me as a voter.” He wanted to know what the candidates are doing for the Palestinian cause.

The 27-year-old Brooklyn resident decided to support Claire Valdez, who was backed by Mayor Zohran Mamdani, over Antonio Reynoso, another progressive who was the choice of the Democratic establishment, because she had “a clear and more consistent stance.”

Valdez triumphed in her congressional primary, as did two other insurgent candidates endorsed by Mamdani, and Israel was a key issue in each of the races. Now the question for Democrats is how many more voters like Venkatesh are out there as the party charts its path toward the November midterms and the next presidential election.

The war in Gaza, which began during Joe Biden’s presidency and undermined Kamala Harris’ bid to replace him, remains an open wound, and how Democrats attempt to stitch it closed will help define their future. A step in any direction risks alienating pieces of the party’s unwieldy coalition at a time when it’s trying to unify around the mission of retaking control of Congress.

“The Israel question has become defining,” said Matt Bennett, who leads the centrist Democratic group Third Way and frequently criticizes progressives as jeopardizing outreach to independent voters. He said some in Mamdani’s camp have embraced “a new level of extremism,” warning that “Republicans are very good at weaponizing crazy ideas on the fringe against mainstream candidates.”

Mamdani has no such concerns as he tries to reshape the Democratic Party from the mayor’s office of the country’s largest city. He sharply criticized the American Israel Public Affairs Committee for defending what he calls “a status quo of immorality” in Gaza, and voters who celebrated his slate’s victories on Tuesday night chanted “Free Palestine.”

The mayor, meanwhile, argues that New York should shape Democrats’ search for their national identity in the coming years.

“When does the race for 2028 begin?” Mamdani asked last week on a stage with his slate of candidates. “It starts now.”

Israel-Palestine conflict animates Democrats’ left flank

Even for a party accustomed to searing debates between progressives and moderates, the schism over Israel has been blistering. Although the U.S. alliance with Israel once had bipartisan support, the ascendancy of Israel’s right wing led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu strained those ties over the years. Then the war in Gaza shredded them.

Biden was denounced as “Genocide Joe” by pro-Palestinian supporters, who shifted their attention to Harris once she replaced him as the Democratic nominee for president two years ago.

“She was trying to the right thing,” said Jamie Harrison, who led the Democratic National Committee at the time. “It was a hard and awkward place to be in.”

Harrison said the war in Gaza helped cost Harris the state of Michigan, which has a sizable Arab American population. However, he doubts that it was a defining national issue then or now.

“It’s one thing to be in New York. But I can tell you that most places, including where I am in South Carolina, it’s not what people are talking about,” he said. “They are concerned about affording gas and groceries and housing.”

Harrison expects Democrats to look for middle ground in the future, which includes “still supporting Israel’s sovereignty” while calling for “reducing U.S. aid to Israel and changing the nature of the relationship.”

One primary victor blasted the ‘hug Bibi’ strategy

Finding middle ground has been difficult so far, as demonstrated by the primary in New York’s 10th congressional district.

Brad Lander, the former city comptroller backed by Mamdani, successfully challenged U.S. Rep. Dan Goldman in the race.

Both candidates are Jewish, and both have criticized the Israeli government. But Lander says the war in Gaza is a genocide, and Goldman does not.

“Our party needs to admit that Joe Biden’s ‘hug Bibi’ strategy was a catastrophic mistake,” Lander said in his primary victory speech. He added, “We cannot keep paying for Netanyahu’s wars with our tax dollars. Democratic voters are saying this, loud and clear.”

Ari Rassouli, a voter in the district, said the incumbent’s views on Israel were “one of the many reasons that I didn’t like Dan Goldman.”

Describing the war as a genocide, she said “a candidate that is in support of that has no place in our democracy at all.”

While talking to reporters on Tuesday, Lander acknowledged that Israel was among the top issues along with affordability and immigration.

“I like talking to Jewish voters who feel anxiety about the times we live in and say, ‘I have these values, I want to treat everyone like they’re equal and with dignity and created in God’s image. How do we navigate the times we’re in?’” he said.

He added with a smile, “Those are probably the longest conversations at the polls.” ___

Barrow, Peoples and Offenhartz write for the Associated Press. AP writers Anthony Izaguirre and Larry Neumeister contributed to this report.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said Iran will not be permitted to charge tolls or fees for vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz under any final agreement with Washington, exposing one of the biggest points of friction in negotiations aimed at ending months of conflict across the Middle East.

The dispute comes after Iran announced it would waive planned transit fees through the strait that crosses through its territorial waters for 60 days while talks with the United States continue in Switzerland, suggesting charges could be introduced once the negotiating period expires.

Washington and Tehran signed a preliminary agreement in Switzerland this week to halt hostilities and launched a 60-day diplomatic process focused on sanctions relief, Iran’s nuclear programme and the future administration of the Strait of Hormuz.

Pakistan, which helped mediate the talks alongside Qatar, has said negotiations to end the four-month US-Israel war on Iran are expected to resume early next week, likely on Tuesday.

The future of Hormuz has already emerged as a key sticking point after Iran effectively closed the waterway during the war, severely disrupting maritime traffic through one of the world’s most important energy chokepoints and causing the price of oil to soar.

In peacetime, one-fifth of the world’s oil and natural gas supplies are shipped for export by Gulf producers through the waterway.

In April, the US imposed a corresponding naval blockade on Iranian naval ports in a bid to stem Iranian oil exports.

While a number of ships have crossed through the strait since the US-Iran agreement was signed last week, uncertainty remains over whether Tehran intends to impose permanent fees or service charges on shipping operators using the route. Here’s what we know – and what else is happening in the Strait of Hormuz this week.

What are the US and Iran saying?

On Friday, Iran’s Persian Gulf Strait Authority (PGSA) said planned fees for ships using the waterway would be suspended during the 60-day negotiation period established under the memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed with the US.

Earlier this week, Iran and Oman said in a joint statement that they would study the future administration of the trade route as well as possible charges for services provided there, while maintaining their sovereignty claims over territorial waters bordering the strait.

Speaking at the start of a regional tour in the United Arab Emirates, Rubio rejected the idea of transit fees. “It’s an international waterway. No country is allowed to charge tolls or fees on an international waterway,” he said, adding that he believed “all the countries in this region would agree”.

Iran’s chief negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, has signalled that Tehran views the post-war arrangement as fundamentally different from the status quo that existed before the conflict, however. Experts also say that Iran will not give up control of the strait, which has proved to be its greatest point of leverage in the conflict with the US.

“Hormuz will never return” to its prewar status, Ghalibaf said, despite both sides agreeing on Monday to establish “communication mechanisms” aimed at keeping the waterway open.

What does international law say?

International law protects the right of transit through strategic waterways such as the Strait of Hormuz, preventing coastal states from imposing explicit tolls simply for passage through international shipping lanes, even when they are passing solely through territorial waters.

However, countries can charge for specific services, including inspections, navigation assistance, security measures and certain insurance-related requirements, insurance experts say.

Examples include fees associated with transit through the Suez Canal and Panama Canal, as well as some services provided in Turkiye’s Bosporus and Dardanelles straits.

Mohammad Reza Farzanegan, an economist at Germany’s Philipps-Universitat Marburg, told Al Jazeera last month that Iran, like Turkiye, could justify a negotiated mechanism for transit fees or service-based contributions through natural straits as payment for maintaining a safe passageway, reducing environmental risks and providing predictability in a waterway that supports global energy, food and technology supply chains.

A key difference, however, is that while those waterways pass through the territory of a single state in each case, the Strait of Hormuz passes through the territorial waters of both Iran and Oman, while also connecting to waters used by the United Arab Emirates and other Gulf states.

“This sort of arrangement is unprecedented, and there would not be such an outcome, unless there is a complete coordination between the GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] countries and Iran, with the approval of major international powers, such as China and the United States,” Nader Habibi, an Iranian American economist, told Al Jazeera.

How many ships are getting through the strait now?

Ship movements through the Strait of Hormuz remain well below prewar levels, when between 120 and 140 ships transited the passage each day, including tankers carrying about 20 million barrels of oil from the Gulf.

As the strait begins to open up, Oman says it is working with the United Nations’ International Maritime Organization (IMO) on temporary arrangements to facilitate safe transit through the strait, launching an operation to evacuate more than 11,000 sailors stranded in the area after the conflict left hundreds of vessels trapped for months.

Traffic through the strait has also been held back by ongoing concerns about the possible presence of sea mines in the central shipping channels used by international vessels before the war.

The Joint Maritime Information Center (JMIC), which includes representatives from the US and other maritime partners, has warned ships to avoid the area “due to the existence of mines”.

Other countries, including Japan, are currently weighing up whether to send ships to help with efforts to remove mines from the strait.

While Iran has never confirmed the presence of mines in the strait, when it first issued a map of the waterway for vessels it had approved for transit while the conflict was ongoing, it ordered ships to pass close to its coast to avoid possible mines. Ships had previously passed much closer to the coast of Oman.

The graphic below illustrates how much shipping through the strait dropped off as a result of the US-Israel war on Iran.

Could the dispute over strait fees derail a peace deal?

Mostafa Khoshcheshm, a professor at the University of Applied Sciences in Tehran, told Al Jazeera that Iran is unlikely to abandon plans to introduce long-term service fees in the strait.

“According to the MoU, Iran is not going to charge service fees for 60 days, but afterwards, Iran is definitely going to do that,” Khoshcheshm told Al Jazeera.

He said many Iranians were already unhappy that Tehran had agreed to suspend fees for the duration of the negotiating period.

“The money is not the real core of the issue,” he said. “The point here is how to impose your new protocols in the region. This is highly important for the Iranians.”

Cyrus Schayegh, professor of international history and politics at the Geneva Graduate Institute, told Al Jazeera the success of any new administrative arrangement would depend heavily on regional support.

“I think this is a very big question, and the biggest question is whether they will be able to sell it to the Emirates,” Schayegh told Al Jazeera.

“I think the Emirates will need to be involved in a really substantive way for any sort of new authority to actually work.”

More broadly, he said, the future of Hormuz forms part of a wider debate over Gulf security architecture following the war.

“It is only one piece of a much larger puzzle,” Schayegh said, adding that several regional states now accept that Iran has strengthened its deterrence capabilities following the conflict.

What other issues remain unresolved?

Hormuz is far from the only serious obstacle to a peace deal.

Questions also remain over the future of Iran’s nuclear programme, with Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister for legal and international affairs, saying that access for international inspectors to nuclear facilities damaged during the war would only be addressed as part of a final agreement with Washington.

His comments came after US President Donald Trump claimed Iran had agreed to “the highest level” of nuclear inspections.

Iranian officials insist no commitments were made in Switzerland regarding Tehran’s nuclear programme and say they did not meet representatives of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), including Director-General Rafael Grossi.

Regional security remains another major source of disagreement, with Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz insisting Israeli forces will not withdraw from southern Lebanon “even if there is an American demand” to do so.

Meanwhile, Ghalibaf has identified the withdrawal of foreign military forces from the Middle East as one of Tehran’s strategic objectives in the negotiations.

The future of Iran’s frozen assets also remains a sticking point, with Trump indicating Washington is reluctant to release large sums of Iranian funds directly, arguing that money could ultimately benefit the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

Instead, he has suggested a mechanism under which some funds would be used to purchase US goods.

“Food is desperately needed in Iran, and we will be purchasing it for them exclusively from the United States,” Trump said. Iran has not confirmed plans to do this.

The United States Senate has voted in favour of invoking its war powers to force President Donald Trump to halt his military campaign against Iran or seek congressional approval before any further action is taken.

Here is a closer look at Tuesday’s vote – the 10th attempt Congress has made to rein in the US-Israel war on Iran – and what this means for the US government.

Why did this vote take place?

A similar measure had already been approved in the House of Representatives on June 3 by a vote of 215 to 208, and on Tuesday, the Senate passed it in a 50-48 vote. Trump’s Republican Party has slim majorities in both chambers.

Speaking on the Senate floor before the vote, top Democrat Chuck Schumer advocated for the war powers resolution as he criticised Trump’s military campaign against Iran.

“For years, Trump promised to put maximum pressure on Iran, but he ended up delivering maximum confusion, maximum chaos, maximum cost to the American people with his disastrous war,” Schumer said.

“Time after time, the vast majority of Senate Republicans sided with Trump and his war instead of the American people. The American people have paid the price for Trump’s historic blunder in Iran. It’ll go down in the history books as one of the worst foreign policy forays America has ever made.”

The war against Iran has proved highly unpopular in the US. A poll released on Tuesday by the news agency Reuters and the research firm Ipsos found that 24 percent of respondents felt the war had been worth the cost.

The Senate passed its first war powers resolution against the Iran conflict on May 20, but that effort was a procedural move only and did not progress.

Who voted and how?

Four Republican senators crossed party lines to vote for the resolution, and all but one of the chamber’s Democrats also voted in favour.

Tuesday’s breakaway Republicans were Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky. A further two Republicans did not vote: Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Dave McCormick of Pennsylvania.

The lone Democrat to vote against the measure was Pennsylvania’s John Fetterman.

What does the resolution say?

The war powers resolution “directs the President to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran”.

Only if “explicitly authorised by a declaration of war or a specific congressional authorisation” would Trump be allowed to use further military force against Iran, it says.

The resolution, however, does allow for a limited military presence to remain in the Middle East to prevent any “imminent attack” against the US or its allies.

What is the significance of the vote?

The vote reflects growing unease even among some of Trump’s Republican supporters about the unpopular conflict, which began with US-Israeli air strikes on Tehran on February 28.

This is the first time both chambers of Congress have passed a resolution directing a president to remove US armed forces from a warzone under the War Powers Act although it was not immediately clear how the votes might affect the conflict.

Technically, the Trump administration should now seek explicit congressional approval for further strikes on Iran. However, previous administrations have found routes around this by securing more limited authorisations for the use of military force (AUMFs) instead.

For example, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks in 2001, Congress passed an AUMF that gave then-President George W Bush broad powers to conduct what would become the global “war on terror”.

And one year later, it passed another AUMF, allowing the use of the military against the government of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, which became the basis of the 2003 invasion.

The two authorisations remain in place, and presidents continue to rely on them to carry out strikes without first seeking congressional approval. The assassination of top Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in 2020 in Baghdad was authorised by Trump under the 2003 AUMF.

In addition, a resolution does not have the force of law. Experts said, therefore, that while the Senate vote is viewed as a rebuke to Trump, it is largely symbolic.

What effect will this have on US-Iran talks in Switzerland?

Before the vote on Tuesday, some Republican senators had warned that the war powers resolution would weaken Trump’s standing in the Switzerland negotiations.

“If this passes, the Iranians are going to simply stand up and walk away from negotiations,” Senator James Risch of Idaho told the Senate on Tuesday.

“They’re going to say: This thing’s over. The Congress has told the president of the United States, ‘Leave us alone. We can do whatever we want to do,’ and they will walk away.”

How will the Trump administration respond?

Risch also argued that the resolution is essentially useless, given its symbolic nature. “It’s going to have no effect. The president isn’t going to pay any attention to it,” he said.

The US Constitution gives Congress the sole power to declare war, but that division of power has eroded over the past 75 years as successive presidents alone have committed US forces to overseas conflicts.

Trump has pointed to that precedent to argue that he does not need congressional authorisation at all.

In an appearance on The Axios Show last week, Trump denied learning any “lesson” about the limits of his executive powers during the Iran war. “There are no limits,” he said.

The last time Congress voted to go to war was during World War II although it has passed AUMFs in the decades since, which allow for limited military engagement without congressional approval for all-out war.

During Trump’s first term, there were concerns that he could use the 2001 AUMF to strike Iran under the unfounded claim that Tehran supports al-Qaeda.

Some critics pointed out that Republicans may be more willing to confront Trump over the issue of congressional authorisation now as they defend their seats before November’s midterm elections.

EXPLAINER

Iran and the US clash over nuclear inspections and Hormuz as negotiators push for a final deal within 60 days.

Iran and the United States have offered conflicting accounts of key issues as negotiators work towards a final agreement within a 60-day window. Differences remain over nuclear oversight and the implementation of any deal, underscoring the challenges facing both sides.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Iran would not be allowed to charge tolls in the Strait of Hormuz under a final agreement, stressing that the strategic waterway must remain open to international shipping.

Meanwhile, Iran rejected US claims that it had agreed to allow nuclear inspectors back into the country after President Donald Trump said Tehran had accepted the “highest level” of monitoring. The conflicting statements highlight the gaps that negotiators are still trying to bridge.

Here is what has happened:

In Iran

• Iran’s military shifts to ‘offensive doctrine’: General Ahmad Reza Pourdastan, head of Iran’s Army Strategic Studies and Research Center, said Tehran has moved away from a purely defensive posture and now includes preemptive operations in its military strategy. Quoted by the semi-official Fars news agency, Pourdastan said Iran could “severely surprise the enemy” if national interests required it and added that much of the country’s military capability has yet to be used.
• Iran says no IAEA inspections planned: Tohid Asadi, reporting from the Strait of Hormuz, says the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei has denied reports of a meeting with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Rafael Grossi and said there are currently no plans for visits or inspections by the UN nuclear watchdog. Baghaei said Iran’s dealings with the IAEA would be governed by existing procedures, its safeguards obligations, parliamentary legislation and decisions by the Supreme National Security Council. Iran suspended cooperation with the IAEA after US and Israeli strikes on its nuclear facilities in June 2025, and while diplomacy continues under a 60-day framework, Tehran says it has not granted permission for inspectors to return.

War diplomacy:

• ‘No way’ US and Iran can finalise deal in 60 days, analyst says: Charles Kupchan, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, told Al Jazeera there is “no way” Washington and Tehran can complete a final agreement within the 60-day timeframe repeatedly cited by President Donald Trump. “I think we’re talking about at least into the next calendar year,” he said, adding that he would not be surprised if both sides simply “run out the clock” by continuing negotiations and keeping the Strait of Hormuz open without reaching a final deal before the end of Trump’s presidency.
• Qatar says LNG production could return to normal within weeks: Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani told the Financial Times that Qatar is preparing to restore normal liquefied natural gas (LNG) production after the interim US-Iran deal. Qatar, the world’s second-largest LNG producer, halted output in March following an Iranian drone attack on the Ras Laffan facility. Sheikh Mohammed said most production could resume within weeks, except at the damaged site, adding that QatarEnergy would only lift its force majeure declaration once it is satisfied that all safety and operational concerns have been addressed.

In the Gulf:

• Rubio ‘trying to sell the deal’ with Iran on Gulf tour: Alan Fisher, reporting from Washington, DC, said US Secretary of State Marco Rubio is visiting the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Bahrain, three Gulf countries seen as having been among the most affected by the war with Iran. Rubio, who also serves as Trump’s national security adviser, is expected to reassure regional allies that US security commitments remain intact. He will also address the Gulf Cooperation Council in Bahrain, where he is “really trying to sell the deal”, amid concerns over Washington’s response to Iranian attacks.

In the US

• US Senate approves resolution to curb Trump’s war powers on Iran: The Senate voted 50-48 to pass a measure requiring congressional approval for further US military action against Iran, marking the first time a war powers resolution on the conflict has cleared both chambers of Congress. Four Republicans – Bill Cassidy, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins and Rand Paul – joined nearly all Democrats in backing the measure, while Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman voted against it. The resolution is expected to face a veto from President Trump.

In Israel

• US ‘very naive’ on Iran, Ben-Gvir says: Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said the US would be “very naive” if it believed Iran would abandon its nuclear programme, and hinted that Israel may act independently against Tehran. “It is Israel’s responsibility to confront this Iranian threat and act against it alone,” he told Israel’s Channel 7, adding that “no circumstances” could force Israel to act “according to the dictates of a friend, even if that friend is truly great”. His remarks come amid reported tensions between Washington and Tel Aviv over Israel’s attacks on Lebanon and ongoing US-Iran negotiations. Last week, US Vice President JD Vance publicly criticised Israeli cabinet ministers for “attacking” Washington, calling the US Israel’s “only powerful ally” left in the world.

In Lebanon

• UN says ceasefire ‘largely holding’ in southern Lebanon: The United Nations said the ceasefire in southern Lebanon appears to be “largely holding”, although peacekeepers continue to observe Israeli military ground and air activity. UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said UNIFIL troops witnessed “heavy” machine-gun fire and three tank rounds fired by Israeli forces near Biyyada on Monday, while drones were also seen “apparently to monitor UNIFIL peacekeepers”. The incident came a day after peacekeepers reported the first day without exchanges of fire since fighting escalated on March 2. The UN urged all sides to “adhere fully to the ceasefire and refrain from any escalation, particularly during this delicate period of ongoing negotiations”.

In the early hours of another day of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, 20-year-old Hamza al-Ghazali, who lives in the Zeitoun neighborhood south of Gaza City, set out once again in search of an insulin pen.

It was not the first time he had moved between pharmacies and medical centres, looking for a dose. The effort has become a recurring part of his life since the outbreak of war in October 2023 and the tightening Israeli restrictions on the entry of medicines and medical supplies into the Gaza Strip.

Hamza knows that delaying an insulin dose is potentially life-threatening. Type 1 diabetes requires strict daily treatment and continuous monitoring. However, under war and blockade conditions, managing the disease has turned into a daily, high-risk struggle.

Hamza recalls how his health condition was more stable before the war. He used to obtain insulin from pharmacies at prices ranging between 25 and 35 shekels ($8.5 and $12) per pen, sometimes even less.

“I started to know all the pharmacies, and they also knew me, because I was always buying insulin pens,” Hamza says.

But this changed drastically with the war and the tightening of restrictions on the entry of medical supplies. The price of a single insulin pen rose to between 75 and 100 shekels ($25 and $34), and, as Hamza needs six to seven pens per month, he was forced to try to extend the use of each pen for as long as possible.

Fight for survival

The suffering of diabetes patients in Gaza extends to restrictions on the entry of medicines through border crossings, measures that have led to a severe shortage of insulin, glucose metres, and test strips.

Hamza notes that this shortage has created an unstable medical reality, where, in some cases, medicines that may have been stored for long periods or in improper conditions appear on the market, raising concerns about reduced effectiveness or uncertain quality due to the lack of alternatives.

A year ago, when an Israeli blockade on the entry of food led to a famine in northern Gaza, Hamza was forced to eat anything he could find.

But for Hamza, it wasn’t just about securing enough nutrition for his body, but also about finding the right balance between the insulin he had access to and the food he could find.

If he ate more without sufficient insulin doses, then he could have dangerously high blood sugar levels. If he reduced his food intake out of fear of running out of insulin, then that could result in severe and potentially fatal hypoglycemia (low blood sugar).

“I was afraid for myself during the shelling in northern Gaza,” said Hamza. “We were under siege. If the house was bombed, I might survive under the rubble, but die from low blood sugar. And if I ate without insulin, my sugar could rise dangerously. I was living between two fears all the time.”

He adds that the fear was not only about losing insulin, but also about losing glucose metres and test strips, which he relies on daily to monitor his condition. Every time he was forced to evacuate, the first thing he would carry was his “diabetes bag”.

Equipment shortages

Glucose test strips have been in short supply, limiting Hamza’s ability to monitor his blood sugar levels on a daily basis and forcing him to rely on judging his physical symptoms.

Hamza notes that the cost of a glucose metre ranges between 250 and 300 shekels ($85 and $120), but the real problem lies in the availability of test strips.

Without them, the device becomes useless, forcing some patients to repeatedly buy new devices. Hamza estimates that more than 80 percent of diabetes patients in some areas are unable to test their blood sugar regularly, which he describes as a “medical disaster”, as it turns treatment into daily guesswork.

According to data from the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza, between 70,000 and 80,000 diabetes patients in the Palestinian enclave are at risk due to the severe shortage of insulin and test strips, in addition to the collapse of medical follow-up services and poor nutrition.

Endocrinology and diabetes specialist Dr Adli al-Ghouti notes that about 2,500 children in Gaza are living with Type 1 diabetes, and are in a highly critical health condition.

As a result of insulin shortages, a lack of proper storage conditions, and power outages, a real crisis is unfolding.

Al-Ghouti warns that the deterioration of insulin quality, the expiration of the stock available in Gaza, and improper storage can all reduce effectiveness, creating a false sense of security while blood sugar levels remain uncontrolled, potentially resulting in severe complications such as diabetic ketoacidosis, a life-threatening emergency condition.

“Taking an expired dose of insulin may cause significant harm inside the body, while giving a temporary impression of improvement,” Dr al-Ghouti said.

Diabetes is therefore no longer a condition that can be managed easily in Gaza. Between the shortage of insulin, a lack of testing tools, rising prices, and deteriorating nutrition, even the simplest aspects of treatment turn into a daily struggle for survival.

June 24 (UPI) — Senate lawmakers have approved a war powers resolution directing President Donald Trump to halt U.S. hostilities with Iran or seek congressional authorization.

The Senate voted 50-48 on Tuesday, with four Republicans — Sens. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Rand Paul of Kentucky — joining their Democratic colleagues in passing H.Con.Res. 86. Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., was the only Democrat to vote against the measure.

The measure’s legal force was disputed. Though concurrent resolutions are non-binding, Democrats argue H.Con.Res. 86 is binding because it was adopted under the War Powers Resolution.

Either way, the measure shows the deepening fissure in support among Trump’s Republican Party for the war his administration unilaterally launched in late February.

Democrats have been forcing repeated war powers resolution votes for months, most of which have been stonewalled by Republicans. But GOP support for the war has waned as it has dragged on, culminating Tuesday when the Senate approved the measure that the House narrowly passed 215-208 earlier this month.

“Both chambers have now made clear that the president cannot continue this war of choice and must cease all hostilities against Iran,” Rep. Gregory Meeks, the resolution’s sponsor and ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said Tuesday after the vote.

“Regardless of what President Trump says, this measure is binding under the War Powers Resolution, and I will explore all legal avenues to ensure the Executive complies with the will of Congress.”

Democrats argue that the U.S. war with Iran — as well as other military actions taken by Trump, including attacks on suspected drug-trafficking boats in international waters — is illegal as Congress has not authorized war, a power the Constitution gives to Congress.

Trump has responded that he does not need authorization, and any war powers resolution is moot due to the fragile U.S.-Iran cease-fire that went into effect in early April.

Amid the cease-fire, Trump has been seeking an agreement to end the war, and his administration was actively negotiating terms with Iran when the vote was held Tuesday.

In a social media statement, Trump lambasted Congress over the vote, saying it was informing Iran that the United States does not support him while hee has “Iran on the ‘ropes,’ ready to go down for the fall.”

“Four Republican Losers voted with the Dumocrats,” he said, while calling the measure “poorly timed and meaningless.”

“These Senators have just made my job more difficult, but I will get it done, one way or the other, because I always get it done.”

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has told senators it needs roughly $80 billion, mostly to cover the cost of the U.S. war against Iran, adding to what is already a sizable military spending boost being sought by President Trump.

Meanwhile, the Senate for the first time approved a war powers resolution Tuesday seeking to block U.S. military action against Iran, as lawmakers warily watch President Trump’s efforts to resolve a conflict that the administration launched on its own and now needs Congress to fund.

It was the 10th time the Senate has tried to stop the war, and the outcome, on a vote of 50-48, was a stunning turnaround from past efforts. Although the resolution is largely symbolic, and does not fully carry the force of law, it reflects the growing concerns from a number of Republican lawmakers in the House and Senate over the war and the deal Trump struck with Iran to end it. The House approved the resolution earlier this month.

The White House Office of Management and Budget has yet to make a formal request to Congress for more money for the war. But Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has been making the rounds on Capitol Hill, including Monday evening. A top deputy Defense secretary told senators about the Iran funding request last week, according to two people familiar with the situation but not authorized to discuss it publicly.

The Wall Street Journal first reported on the developments.

The push for billions of dollars in Iran war funding comes at a fraught political moment. Lawmakers are not only skeptical of the deal Trump struck with Iran to bring an end to the war, but also wary of next steps. The White House has requested a remarkable $1.5 trillion for the Pentagon — a nearly 50% increase over the current fiscal year’s funding levels.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he’s expecting a supplemental spending request from the administration for the war, and when it arrives, “we’ll work through it and see where the votes are.”

“We need to make sure we’re doing everything we can to replenish, resupply a lot our munitions that have been depleted — not only just with what’s happening with Iran, but prior to that,” said Thune (R-S.D.).

Deputy Defense Secretary Stephen Feinberg spoke to several senators about the proposal in calls last week and he notified congressional committees that the $80-billion request had been sent to the Office of Management and Budget. The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

However, the funding package will almost certainly run into trouble from lawmakers who refuse to support Trump’s decision to go to war and are reluctant to give the Pentagon more money at a time of high costs of living for Americans at home.

“You’re spending families’ hard-earned tax dollars on a war that many strongly oppose,” Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington told Hegseth in a hearing last month.

In addition to the Iran funding, Republicans hope to secure about $1.1 trillion through the regular appropriations process, which typically requires support from both parties for approval. Then, they hope to secure an additional $350 billion through a mostly party-line vote later this summer.

The amount being sought by the Pentagon is far higher than the $29-billion estimate of war costs that Hegseth gave Congress during his testimony last month. The bulk of that amount was related to replacing munitions and repairing equipment but also included operational costs to keep forces deployed. That estimate did not include the cost to repair or rebuild U.S. military sites damaged in the region.

It’s also far lower than the initial $200 billion the Pentagon floated as the costs at the start of the war. An early estimate put the cost of the first week of the war at $11.3 billion.

Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii, a member of Democratic party leadership, said he expects the actual price tag could be much higher than the $80 billion being proposed.

Schatz said he hasn’t done any counting of Democrats about whether there is support for an Iran-focused bill, “but I haven’t found anyone who wants to do this.”

But Republican Sen. Jim Banks of Indiana said, “To me it’s less about the war, it’s more about the stockpiles.”

Banks said, “I would sell it to my state as an investment in our defense industrial base, reshoring defense production to Indiana.”

Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said funding for an Iran supplemental can’t be done in isolation. It has to be done after lawmakers from both parties have agreed to a total spending amount for both defense and non-defense programs, “then the rest of this would follow pretty quickly,” Reed said.

And Sen. John Hoeven of North Dakota, a member of the Appropriations subcommittee on Defense, said he has been working with the administration to broaden the package to include funds for disaster aid for California, Hawaii and other states hard hit by fires and weather problems, as well as agricultural aid for farmers.

“I think that’s the kind of combination that could pass,” Hoeven said.

Hegseth declined to answer questions from reporters late Monday as he strode around the Capitol.

But on the issue of the cost of the war, Hegseth responded rhetorically during a Senate hearing last month, asking, “What is the cost of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon?”

He acknowledged the president’s decision to confront the threat of a nuclear Iran “comes with cost — and we recognize that.”

Freking and Mascaro write for the Associated Press. AP writers Konstantin Toropin and Ben Finley contributed to this report.

Several key issues remain as sticking points in US-Iran talks, including maritime security and nuclear oversight.

WASHINGTON — The Senate for the first time approved a war powers resolution Tuesday seeking to block U.S. military action against Iran, as lawmakers warily watch President Trump’s efforts to resolve a conflict that the administration launched on its own and now needs Congress to fund.

It was the 10th time the Senate has tried to stop the war, and the outcome, on a vote of 50 to 48, was a stunning turnaround from past efforts. While the resolution is largely symbolic, and does not fully carry the force of law, it reflects the growing concerns from a number of Republican lawmakers in both the House and Senate over both the war and the deal Trump struck with Iran to end it. The House approved the resolution earlier this month.

“Time after time, the vast majority of Senate Republicans sided with Trump and his war instead of the American people,” said Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York.

Schumer said Americans have paid the price for “Trump’s historic blunder in Iran. It’ll go down in the history books as one of the worst foreign policy forays America has ever made.”

In the past, as many as four GOP senators have voted for the war powers resolutions, and they did so Tuesday — Republicans Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana. One Democrat, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, voted against the resolution.

On this vote, the absence of two Republicans, including Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who was admitted to the hospital recently for an undisclosed matter, left the GOP without a full majority to halt the effort. Sen. Dave McCormick (R-Pa.) also missed the vote.

The vote also comes as the Pentagon is seeking $80 billion from Congress, mostly for the Iran war as it backfills munitions and stockpiles.

Trump to meet senators as Republicans balk at Iran deal

Trump himself is headed to the Capitol this week to meet with GOP senators as Vice President JD Vance has been overseas working to negotiate with Iran to end its nuclear ambitions — which had been among the stated rationales for the war.

The president is not pleased with the Republicans who have been critical of the deal he struck with Iran, according to one GOP senator granted anonymity to discuss the private dynamics.

The terms of the Iran deal are spelled out in a memorandum of understanding that Trump signed last week, starting a 60-day clock for the sides to reach a broader agreement over ending Iran’s nuclear program.

But Republicans have particularly objected to the $300-billion fund to help Iran rebuild, which is far greater than the $1.7 billion then-President Obama refunded the country under his administration’s 2015 Iran deal.

“I believe President Trump is getting very poor advice on Iran,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said last week on his podcast after the deal was made public.

Democrats have repeatedly forced Iran votes

Over and again, Democrats have been forcing votes on the Iran war, almost since the U.S. and Israel launched missile strikes on Iran on Feb. 28.

Nearly each week they’re in session, the Senate Democrats have put forward war powers resolutions, but they have failed to amass the majority needed for passage in the narrowly split chamber, where Trump’s Republican Party holds the majority.

The House pushed its own version to passage earlier this month, with four Republicans joining all Democrats in approving the war powers resolution, over the objections of House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and the GOP leadership.

While such resolutions do not go to the president for his signature, passage stands as a powerful, if symbolic, statement from Congress and a rebuke of the administration’s military actions.

Sen. Tim Kaine, the Democrat from Virginia who has led his party’s efforts, said the pause in warfighting, as Trump’s team works to shore up a fragile ceasefire, provides the perfect time for Congress to step back and assess “what should the next chapter be.”

Hegseth seeks $80 billion from Congress for the Iran war

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is also on Capitol Hill this week, seeking roughly $80 billion in supplemental funding to shore up defense supplies in the aftermath of the Iran war, which is drawing scrutiny when many Americans are reeling from high gas prices and costs of living.

The Pentagon early on had estimated the war cost $11.3 billion during its first week, and experts have put the overall price tag at close to $100 billion.

The Defense Department’s funding request is part of a broader beef-up of military money the White House wants as part of its budget request this year.

The Trump administration is seeking $1.5 trillion in defense funding this year — a 50% increase — including $350 billion that it wants in a so-called budget reconciliation package. Johnson and GOP leaders are working to pass that package on their own, over the objections of Democrats, much the way they approved Trump’s big tax cuts bill last year.

The 2025 tax cuts package also included a sizable increase of about $175 billion for the military.

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.

June 23 (Asia Today) — South Korean power equipment maker LS Electric is strengthening its ties with communities in Utah by honoring Korean War veterans and investing in local education as it expands in the fast-growing North American power market.

Demand for power equipment has surged as artificial intelligence companies build more data centers across North America. Against that backdrop, LS Electric Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Ja-Kyun Koo has emphasized what the company describes as a management strategy based on long-term trust with local communities.

LS Electric said Koo has pursued the strategy through LS Electric Utah, formerly MCM Engineering II, in Cedar City. The South Korean company acquired the operation in 2022 and has since directed an expansion of its production facilities.

Koo has highlighted a Korean War engagement involving soldiers from southern Utah as a historical link between the state and South Korea.

On May 26, 1951, 240 members of the Utah National Guard’s 213th Armored Field Artillery Battalion encountered a Chinese force of more than 4,000 troops near Gapyeong in Gyeonggi Province.

The engagement became known in Utah as the “Miracle at Kapyong.” Accounts maintained by the Utah National Guard say the soldiers fought off the advancing force without losing a member of the unit in the battle.

Families and descendants of the veterans remain part of the community around Cedar City, where LS Electric Utah is based.

Koo said the soldiers’ service in an unfamiliar country demonstrated the kind of courage and commitment that a Korean company operating in Utah should recognize.

LS Electric this year sponsored a Southern Utah University program supporting Korean War veterans. The company also paid the travel expenses of surviving veterans who visited South Korea in May for a ceremony marking the 75th anniversary of the Utah unit’s action near Gapyeong.

The company has also supported the development of science, technology, engineering and mathematics education facilities at Southern Utah University as part of its efforts to train workers for the region’s future industries.

LS Electric joined a separate initiative led by the Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry to connect Korean companies operating in the United States with veterans who previously served with U.S. Forces Korea.

The company said the program could help Korean businesses recruit workers who already have experience with South Korea and its culture.

LS Electric’s community engagement has accompanied a sharp increase in orders for equipment used in North American data centers.

Korea Investment & Securities said LS Electric secured two North American data center equipment projects during the second quarter with a combined value of 489.3 billion won, or about $318 million.

The brokerage expects the company’s North American data center orders to increase by more than 50% from a year earlier and surpass 1.5 trillion won, or about $974 million, in 2026.

“Today, our firm footing in the U.S. market rests on the noble sacrifice of Utah veterans who fought for freedom and peace,” Koo said.

“Remembering and honoring the heroes who created the Miracle at Kapyong is a responsibility that companies should fulfill,” he said.

Koo said businesses built on strong relationships with their communities would be better positioned to achieve stable, long-term growth.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260623010008080

Following the start of the US-Israel war on Iran on February 28, Tehran had effectively closed off the strait, leaving vessels stuck. 

The United Nations’ International Maritime Organization (IMO) has begun evacuating more than 11,000 sailors stranded in the Strait of Hormuz following the memorandum of understanding signed by the United States and Iran to end the US-Israel war on Iran.

IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez said in a statement on Tuesday that the operation would be carried out in “close cooperation with Iran, Oman, all other coastal states in the region, the United States and the maritime industry”.

“We have secured the necessary safety guarantees and have thoroughly verified the conditions for safe navigation to support these operations,” he said.

Following the start of the US-Israel war on Iran on February 28, Tehran had effectively closed off the strait, leaving vessels stuck on the waterway.

But shipping traffic has increased since the signing of the agreement last week, with the Kpler shipping intelligence agency reporting that at least 36 commercial vessels passed through the strait on Monday, a record level of traffic since the war began.

According to Oman’s Defence Ministry, the evacuation process under the IMO plan, which has been under discussion for months, will be phased.

“Given the elevated risk of collision in the current environment, a gradual and controlled evacuation of vessel traffic is required,” it said.

Denmark announced on Tuesday that it will join an international maritime mission set up by France and Britain to help reopen the crucial waterway.

Reporting from the Strait of Hormuz, Al Jazeera’s Tohid Asadi explained that talks between the US and Iran on a peace deal have gotten “a little bit better”.

“Today, we’ve got a joint statement by the Omani and Iranian sides saying they are talking about mechanisms to reopen trade through the Strait of Hormuz. This is a positive indication,” he said.

“However, it remains to be seen how long it’s going to take for the strait to reopen, and until then, we see hundreds of ships stranded on both sides of Hormuz.”

Meanwhile, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio arrived in the United Arab Emirates on Tuesday and reiterated that Iran would not be allowed to charge tolls in the strait under any final deal with the US.

“It’s an international waterway. No country is allowed to charge tolls or fees on an international waterway,” he said, adding that he believed “all the countries in this region would agree”.

Tehran’s top negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, had earlier insisted the Strait of Hormuz “will never return” to the pre-war status quo, despite the foes agreeing to set up communication lines to keep it open.

Several Russian regions are facing fuel shortages because of Ukrainian attacks.

A Russian missile attack on the central Ukrainian city of Kryvyi Rih has killed at least three people, as Moscow struggles with the economic strain of the four-and-a-half-year Russia-Ukraine war.

Oleksandr Vilkul, the head of the Kryvyi Rih defence council, said in a post on Telegram on Tuesday that 25 people had been wounded in the attack, which he said used a cluster munition warhead.

“People died within 200 metres [660 feet] of each other because of this barbaric weapon,” Vilkul said, adding that a day of mourning would be marked on Wednesday.

Kyiv has previously accused Moscow of using cluster munitions, which scatter into smaller explosives when dropped.

Reacting to the attack, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called for more international pressure on Moscow to end the war and for quicker supplies of air defence systems.

“Every delay in implementing air defence agreements, every delay in supplies to protect Ukraine and Ukrainians is in effect a loss of life,” he wrote on Telegram.

Ukraine announced on Tuesday that its forces had targeted a railway bridge, a power plant and other key infrastructure in Russian-occupied Crimea.

Weakened rouble

Over the past few months, Russia and Ukraine have significantly ramped up attacks. As Moscow launches barrages of strikes on Ukraine, Kyiv in turn has targeted Russian refineries and infrastructure with its own drones.

Ukraine’s drone attacks have led to fuel shortages in Russia. Many regions across the country have reported restrictions on fuel sales and rising prices for oil products, creating concerns about the stability of Russia’s economy.

On Monday, the Moscow Exchange stock index fell by five percent before it rebounded slightly. It is still around its lowest level since March 2023, while the rouble weakened past the 75-mark against the US dollar for the first time since May 6.

The Kremlin dismissed concerns about the rouble’s weakness.

“The stability of the Russian economy, macroeconomic stability, is absolutely ensured,” government spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said on Tuesday.

Meanwhile, efforts to end the war have remained effectively frozen as United States President Donald Trump has shifted his focus to Iran.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told foreign envoys in Moscow on Tuesday that the Americans seemed to be “abandoning any claim to the role of an objective mediator and are instead pursuing a course of escalating sanctions pressure on Russia”.

A United Nations commission of inquiry has accused Israel of systematically targeting Palestinian children in the occupied Palestinian territory, saying Israeli actions amount to genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza and war crimes in the occupied West Bank.

In a report released on Tuesday, the commission said about 30 percent of those killed in Gaza since Israel’s war began in October 2023 were children, and that attacks on maternity and neonatal units, along with an aid blockade, have devastated children’s chances of survival.

The commission says Israeli forces have destroyed orphanages and schools, and Palestinian children have been arbitrarily arrested, tortured and subjected to sexual abuse in detention. It warns that killings and serious injuries have continued even after the October 2025 “ceasefire”, in defiance of international law.

UNICEF estimates more than 50,000 children have been killed or wounded since the war began, with at least one Palestinian child killed on average every day in the eight months since the October “ceasefire” took effect.

These images document the lives and losses of Palestinian children in Gaza and the West Bank as they struggle to survive bombardment, displacement and imprisonment – and to hold on to a future that is being systematically stripped away.

Pakistan hosts Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian after mediating the breakthrough US-Iran negotiations in Switzerland.

Islamabad, Pakistan – Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has alanded in Pakistan for a state visit – his first overseas trip since the United States and Israel launched strikes on Iran on February 28.

His Pakistani counterpart Asif Ali Zardari, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, and Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar received the Iranian leader at a military base near capital Islamabad on Tuesday.

During his day-long visit, Pezeshkian, who is accompanied by a high-level delegation that includes ministers and senior officials, will hold talks with Sharif, and is also expected to meet with Zardari.

According to Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Senate Chairman Yousaf Raza Gilani, National Assembly Speaker Ayaz Sadiq, and Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar will also call on the Iranian leader.

“During the visit, the two sides will review the full spectrum of bilateral relations and explore new avenues to further deepen cooperation across diverse sectors, including trade, energy, border security, people-to-people exchanges, and regional connectivity,” the ministry said in a statement on Monday.

Pezeshkian’s visit follows the crucial first round of talks between the United States and Iran, mediated by Pakistan and Qatar, in the Swiss city of Bürgenstock to end the war on Iran.

As part of the agreement, the US will release $12bn in frozen Iranian funds. The US has also announced a temporary easing of international sanctions on Iran, allowing it to sell its oil and petrochemicals until August 21. The talks concluded with a 60-day roadmap towards a final deal.

It is Pezeshkian’s second visit to Pakistan as president. His first, in August 2025, came days after the 12-day Iran-Israel war, and was also his first overseas trip following that conflict.

The visit is widely viewed as an expression of gratitude for Pakistan’s role in brokering the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding, signed on June 18 by US President Donald Trump and Pezeshkian, with Prime Minister Sharif signing the document as a mediator.

The Islamabad MoU launched the formal diplomatic process now under way in Switzerland.

“The visit will also provide an important opportunity to discuss ongoing diplomatic engagements following the signing of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding, as well as regional and international developments of mutual interest,” Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in its statement.

US announces the temporary easing of oil sanctions for 60 days after Iran agrees to allow international nuclear inspections.

Iran’s top negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, says an agreement has been reached with the United States to release $12bn in frozen Iranian funds following talks in Switzerland.

The US eased sanctions on Iranian oil for 60 days after Tehran committed to allowing international nuclear inspectors to return to the country during negotiations to end the US-Israel war on Iran.

Israel and Lebanon are scheduled to hold talks in the US as a ceasefire appears to be holding in Lebanon.

So what’s the latest as the conflict enters its 116th day?

Diplomacy

• Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi says technical talks with the US have concluded and the next phase “will take place under the supervision of the high-level committee” that includes Ghalibaf, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and US Vice President JD Vance.
• Ghalibaf has hailed “good achievements” in the US-Iran talks and confirmed the release of two tranches of $6bn in frozen funds.
• The US Treasury Department has waived sanctions on the sale of Iranian crude ⁠oil, petrochemicals ⁠and petroleum products until ⁠August 21.
• Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi reaffirms a commitment for “toll-free passage” in the Strait of Hormuz after talks with Iranian diplomats in Muscat.
• Henry Ensher, a former US ambassador and deputy assistant secretary of state, says the release of frozen Iranian assets and the resumption of maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz suggest that Washington and Tehran are both “getting what they want”. “Both sides are very interested to show that, somehow, they’ve gotten the upper hand or at least that they’re not being taken advantage of,” Ensher tells Al Jazeera.

In Iran

• Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has called for a “full commitment to agreed obligations”. “The effectiveness of the talks depends on full commitment to the agreed obligations and their precise implementation,” Pezeshkian says.
• Ghalibaf has defended the decision to hold talks with the US, saying Iranian delegates went to Switzerland to end the bloodshed in Lebanon.
• Central Bank of Iran Governor Abdolnaser Hemmati has denied comments by US President Donald Trump that released Iranian funds would be used to buy US farm products. Hemmati tells the Tasnim News Agency that Iran has “no obligation to buy” agricultural products from the US. He says the agreement between the US and Iran on the matter says the first $6bn can be used to buy “basic goods and medicine”.

In the US

• Trump says Iran “will agree” to have weapons inspections and any released Iranian assets will be used to buy US produce.
• Democrats on the Foreign Affairs Committee of the US House of Representatives have accused Trump of granting Iran sanctions relief before making progress on key issues under negotiation, including Tehran’s nuclear programme. “Trump officials repeatedly said sanctions relief would be tied to Iran addressing its nuclear program and terrorist proxies. Neither has been addressed, but the regime has been gifted sweeping sanctions relief it has dreamed of for decades,” they say in a post on X.

In Lebanon

• A ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah has largely held, even as fear of renewed hostilities has kept displaced people from returning home.
• The United Nations said Sunday marked the first time its peacekeepers have detected no air attacks in Lebanon since March 2, the day the war between Israel and Hezbollah escalated and two days after the US-Israel war on Iran began.
• Mahmoud Qamati, deputy head of Hezbollah’s political council, has warned that the Lebanese group will respond to any violation of the ceasefire by Israel, according to Iran’s Press TV. “Hezbollah remains fully alert with its finger on the trigger, ready to confront any violation by the Israeli regime,” Qamati is quoted as saying.
• Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defence Minister Israel Katz and Chief of the General Staff Eyal Zamir say Israeli troops will continue to occupy southern Lebanon.

• The Israeli military will continue to “act with determination in order to neutralize threats against our soldiers and our citizens” and to demolish infrastructure belonging to Hezbollah, they say in a statement.

• The Israeli military will also continue to “maintain the security zone in southern Lebanon”, they say, referring to the land Israel occupies there, razing buildings and forcibly displacing one million people.
• Israel and Lebanon are to start a new round of direct talks in Washington, DC, on Tuesday.