Iran’s chief negotiator said the Strait will never return to the way it was before the war, but also said Iran will fully comply with international law. He spoke while on his way back from first round talks with the US in Switzerland.
Published On 23 Jun 202623 Jun 2026
Share
US says the decisions follow Iran’s commitment to allow international nuclear inspections.
Published On 23 Jun 202623 Jun 2026
Share
Qatar’s PM Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani told Al Jazeera that safeguards have been put in place to prevent US-Iran negotiations from regional escalation, including tensions in Lebanon and the Strait of Hormuz, stressing diplomacy and respect for agreements.
Published On 22 Jun 202622 Jun 2026
Share
The disruption caused by the Iran war and the temporary closure of the Strait of Hormuz has prompted countries around the world to reconsider their energy security strategies. Governments that suffered economic damage from supply shortages and soaring prices are now looking to build larger strategic oil and gas reserves, potentially creating demand for hundreds of millions of additional barrels over the coming years.
The near-total closure of the Strait of Hormuz disrupted around one-fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas supplies for more than three months, sending shockwaves through energy markets.
Brent crude prices surged to nearly $120 a barrel as import-dependent economies faced rising fuel costs, supply uncertainty and growing inflationary pressures.
One of the key factors preventing a deeper energy crisis was the release of strategic petroleum reserves.
All 32 members of the International Energy Agency agreed to a record release of 400 million barrels from emergency stockpiles, helping offset supply disruptions and ease pressure on global markets.
The coordinated action highlighted the importance of maintaining large emergency reserves during major geopolitical crises.
China emerged from the crisis in a stronger position than many other major importers due to its massive strategic petroleum reserve.
The country has spent years building what is believed to be the world’s largest emergency oil stockpile, estimated at more than one billion barrels.
During the conflict, China significantly reduced crude imports, allowing it to avoid buying large volumes of oil at elevated prices and limiting the economic impact of the disruption.
Countries with limited strategic reserves faced much greater challenges.
Several Asian economies relied on emergency measures such as:
The experience exposed vulnerabilities among countries heavily dependent on Middle Eastern energy supplies without substantial emergency stockpiles.
India is among the countries most likely to expand its emergency storage capacity.
As the world’s third-largest oil importer and one of the fastest-growing energy consumers, India currently holds reserves covering only a small fraction of its import needs.
Meeting International Energy Agency standards would require hundreds of millions of additional barrels of storage capacity.
Recent plans under consideration suggest New Delhi is moving toward expanding its strategic petroleum reserve network.
Pakistan, which relied heavily on Middle Eastern oil and LNG imports before the conflict, is also examining ways to increase domestic storage capacity.
The Hormuz disruption underscored the risks facing countries that lack sufficient reserves to absorb prolonged supply interruptions.
Australia, long criticized for failing to meet International Energy Agency stockpile requirements, has announced plans to significantly increase fuel reserves.
The move reflects a broader recognition that energy security has become a national security issue amid growing geopolitical uncertainty.
Europe already maintains extensive gas storage infrastructure to manage winter demand.
However, the war has renewed concerns about dependence on imported LNG, particularly as the region increasingly relies on overseas suppliers.
Additional government-controlled gas storage facilities may become part of future energy security planning.
The lessons of the Hormuz disruption are also influencing major energy exporters.
National oil companies in the Gulf are exploring opportunities to expand storage capacity outside the region to maintain export flexibility during future crises.
Additional overseas storage could help producers continue serving customers even if regional shipping routes face disruptions.
The expansion of strategic reserves worldwide could create substantial new demand for crude oil and refined products.
At the same time, emergency reserves that were depleted during the conflict will need to be replenished.
Together, reserve rebuilding and new storage programs could generate demand for roughly one billion barrels over the coming years, providing support for global oil prices even if overall supply growth remains strong.
The Hormuz crisis has reinforced a lesson many governments learned during previous energy shocks: supply security can be just as important as supply availability.
Countries are increasingly viewing strategic reserves not as emergency assets to be used rarely, but as a core component of economic and national security planning. The crisis has also demonstrated how large stockpiles can provide governments with flexibility to reduce imports during periods of market stress and extreme prices.
The most significant consequence of the Iran war may not be the temporary spike in oil prices but the long-term shift in how countries manage energy security. The conflict exposed a clear divide between nations with large strategic reserves and those forced to absorb the full impact of supply disruptions. China emerged as a model for energy resilience, while countries such as India and Pakistan were reminded of their vulnerability to geopolitical shocks.
If governments follow through on plans to expand storage capacity, the global oil market could gain a major new source of structural demand. Reserve construction and replenishment may help absorb future supply surpluses and provide a floor for prices, particularly during periods of weak economic growth.
At the same time, larger strategic stockpiles could make future oil shocks less severe. Countries with substantial reserves are better positioned to reduce imports during crises, dampening demand spikes and limiting extreme price volatility. In the longer term, the world could emerge from the Hormuz crisis with a more resilient energy system, but one in which strategic stockpiles play a much larger role in shaping oil demand, trade flows and government policy.
With information from Reuters.
The move, expected under the MoU, comes as Vice President JD Vance says there’s a ‘good foundation’ for a final deal.
Published On 22 Jun 202622 Jun 2026
The United States has partially lifted sanctions on Iranian oil exports following “encouraging” talks over ending their conflict.
The US Treasury issued a 60-day sanctions waiver on Monday, paving the way for the production, delivery and sale of Iranian oil to the US. The move came amid positive reports from mediators and the US vice president regarding talks in Switzerland between Washington and Tehran aimed at establishing a full peace deal.
list of 4 itemsend of list
The waiver is a condition included in the 60-day memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed by Tehran and Washington on June 17.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that the US-Iran talks have been “productive” and that several of the MoU’s stipulations are moving ahead.
“Iran has committed to free and open transit in the Strait of Hormuz and to permit International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors into their country,” he wrote on social media. “As part of the framework, Treasury has issued a temporary 60-day general licence authorising the production, delivery and sale of Iranian oil.”
The licence lasts through August 21 and covers crude oil, petrochemical products, or petroleum products of Iranian origin. It permits Iranian oil to be imported into the US but does not authorise transactions involving US-sanctioned North Korea or Cuba, or Russian-occupied Ukraine.
There was no immediate response from Iranian government officials.
Oil prices continued their recent decline upon news of the waiver, with Brent crude dropping over 3.5 percent to $77.7 per barrel.
Bessent’s announcement came as US Vice President JD Vance voiced optimism over the Tehran-Washington discussions in the Swiss resort of Burgenstock.
“We laid a very good foundation for a successful final deal,” he told reporters and shrugged off yesterday’s online tit-for-tat between President Donald Trump and top negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf.
“Social media threats that they would walk out” did not come to fruition,” Vance noted. “There was a little bit of threatening, there was a little bit of whining, but at the end of the day the talks continued and we made great progress.”
Mediators at the talks said that Washington and Tehran had made “encouraging progress” at the first round, according to Reuters.
The vice president did not give a firm timeline for when nuclear inspections may start, but said conversations with the IAEA could happen as soon as Monday.
The US has said that the need to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon was a key driver of its attacks, and demands that Tehran reopen its nuclear facilities to international oversight.
Iran has persistently rejected accusations that it seeks to develop a nuclear arsenal, insisting that its nuclear programme is purely for civilian purposes.
Shortly before the waiver announcement, the Strait of Hormuz was reported to be seeing an increase in oil and gas tanker traffic, just two days after Iran said it would close the waterway again because of Israeli attacks on Lebanon.
Four Qatari-operated LNG tankers headed into the Gulf and through the strait on Monday, while two supertankers – which can carry up to four million barrels of crude oil – entered. One indicated its destination as the Iraqi port of Basra, according to ship tracking data.
Two smaller crude oil tankers, laden with just under two million barrels, sailed out of the waterway and into the Gulf of Oman on Monday, according to MarineTraffic.
“While daily transits remain below the 125 crossings prior to the Iran hostilities, the trend is positive,” said the shipping firm Clarksons.
The US has maintained that the strait was never closed for the second time and tracked 55 merchant ships loaded with more than 17 million barrels of oil on Saturday.
Coca-Cola and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) of the United States will face off in a Florida court this week in the latest episode of a decades-long legal battle over the beverage giant’s tax liability on overseas profits.
The Atlanta, Georgia-based company and the US tax service will begin oral arguments on Thursday in a dispute that centres on transfer pricing – the practice of setting prices for transactions carried out between a company’s own affiliates – and could result in Coca-Cola facing a tax bill of about $20bn.
list of 4 itemsend of list
The case is being closely watched in corporate circles because the outcome will have implications for the amount of tax US-based multinational corporations must pay on income generated through their foreign subsidiaries.
Coca-Cola is appealing a 2020 US Tax Court ruling that upheld the IRS’s finding that the soft drink giant underreported profits from transactions between its foreign subsidiaries.
In 2015, the IRS notified Coca-Cola that it owed billions in back taxes after concluding that the company had undercharged its units in Ireland, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Costa Rica, Egypt and Eswatini, formerly known as Swaziland.
US multinationals often charge low licensing fees for their overseas units to minimise their reportable income in the US, which has a higher corporate tax rate than many of its peers.
“The IRS audited Coca-Cola because the company was earning astronomical profits in Ireland and a few other countries,” Alex Martin, an expert in transfer pricing at the tax consulting firm KBKG, told Al Jazeera.
The IRS first took Coca-Cola to court in 2015, but the origins of the dispute date back to 1996 when the two sides settled a tax audit for liabilities from 1987 to 1995.
Under the pricing formula agreed in that settlement, Coca-Cola’s foreign affiliates were allowed to retain a profit equal to 10 percent of their gross sales with the remaining income split evenly between the US headquarters and the overseas unit.
Coca-Cola argues that it should be able to continue to use this formula from 1996 while the IRS contends the terms of that settlement should have no bearing on the soft drink giant’s tax liabilities arising from audits in 2007, 2008 and 2009.
“The amount of potential exposure is about $20bn, so it is significant,” Reuven Avi-Yonah, an expert in taxation law at the University of Michigan Law School, told Al Jazeera.
Coca-Cola agreed to pay the IRS $6bn in back taxes and interest in 2024 while preparing its appeal but could be liable to pay up to $14bn more if the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit sides with the government.
Coca-Cola argues that the IRS “misinterpreted and misapplied the applicable regulations” and has expressed its confidence that it will be successful in its appeal.
The case is important because it could serve as a template for the US government to raise more tax revenue from large multinational companies that generate huge profits overseas.
“The IRS designated this case for litigation because this litigation can provide a template for the IRS to audit other US companies with highly profitable subsidiaries,” Martin said.
Under the administration of former US President Joe Biden, the IRS ramped up its tax collection efforts against companies benefitting from transfer pricing arrangements.
In one of the most high-profile transfer pricing cases in recent years, the IRS announced in 2023 that Microsoft owed $28.9bn in back taxes, plus penalties and interest, on income derived from the distribution of software through its subsidiaries in Puerto Rico, Ireland and Singapore.
Microsoft said it disagreed with the IRS’s reasoning and would appeal to the tax service and, if that failed, go to court.
In 2024, the IRS announced that the short-term rental platform Airbnb and Newell Brands, a consumer products manufacturer, had underpaid their taxes to the tune of $1.33bn and $90m, respectively.
Airbnb and Newell Brands have both challenged the IRS’s determinations in the US Tax Court.
The Coca-Cola case is particularly significant because the IRS has historically fared poorly in litigating transfer pricing complaints, losing a string of cases against major corporations through the decades, including Bausch & Lomb, US Steel Corp and Hospital Corp of America.
“It is important because it is the first clear victory of the IRS in this kind of case involving profit shifting out of the US in many decades, so if it is upheld on appeal, more companies may be inclined to settle rather than litigate,” Avi-Yonah said.
Gas sales in Russian-controlled Crimea have halted after Ukrainian drone strikes on the peninsula’s supply route. Drivers are now looking for other modes of transport.
Published On 22 Jun 202622 Jun 2026
Share
The first round of US-Iran talks has ended with both sides agreeing on a roadmap towards a final deal to be reached ‘within 60 days’. Iran said the negotiations resulted in waivers for oil exports and the release of some frozen assets. The parties have also agreed to a ‘de-confliction cell’ to monitor the ceasefire in Lebanon.
Published On 22 Jun 202622 Jun 2026
Share
How it started: A dream. A French machine-gun officer in the trenches during the First World War. A man named Jules Rimet, who believed an international soccer tournament would bring the nations together with the goal of peace.
How it’s going: The world’s biggest party. A 48-nation celebration of the world’s most beloved sport. Expected to generate about $8.9 billion, it’s become such a big deal that it’s being hosted by three countries — one of which, yes, launched a war on a competing nation in the months before the tournament.
The United States’ war with Iran, costly in all the profound ways that war is, also laid the groundwork for an uneven — and possibly precedent-setting — playing field.
At this World Cup, Team Melli has been subjected to shifting travel restrictions and uncertainty unlike the other 47 teams, spending the tournament commuting between Southern California and its base in Tijuana.
And still, after Sunday’s 0-0 draw against Belgium, the world’s No. 10-ranked team, Team Melli is in position to not only get out of its group at the World Cup for the first time, but to win Group G.
Iran’s treatment only makes its performance more impressive — while bringing into question the future of a tournament that purports to be apolitical. And conjuring up concerns about how the Olympics will operate when L.A. is supposed to open its arms to the world two years from now.
Will we be laying down blanket bans again? Will it be easier to ditch diplomacy than to deal hospitably with a global audience for a global event?
Russia and Qatar were capable of implementing systems that relaxed visa requirements to accommodate every team and its fans in the previous two World Cups. Why couldn’t the United States?
Instead, the U.S. State Department suspended visa issuance for nationals from not only Iran, but also from participating countries Haiti, Senegal and Ivory Coast. Iraq’s striker, Aymen Hussein, was held and questioned for nearly seven hours at Chicago’s O’Hare airport.
And the U.S. has allowed members of Iran’s team — discounting the 15 administration officials who reportedly were denied entry — to enter the country only within 24 hours of a match and leave the same day.
And those arbitrary restrictions — they’re OK 24 hours before a match, but not 48? — have put Team Melli at a competitive disadvantage.
“I think that united us even more,” said winger Alireza Jahanbakhsh, who spoke eloquently in English postmatch, a gracious statesman in Adidas sneakers. “That’s one of the things that I think we showed today — we showed a great team character. And part of it comes from the situation we are in.”
Through an interpreter, coach Amir Ghalenoei broadened the scope of what Iran has been facing in its runup to the World Cup.
“We were in a state of war for six months, we didn’t have a league and I remember once during a FIFA qualifying day, we traveled 40 hours by land to another country to play,” Ghalenoei said. “Everybody knows about the visa issues. Everyone knows about our coming to America. A part of the team was in competition conditions and part of them had their domestic league suspended because of the war … and many of the teams that were supposed to play us, canceled.
“I think we entered the World Cup in the worst possible conditions. This is the part I wanted the whole world to know … but the players who entered the World Cup under these conditions are truly commendable.”
It’s been a spirited rebuttal to what’s felt like a counterattack on the inherent values of the World Cup. A reminder that governments and governing bodies can get it wrong, but the beautiful game stays undefeated.
FIFA president Gianni Infantino, left, and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio pose for a photo before a World Cup game between the U.S. and Paraguay at SoFi Stadium on June 12.
(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)
But what about FIFA?
What about the all-powerful governing body that runs the sport, whose motto is “Football Unites the World”?
The world’s foremost party planning committee, with the cachet to override branded venue names with generic, location-based names — Los Angeles Stadium instead of SoFi Stadium — on Google and Apple maps?
What has FIFA done to flex its muscle to maintain the integrity of the world’s beautiful game?
Not much.
There have been niceties and brownnosing, but no sanctions or threats thereof. Not even a hint of repercussions for diminishing the integrity of the event.
No fines, like what FIFA imposed on six national football associations in response to racist incidents involving supporters during the qualifiers for the World Cup.
No bans, like what FIFA leveled in 1988, when it ousted Mexico from all FIFA competitions for using four overage players in the Under-20 World Cup, or in 2006, when Myanmar was banned from qualifying after refusing to play Iran in an Asian qualifying match for the 2002 World Cup.
Peace talks are ongoing between the United States and Iran, but Iran’s footballing ambassadors haven’t been free to move or to prepare as they wish ahead of its matches against Belgium, and before that, their 2-2 draw against New Zealand.
Apparently, though, Iran will get greater control over travel arrangements before its now hugely consequential final group-stage match is in Seattle against Egypt on June 26, or so Ghalenoei believed when he addressed reporters Saturday.
“What my problem is, why didn’t they let us come earlier for the first two games as well?” Ghalenoei asked. “If they’ve managed to do this now, why didn’t they do that for our first game and for this game?”
Good questions.
Questions no one should be asking at the World Cup.
Iranian fans in Tehran watched their team secure a 0-0 draw against Belgium at the World Cup in Los Angeles, keeping hope alive for an unprecedented chance at the second round. Iran competes under strict US travel restrictions, which forced them to fly back to Mexico within hours of the draw, rather than remaining overnight for recovery.
Published On 22 Jun 202622 Jun 2026
Share
WASHINGTON — The question hangs in the halls at the Capitol: Was it worth it?
Congress, which never authorized the war against Iran yet never fully objected to it, now must grapple with the consequences of President Trump’s nearly four-month conflict: the lives lost, the billions spent and the national security fallout that has reordered the political dynamics in the Middle East.
Ask senators what they think about the deal Trump struck to end the war, and they do not search too far for words.
“Pathetic. Failure. Inevitable conclusion of a combination of never making the case to the American people, flawed strategic vision, lack of grasp of the regional dynamics,” said Delaware Sen. Chris Coons, a Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
“How many ways, can I say, bad, bad, bad?”
Many Republicans too have been critical. Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said it’s hard to see what leverage the U.S. gained to force Iran to a better negotiation.
“You want to be able to give the benefit of the doubt,” she said. But, she said, “I think we’re in a place where there is a deal that has been signed, but it doesn’t appear to me that it puts us in that much of a different position than prior to the beginning of the war.”
Others in the GOP remain supportive of Trump’s efforts. Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, a past chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said that because of the president’s actions, “We are safer today.”
“You can criticize — oh, he didn’t totally win,” Johnson said. “Well, that was always going to be very difficult.”
As Trump moves on to the next phase, it is left to the Congress to pick up the pieces: explaining the war to voters back home, restocking the military arsenal that has run low from bombing runs and trying to ensure the fragile ceasefire holds as the United States seeks to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions and work toward an uneasy peace.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth made the rounds on Capitol Hill last week as lawmakers consider Pentagon funding as part of the Republican majority’s next big budget package.
The White House has asked for a remarkable $1.5 trillion for the Defense Department this year, on top of the extra money the GOP delivered as part of the Trump’s tax cuts package last year.
Republicans are considering a sizable, $350-billion-plus increase in Defense spending on par with the White House’s budget request that the GOP could pass on its own, through the reconciliation process that allows Senate majority rule over potential objections from Democrats.
Senators, meanwhile, are seeking to set some guardrails on Hegseth with a provision to block a portion of his travel fund until the Pentagon delivers various reports. One such report is on an investigation into the strike on an elementary school in Iran that killed more than 165 people on the first day of the war, most of them children.
Officials have acknowledged that they believe the U.S. was responsible for the strike and say it was based on faulty intelligence.
Lawmakers are still processing what just happened after Trump swiftly signed a memorandum of understanding with Iran and opened a window of 60-day talks toward ending Tehran’s nuclear program, which got underway Sunday in Switzerland.
“I understand the president’s trying to find a peaceful solution to this,” said Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), who serves on the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence committees. “I commend him for that. But we’ve got a lot of questions.”
Senators are particularly concerned about the tentative deal’s provision for a potential $300-billion fund for the “reconstruction and economic development” of Iran.
To many skeptical Republicans, that money sounds similar to the “planeloads of cash” narrative they used against the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal, which offered a slim fraction of that amount, some $1.7 billion overall. To this day, Trump tells an exaggerated story of how that payment to Iran, for U.S. military equipment it never received, was made.
“The only concerns I have are the money and the conditions,” said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.).
“If we send a trainload, a shipload, it’s gonna age as well as that,” he said, referring to the Obama-era issue.
Over and again Congress tried and failed to exert its authority under the war powers act to halt the U.S. military action in Iran.
The House ultimately passed a war powers resolution that sought to force an end to the war after a small number of Republicans joined the Democratic measure last month. The Senate has voted nine times, including last week, but failed to reach the majority needed.
At the same time, Congress did not affirmatively authorize the war with a use-of-force resolution, as has been done in certain other conflicts, including the Iraq war.
“I’m glad that the conflict has finally ended and hope the ceasefire holds,” Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement.
But she said the country must be clear-eyed about what has come about. Not one of the president’s objectives has been achieved, she said, and Iran won significant concessions.
“The American people are paying the price with higher costs in every aspect of life and tens of billions in tax dollars spent,” she said.
Mascaro writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.
In an exclusive interview, Professor and political analyst Mahjoub Zweiri breaks down what intentions behind US-Iran talks will result in.
Published On 21 Jun 202621 Jun 2026
Share
Iranian armed forces say they’ve closed the Strait of Hormuz after Israeli attacks on Lebanon – just days after an agreement with the US reopen it.
Disruption to the crucial waterway has had a huge economic impact worldwide.
list of 4 itemsend of list
So, what happens next?
Presenter: Tom McRae
Guests:
Ian Ralby — Senior Fellow at the Center for Maritime Strategy and Associate Fellow with the International Law Programme at Chatham House
Mehran Kamrava — Professor of Government at Georgetown University in Qatar and Head of the Iranian Studies Unit at the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies
Stavros Karamperidis — Associate Professor in Maritime Economics and Head of the Maritime Transport Research Group at the University of Plymouth
Published On 21 Jun 202621 Jun 2026
Share
On June 14, the United States and Iran agreed to a framework to end their war. The Strait of Hormuz is to reopen, the bombing of Lebanon is to end and – most importantly – the killing is to stop. After more than 100 days of war that killed thousands, including Iran’s most senior leaders, and pushed the world economy to the brink, even a fragile truce feels like first light.
Let us welcome it, but also let us understand it. To grasp why this war happened, and the string of wars before it, we must name their common cause. That cause is “Greater Israel” – not the country of Israel but an idea of it – a terrible one. The idea of “Greater Israel” has been the cause of wars in Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Iran.
It holds that Israel should stretch over all of historic Palestine – from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea – and to parts of neighbouring countries as well. According to United States Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, a fundamentalist Protestant whose geopolitical compass is set by biblical texts from 500 BC, “Greater Israel” stretches from the Nile to the Euphrates. Last summer, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu professed to be “very” attached to a vision of “Greater Israel” that, he said, takes in the Palestinian territories and neighbouring Arab lands.
This absurd and dangerous doctrine has two parents. The first are secular hardliners like Netanyahu who say that Israel must control all the land from the river to the sea to be safe, and damn the eight million Palestinians in the way.
The second is the Jewish supremacist creed of Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir that God gave the land to the Jews alone: There is, in Smotrich’s words, “no such thing as a Palestinian”. Asked recently how Israel should answer its collapsing global standing, Smotrich vowed Israel would not relinquish military control of the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanese or Syrian territory: “We won’t commit suicide to make them happy.”
“Greater Israel” is paranoia, megalomania and religious zeal braided into a single programme. The doctrine should have been repudiated on its first airing decades ago. Instead, it has driven Israel’s foreign and military doctrine for three decades – and has survived until today because Netanyahu has taken the US for a ride.
He has done it with two American constituencies: Jewish Zionists who love Israel and will forgive it anything and Christian Zionists who love the prophecy of the End Times and the Second Coming of Christ more than they love any living Palestinian or, for that matter, any living Israeli.
Delusion has led on to delusion, and the road has run from one war to the next. We are 30 years into this fiasco now.
The war on Iran was simply the latest “Greater Israel” fantasy. The government of 90 million people was to be toppled in a single, glorious day. Of course, it did not happen. Israeli and American bombs killed Iran’s leaders on February 28, but that did not deliver the promised collapse. It resulted instead in thousands of dead, a choked Strait of Hormuz and a global oil shock.
We have seen this film before. The Israel-US plan to bring down President Bashar al-Assad in Syria was also meant to be quick, one or two years at the most. Instead came a dozen years of carnage, fed by a covert war armed and financed by the CIA with Israel’s ardent backing. The result was an ancient country reduced to rubble. The promised one-day victories always become decade-long graveyards.
US President Donald Trump has been battered by joining the “Greater Israel” delusion, and he knows it. The new agreement with Iran is his escape valve, a way out of a fatuous war that was never his to win.
That is precisely why Israel’s “Greater Israel” politicians are trying to strangle the new agreement in the cradle, for peace with Iran is a defeat for “Greater Israel”. Even after the deal was sealed, Israel has continued to bomb Lebanon, killing 47 people in a single day on Friday and another 32 on Saturday hours after a Lebanon-Israel ceasefire took effect.
Here is the deeper truth: “Greater Israel” is not saving Israel. It is killing it. The friction now visible between Trump and Netanyahu is only the surface. Beneath it lies the collapse of Israel’s standing throughout the world. According to a recent Pew opinion survey, the world now holds an overwhelmingly unfavourable view of Israel. In the US, Israel’s indispensable patron, six in 10 adults view it unfavourably.
A state that makes itself hated by the world, and by its only protector, is not pursuing security. It is threatening its own survival to feed a delusion.
So the way to peace in West Asia is to stop “Greater Israel”. End the war on Iran, stop the genocide in Gaza and halt the strangulation of the West Bank. Most importantly, do the thing the doctrine forbids, which is to create the State of Palestine as the 194th United Nations member state alongside the State of Israel on the 1967 lines with genuine security for both countries and a regional framework to guarantee it, which should include Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon and Syria.
The Iran ceasefire makes the case in miniature: It was won not on the battlefield but through mediation. It became possible when Washington decided it wanted peace more than it wanted “Greater Israel’s” war.
Israel can survive, but not as “Greater Israel”, a disastrous idea that has marched it and the US from one war to the next.
The glimmer of hope today is real. Whether it becomes a true dawn depends on whether the US finally lets Palestine be born, and thereby lets Israel live. The Arab world and Iran need to keep insisting to the US that breaking with “Greater Israel” is the only path to lasting peace.
The views expressed in this article are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.
Iranian and US officials are set for high stakes talks in Switzerland aimed at reinforcing the Memorandum of Understanding framework. Al Jazeera’s Osama Bin Javaid says intense diplomatic efforts have kept negotiations on track, but key disputes remain unresolved.
Published On 21 Jun 202621 Jun 2026
Share
Lebanon to top the agenda as US and Iran to hold talks in Switzerland’s Burgenstock mediated by Qatar and Pakistan.
Published On 21 Jun 202621 Jun 2026
United States Vice President JD Vance has arrived in Switzerland for talks with Iran days after they signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) aimed at ending the US-Israel war on Iran, which had sent oil prices soaring above $100 per barrel and rattled international markets.
The latest round of talks mediated by Pakistan and Qatar is scheduled on Sunday as Israel has intensified attacks on Lebanon, killing dozens of people on Saturday.
list of 4 itemsend of list
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) announced on Saturday that it was closing the Strait of Hormuz, accusing Israel of violating the ceasefire in Lebanon. The Iranian delegation, including parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, has also arrived in Switzerland.
Here’s what we know about the conflict, which has entered its 114th day:
Pakistan says talks between the United States and Iran which were postponed on Friday will begin in Switzerland on Sunday, as Tehran announced it was again closing the Strait of Hormuz because of continued Israeli attacks in Lebanon.
Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman, Esmail Baghaei, confirmed on Saturday that an Iranian delegation, including Parliament Speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi and other senior officials, was heading to Switzerland.
list of 3 itemsend of list
In Washington, Vice President JD Vance confirmed that the top US negotiators Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff were already in Switzerland working through technical details of anticipated negotiations on Iran’s nuclear programme.
Vance told Fox News that he expects to leave for Switzerland “sometime in the next couple of days” but acknowledged that “it’s always a delicate coordination dance.”
The planned meeting on Sunday will start technical-level negotiations towards a final US-Iran deal. That is after both sides signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) earlier in the week declaring a permanent end to “military operations on all fronts”, including in Lebanon.
The MoU stipulates that a final deal should be reached within 60 days, “extendable with mutual consent”.
But even getting to the negotiating table following the MoU proved difficult. A round of talks originally planned for Friday was pushed back after Iran failed to send its delegation, as deadly Israeli strikes persisted in Lebanon.
Although Israel agreed to a renewed ceasefire with Hezbollah on Friday, its attacks in Lebanon continued into Saturday, killing at least 32 people, according to Lebanon’s civil defence and state media reports.
On Friday, Israeli attacks killed 83 people and wounded 141, Lebanon’s health ministry said.
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) on Saturday announced it was re-imposing restrictions on the Strait of Hormuz over Israeli “crimes” in Lebanon and what it called a US violation of commitments to establish a ceasefire.
It warned ship crews not to approach the strategic waterway, saying their security would be at risk if they do.
Mohammad Mokhber, an adviser to Iran’s supreme leader, warned that the flow of energy in the Middle East would halt so long as the US-Iran agreement “remains only on paper”.
The US military said its forces were still operating in the “general area” of the Strait of Hormuz and “remain present and vigilant” to make sure “all aspects of the agreement with Iran are adhered to”. It said 55 commercial vessels had transited the strait on Saturday and that safe passage was still “intact”.
According to Pakistan’s foreign ministry, Pakistani and Qatari mediators will join the US-Iran talks on Sunday in the Swiss mountain resort of Burgenstock.
Reporting from there, Al Jazeera’s Osama bin Javaid said there has been a flurry of behind-the-scenes diplomatic activity ahead of the formal negotiations, with Qatar’s Prime Minister, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani, already holding meetings. Pakistan’s Foreign Minister, Ishaq Dar, has been holding talks in Egypt and Pakistan’s Interior Minister, Mohsin Naqvi, travelled to Iran.
Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Baghaei has signalled that progress may be scarce until Iran feels the US is living up to its end of the interim deal.
In comments broadcast by Iran’s IRIB, Baghaei said Iran “must naturally be very firm and serious in demanding fulfilment of obligations” considering the US’s past “failure to honour commitments”.
Al Jazeera’s James Bays, reporting from Burgenstock, said there are indications “things are moving backwards from when the MoU was signed”, citing Israel’s continued bombardment of southern Lebanon.
“The Iranians see this as a serious breach of the MoU,” he said. “Their first sanction was by not coming here. They have now utilised their best weapon by closing the Strait of Hormuz.
“Iran believes this tactic will help get things back on track with regard to southern Lebanon,” added Bays.
The move comes after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was stripped of Poland’s top honour.
Published On 20 Jun 202620 Jun 2026
Top Ukrainian officials have said they are returning Polish awards after President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was stripped of Warsaw’s top honour in a dispute between the allies over World War II massacres.
Zelenskyy’s chief of staff, Kyrylo Budanov; Ukraine’s ambassador to Warsaw, Vasyl Bodnar; and Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha said on Saturday they would relinquish awards bestowed by Poland.
list of 4 itemsend of list
“Our nations have long-standing relations and different pages of history – both heroic and tragic,” Budanov posted on social media. “However, this should be an occasion for deep reflection, not crude political speculation.”
Zelenskyy angered many in Poland over his naming of a military unit after a Ukrainian paramilitary organisation accused of massacring Poles during World War II.
In a decree on May 26, Zelenskyy named a military unit the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) – the name of a group that operated in the 1940s and 1950s.
On Friday, Polish President Karol Nawrocki announced he would strip Zelenskyy of the Order of the White Eagle, which was bestowed on him by Former Polish President Andrzej Duda in 2023 for services to security, resilience and the defence of human rights.
For most in Poland, “the Ukrainian Insurgent Army remains above all a formation responsible for cruel crimes against the citizens of the Polish Republic during World War II,” Nawrocki said on social media, adding that the decision would not end Poland’s support for Ukraine against Russia.
Ukrainian officials criticised the decision as one that played into Russia’s hands. Budanov, the Ukrainian Presidential Office chief, wrote on Telegram that it was “an unfriendly act toward our people” and “a gift to the Moscow aggressor, which will certainly use it against both of our countries”.
Foreign Minister Sybiha called it a “strategic mistake” while Bodnar said it was “especially painful” as Ukraine fends off Russian attacks.
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, a political rival of President Nawrocki, urged both sides to “calm tensions” in a post on X on Friday.
Conflict between Poland and Ukraine “delights Putin and shocks our allies”, he said.
The UPA fought against both Nazi German and Soviet forces, but is also accused of mass killings of Poles in Nazi-occupied areas. Ukrainians say UPA and Polish underground forces launched large-scale attacks and reprisals against each other that led to deaths among Ukrainian and Polish civilians.
Approximately 1.3 million Syrians returned from abroad in 2025, nearly three times the figure recorded the previous year, while a further two million internally displaced Syrians went back home, cutting the global Syrian refugee population from 6 million to 4.9 million.
On December 8, 2024, the al-Assad dynasty, which lasted 54 years, was removed from power by a rebel offensive.
The 14-year-long war led to one of the world’s largest migration crises, with some 6.8 million Syrians, about a third of the population, fleeing the country at the war’s peak in 2021, seeking refuge wherever they could find it.
More than half of these refugees, about 3.74 million, settled in neighbouring Turkiye, while 840,000 found refuge in Lebanon and 672,000 in Jordan.
Hiam told Al Jazeera she returned to Syria with her family after more than a decade of living in a host country. “The reason that pushed us to return was the high cost of living we were facing in the host country. We stayed there for 12 years, and it was a great hardship for us as refugees.”
We returned to Syria, thank God, but in the beginning it was difficult because we didn’t find homes or anything. Syria now is completely different from when we left. The return was very difficult at first – the scene was very hard for me.
“But thank God, I became stronger. The first period was very difficult, and at the beginning, it was hard to cope,” Hiam explained.
According to UNHCR data, some 556,00 Syrians returned from neighbouring Turkiye, 465,000 from Lebanon and 256,000 from Jordan.
More than seven in 10 returnees have reported improvements in security and freedom of movement in Syria, according to the UNHCR. Almost three-quarters of Syrian refugees abroad have also said they would eventually like to return home.
Returns in 2026 reached 549,800 by mid-May, driven by deteriorating conditions in Lebanon.
Iranian deputy foreign minister says Iran ‘ready to move forward’ on diplomacy with US, but war must end on all fronts.
Published On 20 Jun 202620 Jun 2026
Share
Lawmakers and pro-Israel groups have issued calls for United States President Donald Trump to ask Congress to review a recent memorandum of understanding (MoU) designed to end the US-Israeli war with Iran.
They cite the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (INARA) as a precedent. Passed in 2015, the law says any agreements with Iran related to its nuclear programme must be submitted to Congress for review and a possible vote of disapproval.
list of 3 itemsend of list
The act came into effect when former US President Barack Obama was negotiating the now-defunct Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran, and it remains on the books today.
US Senator Lindsey Graham was among the first lawmakers to invoke the act after this week’s memo was announced.
“Under our law, any nuclear deal with Iran will be sent to Congress for review and a vote. I look forward to reviewing the final product,” Graham, a longtime Iran hawk, wrote in a social media post on Sunday.
Critics, including some Democrats and pro-peace groups, have questioned the newfound interest in Congress asserting its powers, after Republicans repeatedly flouted the legislature’s authority during the war itself.
Some see the push as an effort to give the memorandum greater legitimacy, as Trump comes under fire for its terms. Others question whether Iran hawks are invoking INARA to push for a return to war.
Here’s what to know about the debate:
INARA creates requirements for any agreement between the US and Iran “related to the nuclear program of Iran”, no matter “the form it takes” or whether the agreement is legally binding.
Ahead of its passage in 2015, it was championed by bipartisan opponents of the JCPOA. That deal, which saw Tehran curtail its nuclear programme and submit to regular inspections in exchange for sanctions relief, was subsequently subject to provisions of the law.
The law requires the president to submit the text of any agreement he strikes with Iran to Congress within five days, along with any related materials. That triggers a 30-day approval period.
During that period, members of Congress can choose to pass a joint resolution of disapproval to scuttle the deal.
Still, such a resolution would be subject to the presidential veto. A successful disapproval resolution would therefore require a two-third majority from both chambers to override any vetoes, an extremely high bar.
During the congressional review period, the president “may not waive, suspend, reduce, provide relief from, or otherwise limit the application of statutory sanctions with respect to Iran under any provision of law or refrain from applying any such sanctions pursuant to [the] agreement”, the law states.
Those terms could limit this week’s memorandum, as it includes sanctions relief for Iran.
Trump has suggested he was open to sending the US-Iran memorandum to Congress, telling reporters earlier this week: “I like the idea. I mean, who wouldn’t approve it?”
But his administration has not yet done so. Administration officials have also not articulated a stance on whether or not they believes the memo is subject to the law. Trump, after all, has frequently denied needing congressional approval for his actions against Iran.
This week’s memorandum opens the Strait of Hormuz, lifts the US blockade on Iran’s ports, and halts fighting on all fronts, including in Lebanon.
It also immediately lifts US sanctions on Iran’s fossil fuel industry, while launching negotiations on the future of Iran’s nuclear programme, among other issues.
As part of the deal, both countries agree to maintain their nuclear “status quo” during ongoing negotiations, and Iran commits to diluting its highly enriched uranium “on site”, with details to be determined during the negotiations.
While Trump has yet to acknowledge INARA’s authority, legal experts from across the ideological spectrum have argued that his memorandum is subject to the law.
Tess Bridgeman, a legal adviser for the Obama White House, wrote that the law applies to “this new MoU, and any future final agreement that might be negotiated in the coming months”.
But in an article published in the policy forum Just Security, she argues that INARA should be repealed, so as to not impede the ongoing diplomacy.
“INARA was never an appropriate way for Congress to engage on Iran’s nuclear program, and that is even more true today,” Bridgeman wrote.
Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor and fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, also believes that the memorandum should trigger an INARA review.
He also notes that Trump’s commitment to “immediately” lift sanctions on Iran’s oil industry appears to run afoul of INARA.
“I don’t think the president has the authority under domestic law to issue these waivers,” Goldsmith wrote on the Executive Functions website.
Still, he anticipates that neither Congress nor the judicial branch will confront Trump over the issue.
Trump’s second term has been defined by a broad interpretation of presidential power.
His administration has previously flouted the US Constitution’s provision that Congress alone has the power to declare war.
Trump has maintained that Iran represented an “imminent threat” to the US, which allowed him to launch defensive strikes without congressional approval.
Administration officials have also argued that the president is not beholden to the legal requirement that he gain congressional approval within 60 days of launching an attack. The war, which started on February 28, has lasted nearly three and a half months.
In an interview with the news outlet Axios on Thursday, Trump mused that the war taught him there are “no limits” to his power as president.
It remains unclear if Trump will change course and embrace the congressional collaboration required for diplomacy under INARA.
In her article, Bridgeman argued that Trump could flout the law in whole or in part, particularly when it comes to the immediate sanctions relief, because his party controls Congress.
Goldsmith, meanwhile, pointed out that the administration could also try to argue that the memorandum only sets out terms to reach an eventual agreement and is not an agreement itself.
While Goldsmith believes that argument is faulty, he noted that “it’s doubtful that any institution will make the president comply with INARA”.
Several pro-Israel groups, including The Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA) and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), have been among the loudest voices calling for congressional involvement in the deal.
Since the outset of the war, JINSA defended Trump’s claims that Iran represented an “imminent threat” to the US, thereby granting him authority to attack without congressional approval.
However, the group also called on Congress to pass an Authorisation for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) to bolster his actions.
Congress, however, has repeatedly sought and failed to re-assert over its authority to send the US to war.
Since February, several war powers resolutions have been introduced to halt US action against Iran and force Trump to engage with Congress.
Initially, several Democrats backed by AIPAC, including Senator John Fetterman, Representative Jared Moskowitz and Representative Josh Gottheimer, broke from the party to oppose those efforts.
Moskowitz and Gottheimer eventually shifted their stances in March to vote in favour of one of the resolutions. But Congress has yet to pass a bill with enough votes to overcome an eventual Trump veto.
Meanwhile, Republicans in both the House and Senate chose to ignore a 60-day deadline in May that legally required Trump to get congressional approval for continued military operations — or stop fighting.
In a statement on Friday, Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen characterised the Republican embrace of INARA as evidence of hypocrisy.
“Republican senators who were AWOL [absent without leave] regarding their constitutional duties around STARTING the war against Iran all of a sudden demand that Congress play a role in STOPPING the war,” he wrote.
“A whole lot of warmongering going on.”
Following the US and Israeli airstrikes on Iran in February, reverberations were felt globally. But is the world really safer and Iranians freer or has the war unleashed disastrous consequences?
Mehdi Hasan goes head to head with David Des Roches, retired colonel, former Pentagon official and professor at the National Defense University on the justifications and costs of the war – and whether President Donald Trump sent U.S. troops to fight Israel’s war.
Joining the discussion are:
Sanam Naraghi-Anderlini – founder and CEO of the International Civil Society Action Network
Mohammad Ali Shabani – Middle East scholar and Editor of Amwaj.media, a London-based news outlet focused on Iran, Iraq and Arabian Peninsula countries
Barak Seener – Associate Research Fellow, Henry Jackson Society
Recorded shortly before the announcement of a deal between the US and Iran.
Published On 19 Jun 202619 Jun 2026
Share