Category: News

United States President Donald Trump has posted on social media that he does not need the United Kingdom to deploy aircraft carriers to the Middle East, amid the ongoing war with Iran.

Saturday’s post on Truth Social follows a statement from the UK’s Ministry of Defence that one of its two flagship aircraft carriers, the HMS Prince of Wales, has been placed on “high readiness”.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

“The United Kingdom, our once Great Ally, maybe the Greatest of them all, is finally giving serious thought to sending two aircraft carriers to the Middle East,” Trump wrote.

“That’s OK, Prime Minister Starmer, we don’t need them any longer — But we will remember. We don’t need people that join Wars after we’ve already won!”

The post, with its reference to the UK as a “once great ally”, signals a deepening rift between the two countries that has emerged since Trump returned to office last year.

The divide appears to have deepened over the past week, as the US and Israel continue to hammer Iran as part of a war they launched on February 28.

The conflict has sparked fears across the Middle East, as retaliatory strikes from Tehran target US allies across the region.

Already, an estimated 1,332 people have been killed in Iran, and the US has confirmed the deaths of six of its service members. More deaths have been reported in countries like Lebanon, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Iraq.

The UK government has increased its involvement in the war on Iran, widely considered illegal under international law.

The UK Defence Ministry, for instance, said on Saturday that the government of Prime Minister Keir Starmer had allowed the US to use its military bases for what it termed “limited defensive purposes”.

The bases include RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire and the Diego Garcia site in the Chagos Islands, located in the Indian Ocean. Initially, there had been reports that Starmer had blocked the US use of the bases.

In the immediate aftermath of the initial US-Israeli strike, Starmer appeared to blanche at the prospect of joining the war.

He and the leaders of France and Germany issued a joint statement, underscoring that any actions they might take would be defensive in nature.

“We will take steps to defend our interests and those of our allies in the region, potentially through enabling necessary and proportionate defensive action to destroy Iran’s capability to fire missiles and drones at their source,” the joint statement said.

“We have agreed to work together with the US and allies in the region on this matter.”

But Starmer has had to push back on domestic criticism both for and against joining the war.

On Monday, he told the UK Parliament, “We are not joining the US and Israeli offensive strikes”, citing the need to protect “Britain’s national interest” and “British lives”.

The war in Iran remains largely unpopular in the UK. The polling firm Survation conducted a survey over the last week of 1,045 British adults, in which 43 percent of respondents called the war not justifiable.

When asked if they supported Starmer’s initial decision not to allow the US to use UK bases, 56 percent of respondents approved. Only 27 percent said it was the wrong choice.

Thousands of protesters gathered outside the US Embassy in London on Saturday to call for an end to the ballooning conflict.

The US president, meanwhile, has upped his criticism of Starmer over the past week, further fraying relations with the UK government.

On March 3, for instance, Trump held an Oval Office meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, in which he said repeatedly he was “not happy with the UK”.

Of Starmer, Trump said, “This is not Winston Churchill that we’re dealing with.”

Trump has long admired Churchill, and last year installed a bust of the late UK wartime leader in the Oval Office, just as he had during his first term.

By contrast, Trump has issued a flood of criticism against Starmer, particularly for his 2024 decision to transfer control of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius.

The transfer came after the International Court of Justice found the UK acted unlawfully in 1965 by separating the islands from Mauritius to create a separate colony.

The deal with Mauritius allows the US and the UK to maintain a military base on Diego Garcia, part of the archipelago.

However, Trump has repeatedly slammed the transfer, writing on social media that “giving away extremely important land is an act of GREAT STUPIDITY”.

Tensions between the US and UK also rose in January after Trump told Fox News that NATO allies had “stayed a little off the front lines” during the US war in Afghanistan.

Starmer had responded that he found Trump’s comments “to be insulting and frankly appalling”.

The Trump administration has signalled it is pivoting away from its traditional European allies in favour of more politically aligned countries.

At a summit on Saturday with right-wing Latin American leaders, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio appeared to praise the attendees while casting shade on other allies.

“At a time when we have learned that, oftentimes, an ally, when you need them, maybe may not be there for you, these are countries that have been there for us,” Rubio told the summit.

Tornadoes leave behind destruction in states of Oklahoma and Michigan, and authorities say more extreme weather is ahead.

At least eight people have been killed as tornadoes lash the states of Michigan and Oklahoma in the central United States, with authorities warning that more storms are expected.

Authorities on Saturday said that four people were killed in southern Michigan and four in Oklahoma, though the death toll could still rise as rescue workers assess the damage.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

The storms carved a path of rubble, downed power lines and damaged property in the region on Friday, with local media footage showing destroyed cars and buildings in the aftermath.

The National Weather Service said that thunderstorms and flash flooding are expected from the Great Lakes to Texas, with a smaller chance of additional tornadoes in the hours ahead.

The Branch County Sheriff’s Office in Michigan said that three people were killed and 12 were injured in the Union Lake area near Union City.

About 81 kilometres (50 miles) southwest of Union Lake, Cass County officials also reported one death and numerous injuries after a tornado touched down there as well.

“Emergency Management personnel will be conducting damage assessments in the affected area as required by the State of Michigan,” the local sheriff’s office said.

At least two people were reported killed by a tornado in the town of Beggs, located in Okmulgee County in Oklahoma, according to a law enforcement statement.

State Governor Kevin Stitt also said in a social media post that two people, a mother and a daughter, were killed in Major County on Friday.

“I declared a state of emergency for Alfalfa, Creek, Grant, Major, Okmulgee, Rogers, Tulsa, and Wagoner counties to ensure Oklahomans have the support and resources they need after last night’s storms,” Stitt wrote on social media on Saturday.

The government in Havana has claimed that the 10 people on board the speedboat had planned to unleash terrorism in Cuba.

The government of Cuba has announced that a fifth person died as a consequence of a fatal shootout last month involving a Florida-flagged speedboat that allegedly opened fire on soldiers off the island nation’s north coast.

The island’s Ministry of Interior said late on Thursday in a statement that Roberto Alvarez Avila died on March 4 as a result of his injuries.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

It added that the remaining injured detainees “continue to receive specialised medical care according to their health status”.

On February 26, authorities in Cuba said that Cuban soldiers confronted a speedboat carrying 10 people as the vessel approached the island and opened fire on the troops.

They said the passengers were armed Cubans living in the United States who were trying to infiltrate the island and “unleash terrorism”. Cuba said its soldiers killed four people and wounded six others.

“The statements made by the detainees themselves, together with a series of investigative procedures, reinforce the evidence against them,” the Cuban Interior Ministry said in its statement.

It added that “new elements are being obtained that establish the involvement of other individuals based in the US”.

Earlier this week, Cuba said it had filed terrorism charges against six suspects who were on the speedboat. The government also unveiled items it claimed to have found on the boat, including a dozen high-powered weapons, more than 12,800 pieces of ammunition and 11 pistols.

Cuban authorities have provided few details about the shooting, but they said the boat was roughly 1.6 kilometres (1 mile) northeast of Cayo Falcones, off the country’s north coast.

They also provided the boat’s registration number, but The Associated Press news agency was unable to readily verify the details because boat registrations are not public in the state of Florida.

The shooting threatened to increase tensions between US President Donald Trump and Cuban authorities.

The island’s economy was, until recently, largely kept economically afloat by Venezuela’s oil, which is now in doubt after a US military operation abducted and deposed former Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

The Gulf states have spent years trying to broker peace between Iran and the West: Qatar brokered nuclear talks, Oman provided back-channel diplomacy, and Saudi Arabia maintained direct dialogue with Iran through 2024 and into 2025. Iran attacked them anyway. The idea that the Gulf states have a responsibility, a moral one, to protect Iran from the consequences of its actions because of good neighbourliness is now grotesque in context. Iran did not return good neighbourliness. Iran returned ballistic missiles.

Iran’s position is based on three propositions. First, that Iran acted in lawful self-defence pursuant to Article 51 of the UN Charter; that host countries relinquished territorial sovereignty by allowing US military bases on their territory; and that the definition of aggression in Resolution 3314 justifies the attack on those bases as lawful military objectives. Each of these propositions is legally flawed, factually skewed, and tactically wrong. Collectively, they add up to a legal argument that, if accepted, would ensure that the Gulf is permanently destabilised, the basic principles of international law are destroyed, and, in a curious twist, the very security threats that Iran is reacting to are reinforced.

The self-defence claim does not meet the required legal threshold

The UN Charter, in Article 51, permits the use of force only in self-defence against an “armed attack”, and this term is not defined by reference to the state invoking it. The International Court of Justice, in cases such as Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States) (1986) and Oil Platforms (Iran v. United States) (2003), has interpreted the requirement of an “armed attack” under Article 51 of the UN Charter restrictively. The Court distinguished between the most grave forms of the use of force, which qualify as armed attacks triggering the right of self-defence, and less grave uses of force that do not. Accordingly, not every use of force, such as minor incidents or limited military activities, amounts to an armed attack. In this light, the mere presence of foreign military bases in Gulf states, maintained for decades under defence agreements with host governments, would not in itself constitute an armed attack against Iran.

Necessity and proportionality are also part of customary international law, requiring that self-defence be necessary and proportional. Iran has not demonstrated either. Targeting the territory of other sovereign Arab states in response to the policy decisions of the United States is neither necessary, since diplomatic and United Nations avenues are still available, nor proportional, since it imposes military consequences on states that are not a party to any conflict with Iran.

Critically, Article 51 also has a mandatory procedural element, in that any state employing self-defence is immediately required to notify the Security Council. Iran has consistently evaded this requirement in each of its escalatory actions. While this may seem to be a minor element, it is in fact the means by which the international community is able to verify and check self-defence claims. A state that evades this requirement is not employing Article 51. It is exploiting the language of Article 51.

Iran’s reading of Resolution 3314 is a fundamental distortion

The provision of Article 3(f) of the Annex to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) (1974) states that an act of aggression includes the “action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State”. Iran could rely on this provision to hold the Gulf states that host United States military bases liable for any act of aggression committed from their territories against Iran. Nevertheless, the mere presence of military bases is not sufficient to hold them to be lawful military objectives; this will depend on their actual contribution to military activities against Iran based on the rules of international humanitarian law.

Thus, such an Iranian reading would be wrong on three distinct legal grounds.

First, Resolution 3314 is definitional in nature. The resolution was adopted to assist the Security Council in determining when aggression has taken place, not to confer upon states the unilateral power to punish states deemed to have committed aggression through the use of force. The resolution itself, in Article 2, asserts the power of the Security Council to make the determination of what constitutes aggression. The self-application of Article 3(f) of the resolution is therefore bypassed altogether.

Second, Article 3(f) speaks of the active launching of an attack, not the passive hosting of a military base. The legal distinction is fundamental. A state, in signing a defence treaty with another and hosting the latter’s troops on its soil, is engaging in a measure of sovereignty. A state, actively launching, coordinating, or enabling military strikes against a third party, is engaged in a different matter altogether. Iran has not credibly shown this latter case. The presence of US troops or bases in the Gulf has been a fact for decades, and this has not constituted armed aggression against Iran under any legal standard.

Third, even if Article 3(f) were applicable, the appropriate course would be to bring the matter to the Security Council, not to launch unilateral military strikes. General Assembly resolutions do not override the Charter. Iran cannot rely upon a non-binding resolution defining terms to override the Chapter VII requirements for the use of force or the clear criteria of Article 51.

Sovereignty cannot be dictated by a neighbour’s strategic preferences

Iran, in invoking the principle of good neighbourliness, asks the Arab Gulf states to deny the United States basing rights. Good neighbourliness is a two-way principle, and it does not allow for interference in the internal affairs of other states, certainly not interference in the decisions of other states simply because they are deemed inconvenient to the interfering state. All UN states possess the inherent right to conclude defence treaties with whomever they choose, and this is so regardless of the opinion of their neighbours.

The asymmetry of Iran’s position is striking and self-disqualifying. Iran itself has active military relationships with Russia and China. Iran arms, finances, trains, and supports the activities of non-state military actors in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force operates openly in various states, and this has been extensively documented in United Nations Panels of Experts reports, as well as other international monitoring reports. According to the standards that Iran applies to the Gulf states, any state that hosts the activities of the IRGC, the transfer of Iranian arms, or the coordination of Iranian proxies on its soil would be engaging in aggression against third parties. Iran will not accept this principle when it is applied to itself. A legal principle that is unacceptable to the party to whom it would be applied is not a legal principle at all; it is a political tool.

A doctrine that defeats Iran’s own strategic interests

From the perspective of international relations theory, Iran’s position follows the logic of offensive realism, which seeks to remove the external balancing architecture of regional neighbours by claiming it to be hostile in nature. However, this approach is empirically self-defeating.

Under balance of threat theory, states react to offensive capability, geographic proximity, and aggressive intentions. Iran’s doctrine, in asserting the right to strike any state that hosts forces it perceives as a threat, drives each and every threat variable to maximum levels for each and every state in the region. The obvious consequence, evident in the data, is that the states in the region and external powers are becoming more, rather than less, securely integrated. The Fifth Fleet’s permanent base in Bahrain, the UAE’s negotiations over F-35s, Saudi Arabia’s deployments of THAADs, and Qatar’s expansion of the Al Udeid base are reactions to Iran’s escalation, not causes of it.

From the perspective of constructivism, the legitimacy of a legal argument is also partly based on the normative credibility of the state that presents the argument. The record of Iran’s compliance with IAEA regulations, including the enrichment of uranium to a purity level of 60 percent or more in 2023–2024, interference with inspections, the removal of monitoring cameras, and the overall violation of the non-proliferation regime, has undermined the credibility of the state significantly. A state that is itself a violator of the legal regime cannot claim the role of a law-abiding state seeking protection under the norms of the legal regime.

Iran’s legal rationale was always theoretically wrong. What has occurred since February 28, 2026, has made Iran’s actions morally and politically wrong. Iran did not simply target US military assets. The reality of the situation is now documented and undeniable. Ballistic missiles and drones were launched against Gulf states in the opening days of the conflict. This marked the first time one actor had simultaneously attacked all six GCC states. Iran escalated its attacks in deliberate stages. Day 1: Iranian missiles were fired against military bases. Day 2: Iranian missiles were fired against civilian infrastructure and airports. Day 3: Iranian missiles were fired against the energy sector. Days 3 and 4: The US Embassy in Riyadh was attacked by Iran. International airports in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and Kuwait were attacked by Iranian missiles, resulting in the suspension of flights throughout the region. Videos from Bahrain documented an Iranian Shahed drone attacking an apartment building. This is not self-defence. This is the collective punishment of sovereign nations that went to extraordinary lengths to avoid the conflict.

The rationale provided by Iran falls flat when one considers the actions Iran itself took. Its doctrine held that only targets involved in the preparation or launch of an attack against Iran were legitimate targets. Civilian airports are not military bases. Hotels in Palm Jumeirah are not military command centres. An apartment complex in Manama is not a weapons storage facility. By Iran’s own stated legal rationale, none of these targets was legitimate, yet they were attacked. This was not a legal doctrine at all; it was a pretext for coercion, and the conduct of war revealed this to be the case.

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

‘No excuse for killing girls in a classroom,’ UN experts say, amid push for justice after Minab primary school assault.

Calls are growing for an independent investigation into an attack on a girls’ school in southern Iran that killed 165 young pupils this week, with United Nations experts denouncing the deadly bombing as “a grave assault on children”.

In a statement on Friday, a group of UN experts said girls between the ages of seven and 12 were the main victims of the attack on the primary school in Minab on Saturday – the first day of the United States and Israel’s war against Iran.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

“An attack on a functioning school during class hours raises the most serious concerns under international law and must be urgently, independently, and effectively investigated, with accountability for any violations,” they said.

“A strike on a school represents a grave assault on children, on education, and on the future of an entire community,” the experts said. “There is no excuse for killing girls in a classroom.”

Rights advocates have pointed to the Minab school attack as evidence of potential war crimes being committed by Israel and the US in a war that legal experts say was launched in violation of the UN Charter and in breach of international law.

They also say it is an example of the heavy toll Iranian civilians are paying amid the conflict, which has killed at least 1,332 people so far, according to the latest figures cited by Iran’s state media outlets.

Iran’s UN envoy, Amir Saeid Iravani, told reporters on Monday that the school was “deliberately destroyed” in US-Israeli attacks against the country. “As a result, 165 innocent schoolgirls were martyred. I repeat it – 165 schoolgirls martyred,” he said.

Investigations published in recent days suggest US President Donald Trump’s administration was responsible for the attack.

The Reuters news agency, quoting two unnamed US officials, reported on Thursday that American military investigators believe it is likely that US forces were responsible.

Using satellite imagery as well as verified videos and official statements, The New York Times also said US forces “were most likely to have carried out the strike” as they were attacking an adjacent naval base operated by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Wednesday that Washington was investigating the incident.

“The Department of War and the United States armed forces do not target civilians,” she said.

UN human rights chief Volker Turk told reporters on Friday that, “whatever outcome there will be of the investigations, we hope they will be prompt and that they will be done in full transparency”.

“We also expect accountability to be served because obviously mistakes were clearly made,” Turk said in Geneva, Switzerland, stressing that “accountability is absolutely critical” along with redress and compensation.

“It is a lesson to be learned – a horrible, tragic lesson to be learned – when girls are killed in this way,” he said.

“I hope there will be not only guarantees of non-recurrence, but a review of all the standard operating procedures when it comes to these issues, and especially when it comes to conduct of hostilities.”

Meanwhile, DAWN, a US-based advocacy group, has urged Iran to give the International Criminal Court (ICC) jurisdiction over crimes committed on its territory since the war began.

“From the killing of over 150 students and teachers to strikes on hospitals full of newborns, every day more and more evidence emerges pointing to the commission of grave war crimes in Iran since the start of the war,” said the group’s executive director, Omar Shakir.

“Victims deserve justice. The mechanisms exist and the US has no veto over them.”

Uncertainty over US and Israeli war aims is slowing the Iranian Kurdish opposition groups urged by President Donald Trump to rise up against the Islamic Republic, Kurdish analysts have told Al Jazeera.

From Trump’s call for Iranians to topple their government, to arguments from the United States that it was forced into attacking Iran by its ally Israel, to discredited claims that the strikes on Tehran were somehow defensive, Washington has yet to offer a clear explanation for its attacks on Iran or what its plans might be beyond them.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

That leaves potential allies, including Iranian Kurdish opposition groups, uncertain of what comes next. Of the various ethnic groups within Iran, it is the Kurds who are arguably the most organised and militarily experienced. Opposition sentiment towards the government in Tehran is also widespread.

Iranian Kurdish opposition groups have established political networks, fought rebellions against central government forces, endured repression and splits, and gained combat experience alongside other Kurdish movements from other countries, making them one of the few organised armed challenges to the Islamic Republic.

Kurdish opposition groups have also recently worked to heal divisions between themselves.

The Coalition of Political Forces of Iranian Kurdistan, a forum allowing many of Iran’s Kurdish opposition groups to coordinate activity against the Iranian state from their strongholds in the semi-autonomous Kurdish region of Iraq, was announced on February 22, less than a week before US-Israeli strikes began on Iran, killing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The strikes have devastated Iran, but many observers believe that a full defeat of the Iranian government is not possible with just air power. But with the US public largely opposed to the Iran war, and particularly the prospect of US soldiers on the ground following the Iraq war in the 2000s, the possibility of Iranian Kurdish forces leading the charge has been raised by Trump himself.

Trump said that he would be “all for it” in comments made on Thursday,

Several US media outlets have already reported that US officials have contacted leaders within the Kurdish region of northern Iraq, where many Iranian Kurdish opposition groups are based, to discuss facilitating a ground operation inside Iran.

Massively outnumbered by Iranian ground forces, estimated at around half a million, Iranian Kurdish opposition groups could likely only muster a maximum of 10,000 fighters, leading analysts to believe that they would be heavily reliant on US or Israeli support, including air strikes and supplying weapons.

However, given the experience of US alliances and the fickle nature of Trump, who has repeatedly shown himself willing to turn on even close allies, it remains unclear whether Iranian Kurds are prepared to risk the prospect of what Tehran warned on Friday would be widespread reprisals.

Past betrayals

“Kurdish political opposition to the Islamic Republic goes back decades,” Kamran Matin, a lecturer in international relations at the University of Sussex, told Al Jazeera.

“Since the early 1990s, they’ve been pushed into northern Iraq, where they’ve established a kind of modus vivendi with the Kurdistan Regional Government [KRG, or Kurdish region of northern Iraq],” Matin, who is Kurdish Iranian, said. “Given the stakes, any Kurdish offensive on the Islamic Republic would need the KRG’s buy-in.”

“If Trump declares victory halfway through and leaves a wounded republic in place, it will likely have both the means and the desire to punish the KRG and, importantly, the people there,” Matin added. “At the same time, they are not in a position to outright reject Trump’s request.”

The Kurdish experience of past US operations in the Middle East is far from reassuring. In 1991, after President George HW Bush called upon Kurds to rise against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, the ensuing rebellion went unsupported, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths and years of displacement.

Later, during the fight against ISIL (ISIS), Syrian Kurds became key US partners, only to see US support falter during the fallout from the 2017 Kurdish independence referendum in Iraq and again in 2019, when partial US withdrawals from northern Syria exposed Kurdish forces to Turkish offensives, forcing mass evacuations and deepening political marginalisation.

Despite that, Shukriya Bradost, a Kurdish-Iranian security analyst and researcher at Virginia Tech University, said that there was “cautious hope” among opposition groups that Iranian Kurds would be supported by the US.

“However, there is also concern that if Washington reaches an agreement with the remaining elements of the Iranian regime to end the war, Kurdish groups could once again be sidelined and left alone to face a new central government that might continue the same policies of repression,” Bradost said.

Knock-on effect on Iraq

The majority of the Iranian Kurdish armed opposition groups are based in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq, which operates a regional government largely autonomous from Baghdad. Those groups include the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan (PDKI), the Kurdistan Freedom Party (PAK), Kurdistan Free Life Party (PJAK) and Komala.

The groups have been exiled there since the 1980s and 1990s.

Any move in response to Trump’s invitation could have serious consequences for the Kurdish region of northern Iraq, its fragile institutions, and its population of some 5 million people.

On Friday, Iran launched missile and drone strikes targeting the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan.

That followed comments from Ali Akbar Ahmadian, a member of Iran’s Defence Council, who told the semi-official Mehr news agency that Tehran could launch widespread attacks in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq, if local authorities failed to crack down on what he described as US and Israeli-backed rebel groups, allegedly plotting to enter Iran.

“The KRG has been very clear that it does not want to be part of a war with Iran,” Bradost said. “As a non-sovereign entity within Iraq, it is one of the weakest actors compared to sovereign states in the region and has therefore been among the first targets of Iranian retaliation.”

The Kurdish region of northern Iraq has faced repeated Iranian missile and drone strikes in recent years, Bradost said, with the United States offering little in the way of protection during those attacks.

“In addition, after the 2017 Kurdish independence referendum, Washington ultimately supported the Iraqi central government and Iran-backed Shia militia forces that moved against Kurdish-controlled areas,” Bradost continued. “Because of this history, despite the KRG’s long and up-and-down relationship with the United States since the 1960s, there is deep caution about becoming involved in any US or Israeli confrontation with Iran.”

However, despite that caution, as well as the ideological misgivings among many of the leftist Kurdish groups over partnering with the US and Israel, the timing may prove too great an opportunity to turn down.

The years of war that have followed the October 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel and Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza have seen Iran’s network of alliances throughout the region diminish in power. Likewise, the 12-day war of June 2025, allied to the current onslaught against Iran, have arguably made the Islamic Republic as weak as it has ever been.

“They’ve been fighting against the Islamic Republic for about five decades, with 50 years of repression before that under the Pahlavi regime,” Hemn Seyedi, of the University of Exeter, said. “The distrust is very real, but this might be the opportunity they’ve been waiting for.”

Mass protests across Iran in January – when thousands were killed – had shown the strength of feeling against the state, Seyedi said, and he believes many are likely to support a Kurdish rebellion.

“Everything I’m hearing from the Iranian Kurdish opposition in the [Kurdish region of Iraq] suggests we may see something in the next few days,” Seyedi said.

Over the past two decades, China has quietly eclipsed the United States as the dominant trading partner in parts of Latin America.

But since taking office for a second term, United States President Donald Trump has pushed to reverse Beijing’s advance.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

That includes through aggressive manoeuvres directed at China’s allies in the region.

Already, the Trump administration has stripped officials in Costa Rica, Panama and Chile of their US visas, reportedly due to their ties to China.

It has also threatened to take back the Panama Canal over allegations that Chinese operatives are running the waterway. And after invading Venezuela and abducting President Nicolas Maduro, the US forced the country to halt oil exports to China.

But on Saturday, Trump is taking a different approach, welcoming Latin American leaders to his Mar-a-Lago estate for an event dubbed the “Shield of the Americas” summit.

How he plans to persuade leaders to distance themselves from one of the region’s largest economic partners remains unclear.

But experts say the high-level meeting could signal that Washington is prepared to put concrete offers on the table.

Securing meaningful commitments from Latin American leaders will take more than a photo op and vague promises, according to Francisco Urdinez, an expert on regional relations with China at Chile’s Pontifical Catholic University.

Even among Trump’s allies, Urdinez believes significant economic incentives are required.

“What they’re really hoping is that Washington backs up the political alignment with tangible economic benefits,” he said.

‘Reinforcing the Donroe Doctrine’

Already, the White House has confirmed that nearly a dozen countries will be represented at the weekend summit.

They include conservative leaders from Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay, and Trinidad and Tobago.

Mexico and Brazil, the region’s largest economies, have been notably left out. Both are currently led by left-leaning governments.

In a post on social media, the Trump administration framed the event as a “historic meeting reinforcing the Donroe Doctrine”, the president’s plan for establishing US dominance over the Western Hemisphere.

Part of that strategy involves assembling a coalition of ideological allies in the region.

But rolling back Chinese influence in a region increasingly reliant on its economy will not be an easy feat, according to Gimena Sanchez, the Andes director at the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), a US-based research and advocacy group.

The US “is trying to get countries to agree that they’re not going to have China be one of their primary trading partners, and they really can’t at this point”, Sanchez said.

“For most countries, China is either their top, second or third trading partner.”

China, after all, has the second-largest economy in the world, and it has invested heavily in Latin America, including through infrastructure projects and massive loans.

The Asian giant has emerged as the top trading partner in South America in particular, with bilateral trade reaching $518bn in 2024, a record high for Beijing.

The US, however, remains the biggest outside trade force in Latin America and the Caribbean overall, due in large part to close relations with its neighbour, Mexico.

As of 2024, US imports from Latin America jumped to $661bn, and its exports were valued at $517bn.

Rather than choosing sides, though, many countries in the region are trying to strike a balance between the two powers, Sanchez explained.

Still, she added that the US cannot come empty-handed to this weekend’s negotiations.

“If the US is very boldly telling countries to cut off strengthening ties with China”, Sanchez emphasised that “the US is going to have to offer them something.”

What’s on the table?

Trump has already extended economic lifelines to Latin American governments politically aligned with his own.

In the case of Argentina, for instance, Trump announced in October a $20bn currency swap, meant to increase the value of the country’s peso.

He also increased the volume of Argentinian beef permitted to be imported into the US, shoring up the country’s agricultural sector, despite pushback from US cattle farmers.

Trump has largely tied those economic incentives to the continued leadership of political movements favourable to his own.

The $20bn swap, for instance, came ahead of a key election for Argentinian President Javier Milei’s right-wing party, which Trump supports.

Isolating China from resources in Latin America could also play to Trump’s advantage as he angles for better trade terms with Beijing.

A show of hemispheric solidarity could give Trump extra leverage as he travels to Beijing in early April to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping, Urdinez pointed out.

Then there’s the regional security angle. The US has expressed particular concern about China’s control of strategic infrastructure in Latin America and the critical minerals it could exploit in the region to bolster its defence and technology capabilities.

Bolivia, Argentina and Chile, for instance, are believed to hold the world’s largest deposits of lithium, a metal necessary for energy storage and rechargeable batteries.

The Trump administration referenced such threats in its national security strategy, published in December.

“Some foreign influence will be hard to reverse,” the strategy document said, blaming the “political alignments between certain Latin American governments and certain foreign actors”.

But Trump’s security platform nevertheless asserted that Latin American leaders were actively seeking alternatives to China.

“Many governments are not ideologically aligned with foreign powers but are instead attracted to doing business with them for other reasons, including low costs and fewer regulatory hurdles,” the document said.

It argued that the US could combat Chinese influence by highlighting the “hidden costs” of close ties to Beijing, including “debt traps” and espionage.

‘More aspiration than reality’

Henrietta Levin, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, believes that many Latin American countries would prefer to deepen economic engagement with the US over China.

But in many cases, that hasn’t been an option.

She pointed to Ecuador’s decision to sign a free trade agreement (FTA) with China in 2023 after it failed to negotiate a similar agreement with the US under President Joe Biden.

Some US politicians had opposed the deal as a threat to domestic industries. Others had encouraged Biden to reject it due to alleged corruption in Ecuador’s government.

Critics, though, said the resistance pushed Ecuador into closer relations with China.

“ When Ecuador signed their free trade agreement with China a couple years ago, their leader actually made quite clear that they had wanted an FTA with the US and would’ve preferred that,” said Levin.

“But the US didn’t want to negotiate such an agreement, and China did.”

As a result, Ecuador became the fifth country in Latin America to ink a free trade pact with China, after Chile, Peru, Costa Rica and Nicaragua.

For Levin, the question looming over this weekend’s summit is whether the Trump administration will step up and provide alternatives to the economic engagement China has already delivered.

Options could include trade agreements, financing for new development and investments with attractive terms.

But without such offers, Urdinez, the Chilean professor, warns that Trump will face limits to his ambitions of checking China’s growth in Latin America.

“Until Washington is willing to fill the economic space it’s asking countries to vacate, the rollback strategy will remain more aspiration than reality,” said Urdinez.

Lionel Messi has been criticised for meeting United States President Donald Trump and applauding his latest brief on the Iran war at an White House event honouring the Argentinian superstar and his Inter Miami team.

Messi drew high praise from Trump in Washington, DC on Thursday, but the Miami captain received backlash on social media for meeting and applauding the US president.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

Miami beat the Vancouver Whitecaps in December for the Major League Soccer (MLS) title, and Messi was named the league’s MVP for the second consecutive season.

“It’s my distinct privilege to say what no American president has ⁠ever had the chance to say before: ‘Welcome to the White House, Lionel Messi,’” Trump said as the 38-year-old stood beside him.

“Leo, you came in and you won, and that’s something very hard to do, very, very unusual and frankly, there’s a lot more pressure put on you than anyone would know, because you sort of expected to win, but almost nobody wins.”

Messi, who entered the ceremony alongside Trump, joined Inter Miami in mid-2023 to great fanfare. He did not speak during the event, which opened with comments on military action with Trump addressing the war with Iran, extending the political address to highlight the situation in Venezuela and a possible future announcement regarding Cuba and tariffs.

Trump began with a boast about the US and Israel’s ongoing attacks on Iran, which were launched on Saturday and have killed 1,230 people.

Tehran responded by launching waves of missiles and drones at Israel and towards several military bases in the Middle East where US forces operate.

“The United States military, together with the wonderful Israeli partners, continues to totally demolish the enemy, far ahead of schedule and at levels that people have never seen before,” ⁠Trump said as Messi stood next to him.

The president concluded by saying: “Our people are doing a great job, again – the greatest military anyone has ever.”

His words met with applause from Messi, the Miami squad, and others present in the room.

However, the former Barcelona forward swiftly became the subject of criticism on social media, where he was slammed for being drawn into politics and applauding Trump as he boasted of the US military’s action in Iran.

Referencing video clips of the event, Palestinian-American writer Ali Abunimah wrote: “Vacuous selfish people”.

“Lionel Messi CLAPS when President Trump talks about his plan to defeat Iran. Messi fans?” the account Halal Nation – founder of the Halal Tribune with a purported 500,000 subscribers -wrote on X.

Spanish journalist Leyla Hamed termed Messi and his team’s actions “bizarre” amid the ongoing conflict across the Middle East.

“Donald Trump casually announces more illegal bombing of Iran in front of the entire Inter Miami squad,” she wrote.

Hamed pointed out that hundreds of children have been killed in Iran in the last few days.

The deadliest single incident, which occurred in the city of Minab in southeastern Iran on Saturday, killed 165 girls in an elementary school.

“Trump knows exactly what he’s doing by using these athletes, and they allowed themselves to be dragged into it,” she added.

“What’s the point of having so much influence and power if you can’t use it in moments like this.

“To think most of these players have children…”

A US football fan account on YouTube, Tactical Manager, also reacted to Messi and Miami’s presence in the White House. Messi’s former Barcelona strike partner, Luis Suarez, was also present.

“I never thought I’d live to see Donald Trump talking about bombing another country with Messi and Suarez in the background,” the account wrote.

Several other fans and fan groups expressed their displeasure.

Messi presents Trump with signed Inter Miami ball

Trump seemingly used the ceremony to bring together athletic prowess and military ⁠might.

The president surveyed the squad before pausing to single out Argentinian midfielder Rodrigo De Paul, and asked: “Do you have any bad-looking players?”

“I don’t like good-looking men,” Trump joked, “You ⁠don’t feel so good about yourself.”

Addressing Messi – who famously avoids speaking out on politics – the president brought the conversation back to sport.

“You could have gone anywhere in the world. You could have chosen any team in the world, and you chose to go to Miami. I don’t blame you. The weather’s extremely good. Do you go to Doral? You go to Doral and play golf?” Trump said, referencing a golf course he owns.

“I just want to thank you for bringing us all on this ride, because you are hot and talented and a great person.”

Messi, an eight-time Ballon d’Or winner, led Argentina to the World Cup title in 2022. He is expected to play again for Argentina this summer when the tournament is hosted by Canada, Mexico and the US.

However, football’s global showcase has been clouded by recent events, including the conflict in the Middle East and turmoil in Mexico following the death of cartel leader Nemesio Oseguera in a military operation.

Having opened the ceremony with comments about the conflict with Iran, Trump did not mention the World Cup.

Messi presented a signed Inter Miami football to Trump, who went on to reveal the affection his 19-year-old son Barron has for Messi.

“My son said, ‘Dad, ⁠you know who’s going to be there today?’ I said, ‘No, I got a lot of things going on today,’” Trump said. “He said ‘Messi!’ He’s a big fan of yours. He thinks you’re just a great person. And I think you got to meet a little ‌while ago. So he’s a big soccer fan, but he’s a tremendous fan of yours. And a gentleman named Ronaldo. Cristiano is great. You’re great.”

Cristiano Ronaldo, Messi’s longtime rival in European football, attended a White House event with Trump last year.

Wading ⁠into the area of football history, Trump said to Messi, “You may be better than Pele,” and he asked those in attendance, “Who’s better?”

Inter Miami co-owner Jorge Mas and coach Javier Mascherano presented the US president with a ‌team jersey ‌and watch.

Miami are the first MLS team to be invited to the White House during Trump’s two terms in office.

US president stakes out maximalist war aims as conflict wreaks havoc across the region amid rising death toll.

Donald Trump has stressed that any deal with Iran must result in the country’s “unconditional surrender”, setting maximalist war objectives for the United States.

The US president’s remarks on his Truth Social platform on Friday appear to reject the prospect of a compromise, amid Iranian confirmation of diplomatic mediation to end the conflict.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

“There will be no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!” Trump wrote.

“After that, and the selection of a GREAT & ACCEPTABLE Leader(s), we, and many of our wonderful and very brave allies and partners, will work tirelessly to bring Iran back from the brink of destruction, making it economically bigger, better, and stronger than ever before.”

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian had said earlier that some countries are engaging mediation efforts to end the war, stressing that Iran is committed to peace in the region but prepared to defend itself.

“Mediation should address those who underestimated the Iranian people and ignited this conflict,” Pezeshkian said in a social media statement.

The conflict has spread across the Middle East, igniting Iranian attacks across the Gulf and a war between Hezbollah and Israel resulting in a mass displacement crisis in Lebanon.

Iran has been launching missiles and drones at Israel and US interests and assets across the region. Iranian forces have also targeted energy and civilian infrastructure in Gulf countries, straining ties with the Arab World.

The violence, which saw Iran largely succeed in closing down the Strait of Hormuz, has sent oil prices soaring across the world.

Iranian officials have expressed defiance since the start of the war, stressing that they are ready for a long conflict and prepared to fend off a US ground invasion should it occur.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said in a message to Trump on Thursday that the US plan for a “clean rapid military victory failed”.

“Your Plan B will be even bigger failure,” Araghchi wrote on X.

On Friday, Iran’s top diplomat posted a photo of the caskets of a mother and child, the apparent victims of US-Israeli attacks. “Our Brave and Powerful Armed Forces will avenge each and every Iranian mother, father, and child who has been targeted by hostile forces,” Araghchi wrote.

The war has killed at least 1,332 people in Iran, among them 181 children, according to UNICEF.

The single deadliest incident was a strike on a girls’ elementary school in the southern city of Minab on the opening day of the conflict, which Iranian authorities said killed around 180 pupils and staff.

The Trump administration has pushed to project confidence and dominance over Iran, with top officials saying that the US would “rain missiles”, “death and destruction” on the country.

In recent days, Trump has stressed that he would like to replicate the Venezuela playbook in Iran – keeping the governing system in place but installing a leader who is friendly to US interests.

On Wednesday, Trump said he has to be “involved” in choosing the successor of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei who was killed in US-Israeli attacks on Saturday

The United States and Israel have continued to bombard Iran, killing at least 1,045 people since Saturday.

Tehran has responded with drone and missile attacks on Israel and several Gulf countries, causing multiple fatalities.

According to recent polling, only one in four Americans approves of the US strikes on Iran. Approval among supporters of President Donald Trump’s Republican Party is stronger but not resounding with 55 percent saying they approved of the strikes, 13 percent disapproving and 32 percent unsure.

About 74 percent of Democrats disapproved of the strikes with 7 percent approving and 19 percent unsure.

How big is Iran?

Iran is the 17th largest country in the world by area, just behind Sudan and Libya. It covers about 1.65 million square kilometres (636,000sq miles).

To put that into context, Iran is about one-sixth the size of the United States, about one-fifth the size of Australia, roughly half the size of India, about four times larger than Iraq and about 80 times larger than Israel.

Iran is located in Western Asia and shares a land border with seven countries, the longest being with Iraq, followed by Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Turkiye and Armenia.

How big is Iran compared with the 50 US states?

Iran is nearly as large as the largest state in the US, Alaska, and more than twice the size of Texas. To equal the landmass of Iran, you would need to combine the areas of Texas, California, Montana and Illinois.

If you placed Iran over the US East Coast, it would swallow almost everything from Maine down to Florida.

The map below shows how big Iran is compared with each of the 50 US states.

Iran at a glance

With 92 million people, Iran’s population represents about a quarter of the nearly 350 million people of the US. Most of the population live in the western half of Iran, where rugged mountains, fertile valleys and river basins sustain the population.

The country is rich in oil and gas, ranking as the world’s ninth largest oil producer and third largest natural gas producer.

Iran’s gross domestic product (GDP) is $375bn, ranking it 43rd globally, and it has an unemployment rate of about 9.2 percent.

In the north, high-altitude areas endure long, bitterly cold winters. Farther south and east, the climate shifts dramatically. Iran’s central and southern provinces experience intense summer heat. The southwestern city of Ahvaz has recorded temperatures above 50 degrees Celsius (122 degrees Fahrenheit), among the highest ever measured.

Iran’s vast central plateau is comparable to the arid stretches of Arizona or inland California, sparsely populated and shaped by a harsh desert climate.

Where are Iran’s main population centres?

With 9.6 million inhabitants, Tehran is the most populous city in Iran. Its scale is comparable to New York, the most populous city in the United States, which has 8.5 million residents within its city limits. Both serve as the cultural and economic hearts of their respective nations.

Tehran has been the capital since 1795, but the city’s history dates back more than 6,000 years.

Mashhad in the northeast is Iran’s second largest city with 3.4 million people, putting it in the range of Los Angeles, which has about 3.8 million people.

Mashhad has a history spanning more than 1,200 years and is a major religious and cultural centre. It is home to the Imam Reza Shrine, which attracts millions of pilgrims from around the world every year.

Isfahan, the third largest city, is home to 2.3 million people and is comparable to Houston, which has roughly the same number of people.

More than 2,500 years old, Isfahan was once the capital of the Safavid Empire, which lasted from 1501 to 1722. The city has major educational institutions and is a centre for textiles, steel, manufacturing, and the nuclear and aerospace industries. The wider region of Isfahan is home to one of the nuclear sites bombed by the US towards the end of the 12-day war between Iran and Israel in June.

Other populous cities across Iran include: Shiraz (1.7 million), Tabriz (1.7 million), Karaj (1.6 million), Qom (1.4 million) and Ahvaz (1.3 million).