Category: News

The outbreak of conflict between Israel and the United States against Iran, triggered by joint US-Israeli strikes across Iran, has drawn frantic calls for calm as deep consternation spreads across globe.

Criticism has mounted against Washington for taking part in the attacks while still engaged in nuclear negotiations with Tehran. Anger has also surfaced in Gulf states caught up in the conflict, as Iran launches retaliatory missile strikes against US military assets hosted on their soil.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

Here is a breakdown of how countries and institutions are responding:

United States

President Donald Trump announced that the US was engaged in a “major combat operation” aimed at “eliminating threats from the Iranian regime” on Saturday morning, as missiles hit numerous areas in Tehran and across the country. Trump pledged to raze Iran’s missile industry and destroy its navy, while urging the Iranian people to overthrow the government.

Israel

A senior Israeli defence official told the Reuters news agency the joint US-Israeli attacks had been planned for months, with a specific date set weeks ago. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed the attacks aimed to remove an “existential threat” posed by Iran. He said the attacks would “create the conditions for the brave Iranian people to take their fate into their own hands”.

Iran

Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs accused Israel and the US of violating the United Nations charter with their attacks and pledged a harsh response, as the country waged retaliatory attacks on Israel as well as in several Gulf states that host US military assets, including Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Kuwait. “All American and Israeli assets and interests in the Middle East have become a legitimate target,” a senior Iranian official told Al Jazeera. “There are no red lines after this aggression.”

European Union

European ⁠Commission President ⁠Ursula von der Leyen and European Council ⁠President Antonio Costa called the conflict “greatly concerning” and urged all parties “to exercise maximum restraint, to protect civilians, ‌and to fully respect international law”.

Red Cross

Mirjana Spoljaric, president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, called on countries to respect the rules of war and urged them to find the political will to prevent “further death and destruction”. She warned that “a dangerous chain reaction” of military escalation was under way across the Middle East, “with potentially devastating consequences for civilians”.

Oman

The main mediator in ongoing US-Iran negotiations, Oman expressed dismay at the outbreak of violence. Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi said the conflict would not serve US interests, nor the interests of global peace, and urged Washington “not to get sucked in” further.

The country’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs called on “all parties to immediately cease military operations” and for “the United Nations Security Council to convene an emergency meeting to impose a ceasefire”.

Germany, France, the UK

In a joint statement, the prime ministers of the three countries said they “condemn Iranian attacks on countries in the region in the strongest terms” and remain committed “to regional stability and to the protection of civilian ⁠life.” They also said they ‌want a resumption of US-Iran negotiations.

Separately, French President Emmanuel Macron ⁠called for an urgent meeting of the UN Security Council, ⁠saying the conflict carries “serious consequences” for international peace and security. “The current escalation is dangerous for everyone. It must stop,” he said.

Qatar

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs strongly condemned Iran for firing missiles at Qatari territory, which is home to the Al Udeid Air Base that hosts US troops. The ministry called the attacks a flagrant violation of Qatar’s national sovereignty and a direct assault on its security. It added that Qatar reserves the right to respond, as per international law.

United Arab Emirates

The Ministry of Defence condemned in the “strongest terms” Iran’s attacks on its territory, several of which it said its air defences intercepted. It called the attack “a dangerous escalation and a cowardly act that threatens the security and safety of civilians”, stressing that the UAE has the “full right” to respond.

Bahrain

Bahrain confirmed that an Iranian missile attack targeted the headquarters of the US Navy’s 5th Fleet that it hosts, and called the attack “treacherous”.

Kuwait

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs denounced the Iranian attack on its soil as a “flagrant violation” of international law and said it had the right to respond. It warned that any additional escalation would only deepen regional instability.

Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia condemned in the “strongest terms” the Iranian attacks on Gulf Arab states and warned of “dire consequences”.

Turkiye

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs called on “all parties” to end the spiral of violence, which it stressed started with US-Israeli attacks on Iran. “The events that began with Israel and the US attacking Iran, and continued with Iran targeting third countries, are of a nature that risks the future of our region and global stability,” said the ministry.

Pakistan

Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar “strongly condemned the unwarranted attacks against Iran and called for an immediate halt to escalation through urgent resumption of diplomacy to achieve a peaceful, negotiated resolution to the crisis”.

Russia

Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, accused the US of having used its nuclear talks with Iran as a cover-up before military operations. The country’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs urged the international community to swiftly deliver an objective assessment of what it called irresponsible ⁠actions that risk ⁠further destabilising the region.

China

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs urged “an immediate halt to military actions” and appealed for “the resumption of dialogue and negotiations” to maintain regional peace and stability. It stressed that “Iran’s national sovereignty, security and territorial integrity should be respected.”

India

The Ministry of External Affairs called on all parties to “exercise restraint” and “avoid escalation”. It said “dialogue and diplomacy should be pursued” and that “sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states must be respected.” The statement came several days after the country’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi travelled to Israel and hailed their “vital” partnership.

Ukraine

The ⁠Ministry of Foreign Affairs accused Iran of being responsible for the chain of events leading to the conflict, including its crackdown on protests earlier this year. “The cause of the current ⁠events is precisely ⁠the violence and impunity of the Iranian regime, ⁠in particular the killings and ⁠repression of ⁠peaceful protesters, which have become particularly widespread in recent ‌months,” said the Foreign Ministry.

Norway

Foreign Minister Espen Barth said the initial attack on Iran by Israel breached standards of international law. “The attack is ⁠described by Israel as a preventive strike, but ⁠it is not in line with international law,” said Barth. “Preventive attacks require an immediately imminent threat.”

Belgium 

Foreign Minister Maxime Prevot said the Iranian people “must not pay the price for their government’s choices. We deeply regret that diplomatic efforts could not lead earlier to a negotiated solution.”

Earlier today, the United States and Israel launched an attack against Iran, hitting targets across the country. In their televised speeches, US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made clear that they are after regime change, not military pressure to secure a deal.

The attack and Iran’s swift response underscore just how precarious the diplomacy has become. The outbreak of war followed mediators’ announcement of a significant “breakthrough” in negotiations, with talks set to resume next week. Clearly, diplomacy was never meant to succeed and was merely used to mask war plans.

From the timing of the attack, it is apparent that Washington and Tel Aviv had already made up their minds weeks ago. Israeli media reported that the operation had been coordinated with Washington to come ahead of the Purim holiday, which commemorates the biblical story of the Jewish people being saved from mass killing in ancient Persia.

While both Trump and Netanyahu are clearly after a “victory” declaration, whether they can actually achieve it is unclear.

Targeting the Iranian leadership

Israel and the US have claimed to have focused on taking out civilian and military leadership and military installations. Perhaps the hope is that they can bring the war to a quick end.

Israel claimed that it had achieved “very high success” in eliminating Iran’s leadership, with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Masoud Pezeshkian among those targeted. Photos have already emerged of a major strike on Khamenei’s secure compound. Israeli media have reported the killing of General Mohammad Pakpour, a commander in Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Ali Shamkhani, adviser to the supreme leader, and Amir Nasirzadeh, Iran’s defence minister.

Israel is clearly trying to reassure its citizens that it has the capability of reaching deep into Iran’s top layer of leaders.

But there has been no confirmation of leadership deaths so far from Tehran. Iranian media have claimed that Khamenei and Pezeshkian are safe and has reported instead on an air strike on a girls’ school in the city of Minab, with a death toll of at least 60.

Unlike the 12-day war last June, when Iran’s retaliation was slow and measured, this time around, the Iranian armed forces retaliated almost immediately. Ballistic missiles were fired at US bases in Iraq, Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia, as well as Israeli cities like Haifa, Tel Aviv, and Eilat.

The speed of Iran’s retaliation indicates that it had anticipated these attacks and had its retaliation plans ready. The question now is whether Iran can outlast US resolve, which faces both domestic and international pressure.

Domestic dangers

Trump launched the war on Iran amid little enthusiasm among Americans for another foreign conflict. A recent poll by YouGov and The Economist suggests that just 27 percent of the US public supports the US using military force against Iran. Another survey conducted by the University of Maryland registered even lower approval: 21 percent.

The war has significant domestic political ramifications for Trump. As the operation progresses, if Iran fails to surrender, the US president will be caught between getting bogged down in a protracted conflict by escalating, and being seen as weak if he backs down.

As the midterm elections approach, the war will become a litmus test for Trump’s presidency. If the conflict does not go as the president has envisioned, it could reflect poorly on the Republican Party in the polls. If the GOP loses control of Congress to the Democrats, it would prevent Trump from pursuing his political agenda. Democrats gaining control of Congress could pile more impeachment pressure on Trump.

What is victory?

No analyst thinks this war will be short. Unlike the 12-day war, which resulted in a ceasefire, this conflict already looks broader and deeper. Iran’s readiness to retaliate across the region suggests it is willing to wage a long war rather than compromise.

One problem Washington and Tel Aviv are facing is how to keep the pressure on Tehran without creating uncontrollable instability in the region. The other problem they have is that they put regime change as their ultimate goal.

In his speech announcing the attack on Iran, the US president appeared to suggest that the US army would stick to an aerial campaign and would not deploy troops on the ground. He appeared to put the responsibility for toppling the Iranian government in the hands of the Iranian people, saying “the hour of your freedom is at hand” and calling on them to rebel.

This call comes two months after Iran witnessed unprecedented mass protests across the country. The Iranian authorities, however, launched a brutal campaign of repression, killing thousands. At the moment, a similar wave of mass protests seems unlikely. That legacy of repression weighs heavily on society, and Iran appears resilient.

Meanwhile, leadership “decapitation strikes” by the US and Israel will likely continue, but even if successful, they would not produce regime change.

Eventually, Trump’s generals may advise that prolonged conflict is unsustainable, echoing the lessons of the 12-day war. For Trump, an unwinnable war would invite a familiar exit strategy: Declaring victory on Truth Social and shifting the narrative.

The challenge then would be how to negotiate a ceasefire. Having been misled twice by the smokescreen of negotiations, Tehran could use this double betrayal to harden its position. If the regime survives, it could exploit US desperation for renewed talks to extract concessions. In that sense, diplomacy’s collapse today may set the stage for Iran to negotiate from a position of strength tomorrow.

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

Oman’s Foreign Minister says most recent indirect talks between US, Iran ‘really advanced, substantially’ and diplomacy must be allowed do its work.

Iran agreed during indirect talks with the United States never to stockpile enriched uranium, said Oman’s top diplomat, who described the development as a major breakthrough.

Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi also said on Friday that he believed all issues in a deal between Iran and the US could be resolved “amicably and comprehensively” within a few months.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

“A peace deal is within our reach … if we just allow diplomacy the space it needs to get there,” Al Busaidi said in an interview with CBS News in Washington, DC, after Oman brokered the third round of indirect talks between the US and Iran in Geneva on Thursday.

“If the ultimate objective is to ensure forever that Iran cannot have a nuclear bomb, I think we have cracked that problem through these negotiations by agreeing [on] a very important breakthrough that has never been achieved any time before,” Al Busaidi said.

“The single most important achievement, I believe, is the agreement that Iran will never ever have nuclear material that will create a bomb,” he said.

“Now we are talking about zero stockpiling, and that is very, very important because if you cannot stockpile material that is enriched, then there is no way that you can actually create a bomb,” he added.

There would also be “full and comprehensive verification by the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency]”, he said, referring to the UN’s nuclear watchdog.

Oman’s top diplomat also said Iran would degrade its current stockpiles of nuclear material to “the lowest level possible” so that it is “converted into fuel, and that fuel will be irreversible”.

“This is something completely new. It really makes the enrichment argument less relevant, because now we are talking about zero stockpiling,” Al Busaidi said.

Regarding recent US demands regarding Iran’s missile programme, Al Busaidi said: “I believe Iran is open to discuss everything”.

Asked if he thought enough ground was covered in the most recent talks in Geneva to hold off a US attack on Iran, the minister said, “I hope so.”

“We have really advanced substantially, and I think, obviously, there remains various details to be ironed out, and this is why we need a little bit more time to really try and accomplish the ultimate goal of having a comprehensive package of the deal,” he said.

“But the big picture is that a deal is in our hands,” he added.

The foreign minister’s comment followed after he met earlier on Friday with US Vice President JD Vance and as US President Donald Trump continued to sabre-rattle while at the same time declaring he favoured a diplomatic solution with Tehran.

Trump said on Friday that he was not happy with the recent talks that concluded in Geneva.

“We’re not exactly happy with the way they’re negotiating,” Trump told reporters in Washington, adding that Iran “should make a deal”.

“They’d be smart if they made a deal,” he said.

Trump later said that he would prefer it if the US did not have to use military force, “but sometimes you have to do it”.

The US and Iranian sides are expected to meet again on Monday in Vienna, Austria, for more indirect negotiations.

United States President Donald Trump said he is directing every federal agency to immediately cease work with artificial intelligence lab Anthropic, adding there would be a six-month phaseout for the Department of Defense and other agencies that use the company’s products.

“I am directing EVERY Federal Agency in the United States Government to IMMEDIATELY CEASE all use of Anthropic’s technology. We don’t need it, we don’t want it, and will not do business with them again!” Trump said in a post on Truth Social on Friday.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

Trump’s directive came during a weeks-long feud between the Pentagon and the San Francisco-based startup over concerns about how the military could use AI at war.

Spokespeople for Anthropic, which has a $200m contract with the Pentagon, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Trump’s decision stopped short of threats issued by the Pentagon, including that it could invoke the Defense Production Act to require Anthropic’s compliance.

The Pentagon had also said it considered making Anthropic a supply-chain risk, a designation that previously targeted businesses tied to foreign adversaries.

Trump’s comments came just over an hour before the Pentagon’s deadline for Anthropic to allow unrestricted military use of its AI technology or face consequences – and nearly 24 hours after CEO Dario Amodei said his company “cannot in good conscience accede” to the Defense Department’s demands.

Calling the company “left-wing nut jobs”, the president said Anthropic made a mistake trying to strong-arm the Pentagon. Trump wrote on Truth Social that most agencies must immediately stop using Anthropic’s AI, but gave the Pentagon a six-month period to phase out the technology that is already embedded in military platforms.

“We don’t need it, we don’t want it, and will not do business with them again!” Trump wrote.

At issue in the defence contract was a clash over AI’s role in national security. Anthropic had said it sought narrow assurances from the Pentagon that Claude won’t be used for mass surveillance of Americans or in fully autonomous weapons. But after months of private talks exploded into public debate, it said in a Thursday statement that new contract language “framed as compromise was paired with legalese that would allow those safeguards to be disregarded at will”.

Trump threatened further action if Anthropic did not cooperate with the phaseout. Trump warned he would use “the Full Power of the Presidency to make them comply, with major civil and criminal consequences to follow” if Anthropic did not help in the phaseout period.

‘Threatening’ move

The setback comes as AI leader Anthropic raced to win a fierce competition selling novel technology to businesses and government, particularly for national security, ahead of its widely expected initial public offering. The company has said it has not finalised an IPO decision.

Anthropic was the first frontier AI lab to put its models on classified networks via cloud provider Amazon.com and the first to build customised models for national security customers, the startup has said.

Its product, Claude, is in use across the intelligence community and armed services.

US Senator Mark Warner, a Democrat and vice chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, criticised the action taken by Trump, a Republican.

“The president’s directive to halt the use of a leading American AI company across the federal government, combined with inflammatory rhetoric attacking that company, raises serious concerns about whether national security decisions are being driven by careful analysis or political considerations.”

The conflict is the latest eruption in a saga that dates back at least to 2018. That year, employees at Alphabet’s Google protested the Pentagon’s use of the company’s AI to analyse drone footage, straining relations between Silicon Valley and Washington. A rapprochement ensued, with companies including Amazon and Microsoft jostling for defence business, and still more CEOs pledging cooperation last year with the Trump administration.

The dispute stunned AI developers in Silicon Valley, where a growing number of workers from Anthropic’s top rivals, OpenAI and Google, voiced support for Amodei’s stand in open letters and other forums.

“The Pentagon is negotiating with Google and OpenAI to try to get them to agree to what Anthropic has refused,” says the open letter from some OpenAI and Google employees. “They’re trying to divide each company with fear that the other will give in.”

And in a surprise move from one of Amodei’s fiercest rivals, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman on Friday sided with Anthropic and, in a CNBC interview, questioned the Pentagon’s “threatening” move, suggesting that OpenAI and most of the AI field share the same red lines. Amodei once worked for OpenAI before he and other OpenAI leaders quit to form Anthropic in 2021.

“For all the differences I have with Anthropic, I mostly trust them as a company, and I think they really do care about safety,” Altman told CNBC.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has broadened its prosecution of the protesters involved in a church demonstration to 39 people, up from nine.

The demonstration was part of a backlash to Trump’s deadly immigration surge in the Midwestern state of Minnesota, but officials have sought to frame the protest as an attack on religious freedom.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

Attorney General Pam Bondi announced the expanded indictment on Friday in a message posted to social media.

“Today, [the Justice Department] unsealed an indictment charging 30 more people who took part in the attack on Cities Church in Minnesota,” Bondi wrote. “At my direction, federal agents have already arrested 25 of them, with more to come throughout the day.”

She added a warning to other protesters who might seek to disrupt a religious service.

“YOU CANNOT ATTACK A HOUSE OF WORSHIP,” Bondi said. “If you do so, you cannot hide from us — we will find you, arrest you, and prosecute you. This Department of Justice STANDS for Christians and all Americans of faith.”

Appealing to Christian voters

Since taking office for a second term, Trump has sought to appeal to Christian conservatives by launching initiatives, for example, to root out anti-Christian bias and prevent alleged acts of Christian persecution, both domestically and in countries like Nigeria.

But critics have accused his administration of attempting to stifle opposition through its prosecution of the Minnesota protest attendees.

Some of those indicted deny even being a part of the January 18 protest. Defendants like former CNN anchor Don Lemon and reporter Georgia Fort say they attended in their capacity as journalists.

Both have pleaded not guilty to the charges and have publicly questioned whether their prosecution is an attempt to curtail freedom of the press.

The superseding indictment, filed on Thursday, levies two counts against the 39 defendants, accusing them of conspiracy against the right of religious freedom and efforts to injure, intimidate or interfere with the exercise of religious freedom.

“While inside the Church, defendants collectively oppressed, threatened and intimidated the Church’s congregants and pastors by physically occupying the main aisle and rows of chairs near the front of the church,” the indictment reads

It also describes the protesters as “engaging in menacing and threatening behavior” by “chanting and yelling loudly” and obstructing exits.

A magistrate judge on January 22 initially rejected the Justice Department’s attempt to charge nine attendees who were at the protest.

But the department sought a grand jury indictment instead, which was filed on January 29 and made public the next day.

A reaction to Trump’s immigration surge

The protest, dubbed “Operation Pullup”, was conceived as a response to the violent immigration crackdown that had unfolded in Minnesota.

Many of the enforcement efforts centred on the metropolitan area that includes the Twin Cities: St Paul and Minneapolis.

Trump had repeatedly blamed the area’s large Somali American population for a welfare fraud scandal involving government funds for programmes like Medicaid and school lunches.

In December, the Trump administration surged federal immigration agents to the region, nicknaming the effort Operation Metro Surge. At its height, as many as 3,000 agents were in the Minneapolis-St Paul area.

But the effort was plagued by reports of excessive violence towards detainees and protesters alike. Videos circulated of officers breaking the car windows of legal observers, pepper-spraying protesters and beating people.

Officers also engaged in the practice of entering homes forcibly without a judicial warrant, which advocates described as a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Cases of unlawful arrests were also reported.

But a turning point came on January 7, when an agent with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was caught on camera shooting into the vehicle of 37-year-old mother Renee Good. She died, and her killing triggered nationwide protests.

Operation Pullup took place at Cities Church in St Paul less than two weeks later.

It was intended as a demonstration against the church’s pastor, David Easterwood, who serves as a local official for ICE.

Several protesters have indicated that they are prepared to fight the government’s charges over the incident, citing their First Amendment rights to free speech.

Some also said that they intended to remain vigilant towards government immigration operations, even after Trump administration officials announced Operation Metro Surge was winding down in mid-February.

“This is not the time to be Minnesota Nice,” one protester, civil rights lawyer Nekima Levy Armstrong, wrote on social media last week. “It’s time for truth, justice, and freedom to prevail.”

President Donald Trump has suggested the United States could take over Cuba, but on amicable terms.

The statement on Friday came as Trump was preparing to board his presidential helicopter, Marine One, on the White House lawn en route to Texas.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

Approaching the media scrum, Trump took questions about the tense relations the US has with countries like Iran and Cuba, two countries where he has suggested he would like to see new governments.

In Cuba’s case, Trump suggested a transition that would be “very positive for the people who were expelled or worse”.

“The Cuban government is talking with us, and they’re in a big deal of trouble, as you know. They have no money. They have no anything right now, but they’re talking with us,” Trump told reporters.

“And maybe we’ll have a friendly takeover of Cuba. We could very well end up having a friendly takeover of Cuba.”

Trump has been pushing for regime change on the communist-led Caribbean island over the last two months, using economic and diplomatic pressure.

In Friday’s remarks, Trump reiterated his stance that Cuba is “a failing nation” teetering on collapse.

“Since I’m a little boy, I’ve been hearing about Cuba, and everybody wanted to change, and I can see that happening,” Trump said.

He added that Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a Cuban American known for his hawkish stance, is leading the initiative.

“Marco Rubio is dealing on it and at a very high level, and you know, they have no money. They have no oil, they have no food, and it’s really right now a nation in deep trouble. And they want our help.”

Increasing pressure on Cuba

The US has long had strained relations with Cuba, an island just 145 kilometres, or 90 miles, from its shores. Since the 1960s, the US has imposed a full trade embargo on the island, weakening its economy.

But tensions have accelerated since January 3, when Trump authorised a military operation to abduct and imprison Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, a close ally of Cuba.

An estimated 32 Cuban soldiers were killed in the attack, alongside Venezuelan military personnel.

In the aftermath, Trump ratcheted up pressure against the island, publicly speculating that its government is “ready to fall”.

On January 11, he announced that no more Venezuelan oil or money would flow to Cuba. Then, on January 29, he issued an executive order threatening tariffs on any country that supplies oil directly or indirectly to the island.

Cuba’s energy grid largely relies on fossil fuels to generate electricity, and the United Nations has warned of the potential for an imminent humanitarian “collapse” on the island if supplies are not restored.

A panel of UN human rights experts also cast doubt this month on Trump’s stated rationale that Cuba constitutes an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to US national security, due to its relations with China, Russia and other US rivals.

The fuel blockade, they explained, served primarily as “an extreme form of unilateral economic coercion” that violated international law.

“There is no right under international law to impose economic penalties on third States for engaging in lawful trade with another sovereign country,” they wrote in a statement.

Trump’s vision for a ‘growing nation’

The Trump administration, however, has made little secret of its desire to spread US influence, particularly in the Western Hemisphere.

In his inaugural speech in 2025, Trump pledged that the US “will once again consider itself a growing nation”, including through the expansion of its territory.

Since delivering that address, Trump has proposed to “own” Gaza and “run” Venezuela, while pressuring countries like Greenland, Canada and Panama to cede sovereignty over their lands.

He has repeatedly referenced 19th-century expansionist policies like manifest destiny and the Monroe Doctrine to justify some of these efforts. He even married his personal brand to the latter, calling his plans for the Western Hemisphere the “Donroe Doctrine”.

During his State of the Union address this week, he touted his military action in Venezuela as a success and announced that more than 80 million barrels of Venezuelan oil had been transferred into the US government’s possession.

“We’re also restoring American security and dominance in the Western Hemisphere,” Trump told the crowd.

The Cuban government, however, has repeatedly denounced Trump’s campaign against the island as evidence of US imperialism.

On January 30, for instance, Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel accused Trump of attempting “to strangle the Cuban economy” with the fuel blockade.

“This new measure reveals the fascist, criminal, and genocidal nature of a cabal that has hijacked the interests of the American people for purely personal gain,” he wrote on social media.

Just this week, Diaz-Canel’s government announced there had been a deadly shootout with a Florida-tagged speedboat close to its shores.

The US government has denied responsibility. But Cuba has described the boat as part of an “infiltration for terrorist purposes”.

Loosening restrictions?

Already, there have been signs that the US might seek to ease some of the pressure on Cuba, while maintaining its stiff opposition to the island’s communist government.

Earlier in February, the Trump administration announced $6m in humanitarian aid to the island, to be distributed through proxies like the Catholic Church, not the local government.

And on Wednesday, the US Department of the Treasury revealed it would “implement a favorable licensing policy” for the resale of Venezuelan oil to Cuba, barring any transaction with the Cuban government or its military and intelligence services.

Critics have argued that a humanitarian crisis in Cuba could trigger consequences for Trump, who has campaigned on cracking down on immigration and slashing government spending.

Cuba has seen multiple waves of migration to the US, the most recent during the COVID-19 pandemic, when nearly 2 million people fled the island due to economic instability and political repression.

Diaz-Canel, meanwhile, repeated on Friday that his government would defend itself from any outside threat.

“Cuba will defend itself with determination and firmness against any terrorist or mercenary aggression that seeks to undermine its sovereignty and national stability,” he said.

The latest tranche of documents released by the United States Department of Justice on the convicted sex offender and financier Jeffrey Epstein has caused an uproar and a slew of resignations by senior officials and businesspeople across the US and Europe.

In Africa, the more than three million emails, photos, and videos released on January 23 are also causing some aftershocks as they reveal the extent of Epstein’s connections with prominent African figures, though appearing in the Epstein files does not automatically indicate a crime or wrongdoing.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

According to the documents, Epstein had ties with former South African President Jacob Zuma; Karim Wade, a politician and son of Senegal’s ex-president Abdoulaye Wade; and deceased Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe.

The new files also shed more light on Epstein’s connections to a relative of Ivory Coast President Alassane Ouattara, who appeared to connect the two men. This connection reportedly opened the door for a friend of Epstein’s, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, to propose a mass surveillance system to Ouattara that would work in the West African country. It is unclear if such a system is in place now.

Epstein’s possible fixing role culminated in a formal 2014 security deal between the two countries, although the details of it are scant.

The revelations, in general, underscore the range of Epstein’s influence on powerful figures across continents.

Epstein, who was first convicted in 2008 on charges of sex trafficking, was found dead by suicide in his prison cell in 2019 while awaiting a trial on sex trafficking charges. His ex-girlfriend and co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell, was convicted and sentenced in 2021.

Here’s what we know about the Ivory Coast deal and his ties to Africa’s political elite:

Israel and Ivory Coast: The context

Discussions between Ouattara and Barak appeared to start in mid-2012, after the Ivorian president travelled to Jerusalem for talks with Israeli leaders, presumably in hopes of striking a security agreement. Ouattara met Barak, who was then the Israeli defence minister, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Five days before the trip, on June 12, 2012, exiled military officials linked to the Ivory Coast’s former president had attempted to overthrow Ouattara’s government.

Ouattara’s predecessor, Laurent Gbagbo, had refused to hand over power to Ouattara, and a civil war that killed at least 3,000 people ensued. The fighting had only ended about a year before when UN and French forces intervened and arrested Gbagbo.

Ouattara’s son, Dramane, and niece, Nina Keita, also met Epstein in New York on the same day, according to the Epstein files. It’s unclear what the parties discussed.

Keita, a former model, was friends with Epstein and travelled regularly on his private jet, according to the documents. She appeared to have connected Epstein with her uncle, as well as other highly placed Ivorian politicians, according to the documents.

The files showed that on September 12, three months after Epstein met Ouattara’s son, he again met Keita in New York.

He met Barak immediately after in a private meeting at the Regency Hotel in New York, according to a schedule published in the files. It’s not known what was discussed.

In November, Drop Site News reported that Epstein referred to a trip to the Ivory Coast, Angola and Senegal in a note to his assistant, but that there are no flight records to confirm the travels.

What did Israel propose to Ouattara?

A month after Ouattara’s travel to Jerusalem, an Israeli delegation visited Abidjan.

At the meetings, Ouattara reportedly asked about Israeli defence systems to overhaul security in his country, according to reporting by Calcalist, an Israeli publication that covered the exchanges at the time.

In late 2012, Ivorian Interior Minister Hamed Bakayoko travelled to Tel Aviv for a meeting with Barak, where they discussed a cybersecurity deal, Drop Site News found.

Then, in spring 2013, Barak, who had now left office as defence minister, travelled to Abidjan himself to converse with Ouattara in what would be their second meeting.

Barak presented an expensive security defence plan to the president, Calcalist reported. The $150m proposal encompassed border security, army training, and strategic military consulting, the publication said.

Drop Site News, in an investigation in November, added that the proposal included a mobile and internet surveillance centre, as well as a video monitoring centre.

The publication cited two sets of documents: an archive of leaked emails released by the Handala hacking group and hosted by nonprofit whistleblower site, Distributed Denial of Secrets, as well as earlier Epstein-linked documents released by the US House Oversight Committee in October 2025.

Barak’s surveillance centre was to be developed by the French-Israeli private security company, MF-Group, which specialises in surveillance systems, and was to be located in Abidjan, Drop Site News reported.

Email logs showed Epstein introduced Barak to Ouattara’s chief of staff later in September 2013, and planned a meeting in New York where the two men met.

Although Ouattara was pleased with the plan, he ultimately did not sign the deal because of the price tag, Calcalist reported.

Barak, in a response to Calcalist at the time, denied that he offered to build the Ivory Coast an intelligence apparatus. “The claims about establishing an intelligence apparatus and price offers are incorrect. These are private conversations, and the public has no interest in them,” he was quoted as saying.

What was the final agreement?

Although the plan appeared to be rejected, both countries continued to forge friendly ties.

In June 2014, then-Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman was welcomed in Abidjan on a state visit.

Liberman had travelled to the country along with 50 Israeli businesspeople who were interested in investing in the Ivory Coast.

In a news release at the time, the Ivorian government said two agreements were signed: “One concerning regular consultations between the two countries and the other on defence and internal security.”

No details were provided. It is not known if Abidjan is using Israeli surveillance security systems.

Nevertheless, the Israeli-Ivorian security relationship has continued, with the latter buying military vessels, aircraft, and armoured tanks from Israeli weapons companies.

In 2016, a United Nations report found that Israeli firm Troya Tech Defence had sold weapons and night vision goggles to Ivory Coast in 2015, violating a UN arms embargo that was in place at the time.

In 2018, an investigation into Israeli spyware Pegasus, developed by the NSO Group, revealed that the malware had targeted journalists’ phones in the Ivory Coast. Pegasus, believed to be used by governments, was found to be operating in 45 countries.

In March 2023, privately owned Israel Shipyards, which builds naval vessels, delivered two offshore patrol vessels (OPVs) to Abidjan.

Critics of President Ouattara say the Ivory Coast has slid further from democracy under his rule and point to incidents like the Pegasus scandal, among other issues.

Did Epstein and Barak strategise about other African countries?

Barak also tried to leverage the Boko Haram crisis in Nigeria for a security deal, according to Drop Site News, citing the new documents.

Epstein was aware of Barak’s business deals and advised him on doing business in Nigeria between 2013 and 2020, according to email exchanges.

Both saw the escalating violence in the West African nation not as a humanitarian crisis, but as a business opportunity, the publication found.

In June 2013, Barak attended a cybersecurity conference in Abuja, which organisers said privately was a pretext to meet Nigeria’s then-President Goodluck Jonathan.

It came after Nigeria awarded Israeli firm, Elbit Systems, a controversial contract to surveil digital communications in the country. Public outrage caused Jonathan to consider cancelling the project, but the government never announced that it was withdrawn.

Barak continued leveraging his access in Nigeria to promote Israeli products and services. In 2015, he facilitated the sale of Israeli biometric surveillance equipment to a private Christian university in Nigeria, Drop Site News found. The university, in a statement, denied the sale.

In 2020, the World Bank selected Barak’s intelligence firm, Toka, and the Israeli National Cyber Directorate to advise Nigeria on designing its national cyber-infrastructure.

Epstein, meanwhile, also facilitated high-level access for Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, ex-chairman of the Emirati firm DP World. In 2018, Epstein connected bin Sulayem with Jide Zeitlin, then-chair of Nigeria’s sovereign investment fund, for discussions on securing port ownerships in Lagos and Badagry.

Bin Sulayem, last March, visited Nigeria and proposed that DP World establish industrial parks at Nigerian ports. The proposal has not been approved.

Which other African leaders had links to Epstein?

Jacob Zuma

The new files revealed that Epstein had some relations with former South African President Jacob Zuma, who led the country from 2009 until 2018.

Epstein appeared to arrange a “small dinner” on behalf of Zuma in March 2010 at the Ritz Hotel in London.

It’s unclear what the purpose of the dinner was, but emails released as part of the Epstein files seemed to show that a Russian model was invited. The model was told her presence would “add some real glamour to the occasion”, according to emails sent by Epstein’s planner, whose name was redacted in the files.

In a different email, Epstein appeared to share that information with British politician Peter Mandelson, who is now under investigation for his links to Epstein. A host, whose name was redacted “is having dinner for zuma tomorrow night at the ritz„ i have invited a beautiful russina named (redacted) to attend,” he wrote.

It’s unclear if Mandelson responded.

After the dinner appeared to have taken place, one email sender whose name was redacted wrote to Epstein: “(Redacted name) was a delight last night and enchanted all those she met…By the way, Jacob Zuma was much more impressive and engaging than I thought he would be!”

Karim Wade

Politician and son of Senegal’s ex-President Abdoulaye Wade, Karim Wade’s name appeared 504 times in the released files.

Wade, under his father, was a minister with an open-ended portfolio, and was so powerful that he was nicknamed “minister of heaven and earth”.

His relationship with Epstein began in 2010, according to an investigation by the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), which cited the newly released files.

In an email to an unnamed contact in November of that year, Epstein wrote: “the President of Senegal is sending his son to see me in paris,” the publication noted. Over the years, they planned trips in Africa along with Emirati businessman, bin Sulayem. They also discussed business ideas, the files showed.

In 2015, after Wade was convicted on corruption charges by a new administration, records show Epstein approaching Norwegian leader of the Council of Europe, Thorborn Jagland, to ask about possibly filing an appeal at the European Court of Human Rights. Wade’s lawyers regularly updated Epstein on efforts to free him, according to OCCRP.

Senegal pardoned Wade in 2016, after which he went into exile in Qatar. Keita, niece to Ivory Coast’s President Ouattara, who appeared to play some role in the efforts to free Wade, texted Epstein: “Thank you for everything you have done for him!!!!”

Robert Mugabe

The Epstein documents revealed that the sex trafficker planned to meet then-President Mugabe to propose a new currency for Zimbabwe amid that country’s hyperinflation crisis.

In email exchanges back in 2015, Japanese financier Joi Ito recommended to Epstein that they both approach Mugabe to discuss the currency after the Zimbabwean dollar lost its value. It’s unclear if the meeting ever took place.

Released along with the emails were FBI documents from 2017, which appeared to show unverified testimony from a “confidential source” who said Epstein was a wealth manager for Russian President Vladimir Putin, as well as Mugabe.

Australia’s Jack Doohan says he received death threats before he was dropped by F1 team Alpine, six races into last season.

Jack Doohan says he received death threats and had to call police to resolve an encounter with armed men at about the time of last year’s Miami Grand Prix, just before he lost his Formula One drive with Alpine.

The Australian driver said in the latest series of Netflix documentary Drive To Survive, released on Friday, that he had been threatened by email, describing the atmosphere around what proved to be his final race as “pretty heavy stuff”.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

Doohan made his debut for Alpine in the last race of 2024 and was dropped and replaced by Franco Colapinto after Miami, the sixth race of 2025. He is now a reserve driver for Haas.

“I got serious death threats for this Grand Prix, saying they’re going to kill me here if I’m not out of the car,” Doohan said in the documentary. “I had six or seven emails saying if I’m still in the car by Miami, that I’ll be, you know, all my limbs will be cut off.”

Doohan also described an incident where he saw three “armed men”, adding that “I had to call my police escort to come get it under control”.

He did not specify how that incident was resolved, and did not identify anyone responsible.

After Colapinto replaced him at Alpine in May, Doohan posted on social media that he and his family had been facing online abuse, and indicated at the time that fans from Colapinto’s home country of Argentina were responsible.

The duo were the only two drivers in F1 last season not to score a point as Alpine finished last in the constructors’ standings.

A federal judge in the United States has ruled that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) broke the law by disclosing confidential taxpayer information “approximately 42,695 times” to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

In a decision issued on Thursday, US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly found that the IRS had erroneously shared the taxpayer information of thousands of people, in apparent violation of the Internal Revenue Code.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

The ruling cited IRS Code 6103, one of the strictest confidentiality laws in federal statute, which largely prohibits the disclosure of tax return information without consent.

Kollar-Kotelly said that the IRS violated that law “approximately 42,695 times by disclosing last known taxpayer addresses to ICE”.

“The IRS not only failed to ensure that ICE’s request for confidential taxpayer address information met the statutory requirements, but this failure led the IRS to disclose confidential taxpayer addresses to ICE in situations where ICE’s request for that information was patently deficient,” she wrote.

Her finding is based on a declaration filed earlier this month by Dottie Romo, the chief risk and control officer for the IRS, which revealed that the IRS had provided the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with information on 47,000 of the 1.28 million people that ICE had requested.

In most of those cases, Romo said, the tax agency gave ICE additional address information in violation of privacy rules created to protect taxpayer data.

The government is appealing the case, but the Thursday ruling is significant because Romo’s declaration supports the decision on appeal.

Kollar-Kotelly, meanwhile, called the Romo declaration “a significant development in this case”.

What agreement does the IRS have with ICE?

The case is the result of a growing effort under the administration of President Donald Trump to consolidate government data, alarming rights advocates who fear an erosion of taxpayer privacy.

Part of that data has been used to carry out Trump’s campaign of mass deportation, a key pillar of his second-term agenda.

On April 7, the IRS entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Department of Homeland Security to help with “non-tax criminal enforcement”.

That agreement, however, was widely understood to be the groundwork for the identification and deportation of immigrants in the US through taxpayer data.

The Center for Taxpayer Right sued the government over the disclosure, citing protections instituted after the 1972 Watergate scandal revealed how former President Richard Nixon misused tax data during his term.

“This nation already once experienced a President who sought to collect tax information on his political allies and enemies in the White House for use for favor and punishment,” the centre wrote in an initial complaint.

“Following the Watergate era, Congress clearly and unequivocally acted to protect the American people from these intrusions.”

It argued that taxpayer data is uniquely sensitive and “in grave jeopardy” of being shared broadly across the government.

Nina Olson, founder of the Center for Taxpayer Rights, said after Thursday’s ruling, “This confirms what we’ve been saying all along: that the IRS has an unlawful policy that violates the Internal Revenue Code’s protections by releasing these addresses in a way that violates the law’s requirements.”

Representatives from the IRS and the Department of the Treasury did not respond to The Associated Press’s requests for comment.

Currently, the data-sharing agreement allows ICE to submit names and addresses of immigrants inside the US illegally to the IRS for cross-verification against tax records.

The deal, signed by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, led the then-acting commissioner of the IRS to resign.

There are several ongoing cases that challenge the agreement between the IRS and immigration authorities.

Earlier this week, a three-judge panel for the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit declined to issue a preliminary injunction for the immigrants’ rights group Centro de Trabajadores Unidos and other nonprofits as they sue the federal government to stop implementation of the agreement.

In declining the preliminary injunction request, Judge Harry T Edwards wrote that the nonprofit groups “are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claim”, since the information the agencies are sharing isn’t covered by the IRS privacy statute.

Still, two separate court orders have blocked the agencies from massive transfers of taxpayer information and blocked ICE from acting upon any IRS data in its possession. Those preliminary injunctions are still in place.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney is heading to India for what experts say is a “very significant trip” as he tries to reset relations between the two countries and find new markets for Canadian exports.

While the trip, which starts Friday, is expected to be heavy on diplomacy, experts question whether it will result in major economic deals to shore up Canada’s economy.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

Carney has pledged to broaden the country’s trading partners as relations with its neighbour, the United States, fray. And India, with its 1.4 billion people, is a potentially large market for Canada’s vast petroleum and natural gas reserves, among other products.

But to build those economic bonds will require Carney to overcome diplomatic tensions and hesitancy about the costs of its exports, according to analysts.

“Canada domestically needs to figure out to what extent it wants to grow its oil and gas industry,” said Tarun Khanna, professor at the University of British Columbia who focuses on energy policy.

“Improvement in the overall relationship can provide incentives to both nations.”

Repairing a diplomatic rupture

Part of the hurdle for Carney is repairing recent diplomatic strains between his country and India.

The two countries engaged in a prolonged diplomatic freeze in September 2023, after Carney’s predecessor Justin Trudeau alleged that India was involved in the killing of a Sikh separatist activist on Canadian soil.

India rejected the allegations as false, and both countries expelled each other’s diplomats.

A breakthrough came last year when Carney invited Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Kananaskis, Alberta, to attend the Group of Seven (G7) leaders’ summit in June.

Since then, relations have thawed. In September, both sides named new diplomats to serve as high commissioners to each other’s countries.

In the lead-up to this week’s meeting, more bilateral collaboration has unfolded. Officials from India and Canada have engaged in senior ministerial and working-level engagements in areas such as artificial intelligence (AI), liquefied natural gas (LNG), critical minerals and supply chain resilience.

“This is a very significant visit and allows Prime Minister Carney to consolidate a reset that began in the relationship last year,” said Vina Nadjibulla, vice president at the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada, a research institute.

Finding alternative trading partners

But the rapprochement with India also comes in a transition period for Canada.

The US has long been its primary trading partner: It is the only country it shares a border with. But since the return of President Donald Trump to the White House, the US has taken an aggressive stance towards trade with Canada.

Trump has stacked steep tariffs on key Canadian exports like steel, aluminium and automobile parts. He also suggested he would like Canada to cede its sovereignty and become a state within the US.

Carney has resisted such efforts, including by imposing counter-tariffs on US goods.

But in January, he gave a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where he outlined his vision for “middle-power” states to break from the superpowers that seek their “subordination”.

“From the fracture, we can build something bigger, better, stronger, more just,” Carney said.

“This is the task of the middle powers: the countries that have the most to lose from a world of fortresses and the most to gain from genuine cooperation.”

Carney’s trip to India, followed by Australia and Japan, is his first major trip to Asia following his Davos speech. Experts say the outing will give him a stage on which to spread his appeal for “genuine cooperation” among smaller economies.

“It allows him to take that message of middle-power diplomacy to India, Australia and Japan, the three most significant for Canada in the Indo-Pacific region,” said Nadjibulla.

The trip also comes at a time when, on the domestic front, Carney’s top priority is to strengthen economic resilience, make sure investments keep flowing into Canada, and protect industries that have been hit by Trump’s tariffs.

As part of that push, Carney visited China last month, becoming the first Canadian prime minister to do so in almost a decade.

A market for Canadian energy

Carney’s latest trip is expected to yield announcements on Canadian exports of oil, natural gas, uranium and critical minerals, as well as cooperation with India on developing nuclear power as a clean energy source.

The outreach effort is “part of Carney’s strategy” to diversify its economic trading partners and find new markets for its products, according to MV Ramana, an expert in energy and security at the University of British Columbia.

Canada is the fourth-largest exporter of crude oil in the world, and the fifth-largest oil producer overall. Its crude exports were valued at more than $100.7bn in 2024 alone.

But Ramana believes that negotiations will also centre on Canada’s uranium. The North American country is the world’s second-largest producer of the metal, which is key to nuclear power production.

“Canada is trying to position itself as an exporter, a petro-state of sorts — not just for oil and gas, but also critical minerals and uranium,” Ramana said.

India has a long history of nuclear cooperation with Canada, which provided it with a research reactor in the 1950s for its nascent nuclear programme.

It has continued to import uranium from Canada, and the two countries are in the midst of finalising a 10-year, $2.8bn deal that would ensure a supply of the metal to India.

Given that backdrop, Ramana said he expects to see announcements on small modular reactors for nuclear energy, even though there are currently only a few operating in Russia and China.

The first in North America — the Darlington New Nuclear Project — is in the works in Ontario, and Carney appears to be angling for Canada to become a leader in such small-scale reactors. But it won’t be easy, warned Ramana.

“These are supposed to be cheaper, but they also produce far less power. As a result, the cost per unit of power generation will be much higher,” he said.

Another complication is the fact that the licence for the modular reactor design is owned by a US company.

That means the US will need to be involved, said Ramana, a tricky balance as Carney continues to be in the crosshairs of Trump.

‘Combination of price and strategic decision’

With the largest population in the world, India’s already-huge energy demands are expected to keep increasing.

Khanna, the energy policy expert, said that means there is likely to be negotiation about fossil fuels as well during Carney’s trip.

“We don’t know what will materialise, but given the Indian energy situation, oil and gas is one thing that will be on the table,” said Khanna.

But India has also faced backlash under Trump about where it sources its energy supply from.

In August, the US president slapped an additional 25 percent tariff on India, doubling his tariffs on the South Asian nation to 50 percent, as a penalty for its import of Russian oil.

That was finally rolled back this month, and US tariffs on India were brought down to 18 percent, though that rate, among others, was overturned by a decision from the US Supreme Court.

Now, the current US tariffs on Indian imports sit at 10 percent. But experts have warned that Trump’s tariff policies have sown uncertainty among the US’s trading partners, including India.

So New Delhi is looking to secure its oil supplies, and Canada is looking for new buyers, Khanna said. But price will ultimately be the key.

“India is a price-sensitive market, so the Indian side will be looking for deals that secure supplies but at a reasonable price,” he pointed out.

If Ottawa seeks to increase its market, “then it’s up to them to see what kind of incentives they can hand out”, Khanna added.

For India to sign a deal, “it will have to be a combination of price and strategic decision”.