Pete Hegseth says the decision is based on the principle of ‘medical autonomy’ and criticises the mandate as ‘overreaching’.
Published On 21 Apr 202621 Apr 2026
United States Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has said that the flu vaccine will no longer be obligatory for members of the country’s military, the latest step under President Donald Trump to shift vaccine policy in the federal government.
Hegseth said in a video shared on social media on Tuesday that the decision was based on principles of “medical autonomy” and religious freedom.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
“We’re seizing this moment to discard any absurd, overreaching mandates that only weaken our warfighting capabilities. In this case, this includes the universal flu vaccine and the mandate behind it,” said Hegseth.
“The notion that a flu vaccine must be mandatory for every service member, everywhere, in every circumstance at all times is just overly broad and not rational.”
The Trump administration has framed vaccine refusal as a matter of personal moral and religious principle, rolling back some policies meant to safeguard against preventable diseases.
Hegseth’s directive allows various military services to request that the mandate be kept in place, giving them a window of 15 days to do so.
The announcement comes after what health officials described as a particularly severe flu season when infections surged in the US. Public health experts have recommended that everyone aged six months or older get an annual flu vaccine.
The second Trump administration has reflected some of the backlash to public health guidelines and mandates that were implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Hegseth himself has called that period an “era of betrayal” for the country’s armed forces. More than 8,400 members of the military were ejected for failure to abide by a 2021 mandate to take the COVID-19 vaccine.
The Trump administration has also rolled back vaccine recommendations in other areas, announcing earlier this year that it would not recommend flu shots and other forms of vaccines for all children. A lawsuit was filed challenging that effort, and the policy was temporarily blocked by a federal judge as the legal challenge plays out.
US president says Iran has ‘no choice’ but to show up to the negotiations in Pakistan and accept a ‘great’ deal.
Published On 21 Apr 202621 Apr 2026
United States President Donald Trump says he opposes extending a ceasefire with Iran that will expire by the end of Wednesday to allow more time for negotiations.
Trump’s comment on Tuesday during an interview with CNBC raised the stakes for the round of talks set to take place this week in Pakistan, suggesting that the war could reignite if the parties fail to reach a deal.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
Iran has not publicly committed to attending the negotiations as tensions over Tehran’s closure of the Hormuz Strait and the US blockade on Iranian ports intensify.
Asked by CNBC whether he would back prolonging the truce to buy more time for the talks to take place, Trump said, “Well, I don’t want to do that.”
The president said Iranian representatives will attend the talks, emphasising that the negotiators don’t have much time to reach an agreement.
“Iran can get themselves on a very good footing if they make a deal. They can make themselves into a strong nation again,” Trump said.
Despite the uncertainty over the talks, Trump predicted that Washington and Tehran would reach a “great deal”.
“I think they have no choice,” he said of the Iranians. “We’ve taken out their navy. We’ve taken out their air force. We’ve taken out their leaders.”
Trump, who has threatened to bomb Iran’s bridges and power and water stations, said the US military is “totally loaded up” to resume the war.
“It’s not my choice, but it would also hurt them. It would hurt them militarily,” he said of his threat to target civilian infrastructure in Iran. “They use the bridges for their weapons, for their missile movements.”
Iran has continued to voice defiance against Trump’s rhetoric, saying it will not negotiate under threat.
While the two-week ceasefire has succeeded in halting the fighting, it has been rocked by Israel’s assault on Lebanon and disagreements over the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran has insisted that Lebanon was part of the truce and kept the strait closed to pressure an end to the Israeli bombardment of the country.
Trump, in turn, ordered his own blockade of the waterway with the US military laying a naval siege on ships linked to Iran.
When a ceasefire was announced in Lebanon, Iran announced a reopening of the strait, but Trump said the US blockade would persist. So less than 24 hours later, Tehran said it was closing the strait again.
US forces have seized at least one Iranian-flagged vessel as part of the blockade in what Tehran decried as an act of piracy.
“The United States will bear full responsibility for the consequences of the dangerous escalation, and Iran will use all available means to defend its sovereignty and protect the rights of its citizens,” Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said on Monday.
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent oil prices around the world soaring. The cost of petrol for US consumers has risen by more than 25 percent since the start of the war.
Trump stressed in his interview with CNBC that the US is “totally” in control of the strategic waterway.
Iran’s team is preparing for the FIFA World Cup but may not travel for the tournament, Sport Minister Donyamali says.
Published On 21 Apr 202621 Apr 2026
Iran’s football team is preparing for the World Cup, but a final decision on its participation in the tournament will be taken by the government, the country’s sport minister says.
“If the safety of the national team’s players in the United States is ensured, we will travel to the World Cup,” Iran’s Sports and Youth Minister Ahmad Donyamali was quoted as saying by Iran’s Tasnim news agency on Thursday.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
“The decision will be made by the government and the Supreme National Security Council,” he added.
Team Melli are scheduled to play all their World Cup games in the US, one of the three host nations alongside Canada and Mexico, but their participation has been uncertain since the US-Israeli war on Iran began on February 28.
The doubts surrounding Iran’s role in the tournament remain as a fragile Pakistan-mediated ceasefire between Tehran and Washington nears its deadline on Thursday.
Donyamali, speaking to Iranian media, insisted that the team will continue to train for the World Cup regardless of the ongoing geopolitical tensions.
“The national team may not go to the World Cup, but if we are going to participate, we must be ready,” he said.
Iran’s Football Federation (FFIRI) asked FIFA to move its games out of the US last month, but the sport’s governing body said all World Cup fixtures will go ahead as scheduled, dismissing the possibility of Mexico hosting the Iranian team, citing logistical impediments.
On Wednesday, FIFA President Gianni Infantino said he was “confident” that Iran would play in the World Cup despite US President Donald Trump’s earlier comments saying “it would not be appropriate” for them to participate.
“The Iran National Soccer Team is welcome to the World Cup, but I really don’t believe it is appropriate that they be there, for their own life and safety,” Trump wrote in a social media post last month.
The FIFA chief, who has a close relationship with President Trump, said, “Iran has to come” to the tournament despite the fragile ceasefire nearing its deadline on April 22.
“We hope that by then, of course, the situation will be a peaceful situation,” Infantino said of the US-Israeli war on Iran. “As I said, that would definitely help. But Iran has to come. Of course, they represent their people. They have qualified. The players want to play.”
Iranian Minister Donyamali has repeatedly linked Iran’s participation with a guarantee for the players’ safety, as well as the ongoing war. He told local media that the FFIRI will set up a training camp for the squad in the event the team is given a go-ahead by the government.
“We have to be ready, but maybe the decision is not to go, and if we are going to go, we have to be ready to have a strong presence,” he said.
“Our duty from a professional point of view is to carry out the work and preparation.”
The Iranian squad’s World Cup training camp will commence from May 10 and will last for over a week, he confirmed.
Iran played two international friendlies in Turkiye last month under tight security and limited media access.
Team Melli are slated to open against New Zealand on June 15, then face Belgium on June 21, with both matches in Los Angeles. On June 26, Iran play against Egypt in Seattle.
Should they advance to the knockouts, the rest of Iran’s games would also be held in the US.
Islamabad, Pakistan – As United States Vice President JD Vance prepares to fly to Islamabad, Pakistan is racing against time and the odds to try to convince Tehran to join talks with the US aimed at ending their war, now in its eighth week.
But while Pakistani officials close to the mediation efforts remain cautiously hopeful that Iran might send a negotiating team for the talks by Wednesday, a series of escalatory steps taken by the US over the past 48 hours had by Tuesday evening injected a dose of scepticism into Islamabad’s peacemaking efforts.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
Iran continues to publicly insist that it has no plans to return to the negotiating table, even as Pakistan and other mediators work behind the scenes to bring Tehran back into the room before a two-week ceasefire expires on Wednesday evening US time — early Thursday morning in the Middle East.
At least nine US aircraft have landed in Pakistan over the past three days, bringing personnel and equipment to be used by the Vance-led negotiating team.
Vance is expected to depart from the US on Tuesday evening Pakistan time — morning in the US — and arrive in Islamabad late morning on Wednesday. US President Donald Trump’s Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner are expected to join Vance. The three officials had led the US delegation during the first round of direct talks with Iran in Islamabad on April 11.
But it is unclear who they are coming to meet.
Earlier on Tuesday, Iran’s ambassador to Pakistan, Reza Amiri Moghadam, posted on social media, paraphrasing Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, that it was “a truth universally acknowledged” that “a single country in possession of a large civilisation will not negotiate under threat and force”, calling it “a substantial, Islamic and theological principle”.
Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs also said it had no plans to re-engage diplomatically with Washington for now. Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran’s parliament speaker and the head of its negotiating team, was more direct. In a post on X early on Tuesday, he accused Trump of seeking to turn the negotiating table “into a table of surrender or to justify renewed warmongering”.
“We do not accept negotiations under the shadow of threats,” Ghalibaf wrote, adding that Iran had “prepared to reveal new cards on the battlefield” over the previous two weeks.
Iran’s judiciary chief, Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejei, said separately that Tehran must “maintain 100% readiness” given a “strong possibility” of further US attacks.
Rising tensions at sea
These public statements follow the latest flashpoint between the two rivals, who have been at war since the US-Israeli attacks on Iran on February 28.
On Sunday, US naval forces fired on the Iranian-flagged cargo ship Touska in the Gulf of Oman and boarded it after it attempted to pass through a naval blockade that the US has enforced against Iran-linked ships trying to pass through the Strait of Hormuz since April 13. Tehran called the incident a ceasefire violation and demanded the immediate release of the ship, its crew members and their families.
Iran’s Foreign Ministry described the seizure as “extremely dangerous” and “criminal”, warning that Tehran “will use all its capacities” to defend its national interests.
On Tuesday, the US announced that its forces had also boarded a second ship, this time in the Asia Pacific. The ship, cargo vessel M/T Tifani, was already under US sanctions for carrying Iranian oil.
For Javad Heiran-Nia, a researcher specialising in Iranian affairs, the Touska incident may nonetheless offer a narrow opening.
“The release of the ship’s crew could be a green light for Iran to soften its position on returning to talks,” he told Al Jazeera.
Umer Karim, an associate fellow at the Riyadh-based King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies, said the principal signal Iran was seeking was an end to the US blockade, or at least a clear intent to relax it.
He pointed to Iran’s conduct during the first round. Tehran had initially conditioned its participation on a ceasefire in Lebanon, before entering talks without one.
“That shows they are pragmatic,” Karim told Al Jazeera.
The USS Spruance is seen intercepting the Iranian-flagged cargo ship M/V Touska in the north Arabian Sea in this screengrab from a video released on April 19, 2026 [Handout/CENTCOM via Reuters]
Muhammad Khatibi, a political analyst based in Tehran, said Iran’s position had been consistent throughout, as Iran believes that as long as it cannot export its oil, it will not allow others in the region to do so either.
A tangible easing of the blockade, he said, did not need to be publicly announced, as it could take the form of reciprocal steps, “such as the US permitting a number of Iranian oil shipments to proceed, with Tehran responding in kind”.
“Iran does not seek to re-engage in renewed conflict,” he told Al Jazeera. “But from Tehran’s perspective, this is a war of survival, and it is prepared to fight with all available means until the very end.”
The IRGC factor
The statements from Tehran also reflect a domestic political dynamic underpinning Iran’s public posture, said analysts.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has been pushing Iran’s negotiating team to adopt a firmer line, they said, conditioning any return to talks on a full end to the US naval blockade.
Heiran-Nia said the divide between the IRGC and the diplomatic team was evident. He cited instances over the weekend when ships attempting to pass through the strait were allegedly fired on by Iran. India summoned Iran’s ambassador in New Delhi to raise concerns about firing on two of its ships.
“The attack on tankers during the ceasefire demonstrates the IRGC’s dominance over the diplomatic team and its disregard for their positions,” he told Al Jazeera.
Yet Heiran-Nia said if a deal were reached, it would likely override internal opposition.
“If a deal is reached, it will likely have a sovereign character,” he said. “The establishment will impose its own narrative, and the IRGC will accept it.”
What Pakistan is working with
Trump has set firm public red lines. He has demanded Iran end uranium enrichment and surrender its existing stockpile of enriched uranium. He has said the US will not lift the Hormuz blockade until Tehran agrees to negotiate.
“They’re going to negotiate, and if they don’t, they’re going to see problems like they’ve never seen before,” he said in an interview on Monday.
The enrichment question remains the central fault line. During the first round of talks, US negotiators proposed a 20-year pause on Iranian enrichment. Iran countered with five years. Trump has publicly said he wants no enrichment and has refused to set a timeframe for this moratorium.
For Iran, Karim said, the Strait of Hormuz is not simply a bargaining chip.
Tehran is seeking to extract maximum advantage from that leverage before any deal is concluded, he said, because once an agreement is reached, “those cards could no longer be played”.
“Iran understands that it still has leverage,” Karim added, “and that it needs to be utilised to the maximum level in any negotiations.”
Heiran-Nia said Washington’s position on Hormuz was equally entrenched.
“The US wants to remove the Strait of Hormuz card from Iran’s hand,” he said. “Iran, on the other hand, wants not only to preserve it as a negotiating card but also to maintain it as a strategic asset.”
Trump’s messaging problem
Complicating Pakistan’s efforts is Trump’s public messaging around the talks.
President Donald Trump at the White House, April 18, 2026 [Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP Photo]
His posts on Truth Social and remarks to reporters, in which he claimed Iran had agreed to provisions that sources said had not been finalised, including the handover of enriched uranium, caused visible strain in diplomatic efforts during the first round.
Iranian officials publicly rejected the assertions, while US media reported that some Trump administration officials privately acknowledged his comments had been detrimental, given Tehran’s deep mistrust of Washington.
Karim, however, said Trump’s messaging was “more a form of posturing than a structural obstacle to the talks”.
Heiran-Nia said how Islamabad frames the process will be critical, regardless of the outcome.
“Pakistan is the only actor that has military and security ties with both Washington and Tehran,” he said, adding that its role in shaping the narrative around any agreement, allowing both sides to claim success, would be “of critical importance”.
What comes next
A second round of talks, if they take place, is expected to begin on Wednesday.
Trump has extended the original deadline by 24 hours, saying the truce now ends “Wednesday evening Washington time”, which would be early morning Thursday in Islamabad, and described a further extension as “highly unlikely”. It was initially supposed to end on Tuesday evening in the US, or Wednesday morning in the Middle East.
Whether Iran’s delegation attends remains the central question.
State broadcaster Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting said on Tuesday that no Iranian diplomatic delegation, “be it a primary or secondary team, or an initial or follow-up mission”, had travelled to Islamabad.
An Iranian source, however, said there were strong indications that a delegation would still travel to Pakistan, adding that security considerations remained central to any decision.
Heiran-Nia said the consequences of failure in the planned talks would be stark.
“The alternative, return to war, while unable to establish any sustainable balance, promises devastating destruction,” he said.
Vice President JD Vance is scheduled to lead a team of United States negotiators in Islamabad on Tuesday for talks with Iran aimed at ending their war, even though Tehran is yet to confirm its participation in this latest round of negotiations.
Meanwhile, a fragile two-week ceasefire is poised to expire on Wednesday with no clarity on whether it will be extended amid a spike in tensions over the past two days.
The first round of US-Iran talks in Islamabad on April 11 ended without a breakthrough. Since then, the US has imposed a naval blockade on all Iran-linked ships trying to pass through the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has fired at ships trying to transit through the vital shipping route. And early on Monday, the US shot at and then seized an Iranian vessel trying to pass through the narrow waterway.
Tehran called the ship’s seizure “piracy” and has threatened retribution. It has refused to join talks under the shadow of threats. Trump has revived his warning that he would order the US military to blow up all bridges and power plants in Iran if it does not accept a deal on US terms.
Amid this uncertainty over the future of the talks and the truce, we break down the latest from both sides and four potential scenarios that could play out in the next few days:
People in Tehran take part in an anti-US and anti-Israel rally on April 19, 2026 [Majid Asgaripour/West Asia News Agency via Reuters]
What’s the latest from both sides?
Both the US and Iran have been exchanging threats as the ceasefire is due to expire in the coming hours.
The two-week ceasefire, announced by US President Donald Trump on April 7, should expire at 8pm Washington, DC, time on Tuesday (midnight GMT, 3:30am in Tehran and 5am in Islamabad on Wednesday). However, Trump has in recent comments indicated that he has already moved the deadline back by a day.
While Islamabad continues with its preparations to host multiday talks, there has been no confirmation yet from Iranian officials about whether they will attend.
The US president said he feels confident Iran will negotiate or it will “see problems like they’ve never seen before”.
Trump confirmed in a Truth Social post that the US delegation is planning to visit Islamabad on Tuesday. While accusing Iran of violating the ceasefire by firing at vessels in the Strait of Hormuz, Trump added: “We’re offering a very fair and reasonable DEAL, and I hope they take it because, if they don’t, the United States is going to knock out every single Power Plant, and every single Bridge, in Iran. NO MORE MR. NICE GUY!”
Meanwhile, Iran maintained there will be no negotiations under the shadow of threats.
Mohammad Reza Mohseni Sani, who sits on the Iranian parliament’s National Security Commission, cast further doubt on the prospects of talks with the US.
He said in comments carried by Iran’s Mehr news agency that “negotiations are not acceptable” in “the current situation” accusing the US of being “overly demanding” and pursuing ulterior objectives for domestic benefit.
“Given the current conditions, recent aggressions and the history we have with the United States in previous negotiations, the next round of talks is, God willing, off the table,” he said.
Ali Vaez, the Iran project director for the International Crisis Group think tank, told Al Jazeera that the key hurdle before any second round of talks was “whether the US is willing to ease pressure enough to make diplomacy credible and whether Iran is willing to curb its leverage enough to keep talks alive”.
US Vice President JD Vance, centre, walks with Pakistani Chief of Defence Forces Asim Munir, left, and Pakistani Foreign Minister Mohammad Ishaq Dar after arriving for talks with Iranian officials in Islamabad, Pakistan, on April 11, 2026 [Jacquelyn Martin/AP]
Scenario 1: Talks happen and achieve a temporary deal
Pakistan has been aiming to get the US and Iran to agree to multiple days of negotiations, sources close to the mediation efforts told Al Jazeera.
For the US, Vance is expected to be joined by Trump’s envoy and fellow real estate developer Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, the same team that participated in the first round of talks. If the Iranians come, the parliament’s speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, is again expected to lead their delegation, which will also include Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.
Mediators in Islamabad are aiming to reach a “memorandum of understanding” between the US and Iran to buy time to achieve a final deal and extend the ceasefire.
“Success would not be a final deal. It would be an interim understanding that extends talks, stabilises the ceasefire and creates a framework for trading nuclear steps for sanctions relief,” Vaez said.
However, glaring differences exist in the demands and expectations from both sides, including over Tehran’s nuclear programme, control of the Strait of Hormuz, sanctions on Iran and its frozen assets.
“If the two sides do not change their stances, there cannot be a deal in Islamabad,” said Aniseh Bassiri Tabrizi, an associate fellow in the Middle East and North Africa Programme at the Chatham House think tank.
Iranian parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf meets with Pakistan’s military chief Asim Munir in Tehran on April 16, 2026 [Handout/Iranian parliament speaker’s office/West Asia News Agency via Reuters]
Scenario 2: Talks end without a breakthrough but with a ceasefire extension
For there to be any meaningful progress in the talks, “there needs to be compromises on both sides because at the moment there is too much of a gap to reach an agreement,” Tabrizi told Al Jazeera.
“Unless that changes, it’s unlikely that we will see a deal,” she said.
Trump has doubled down in recent days on his insistence that Iran stop all uranium enrichment and hand over its current stockpile of enriched uranium. Iran has rejected those demands.
“The US is not learning its lessons from experience,” Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said on Monday. “And this will never lead to good results.”
Still, Tabrizi said, even in the absence of a breakthrough in a second round of talks, the two sides may agree to “some sort of temporary extension of the ceasefire”, which would give diplomacy another chance.
Ships and tankers sit outside the Strait of Hormuz off the coast of Musandam, Oman, on April 18, 2026 [Reuters]
Scenario 3: No talks but the ceasefire is extended
Trump told Bloomberg News on Monday that he considers the ceasefire over “Wednesday evening Washington time” and said it was “highly unlikely” that he would extend it if no deal is reached.
Still, a last-minute post on his Truth Social platform extending the ceasefire would not necessarily be surprising, analysts said – even if Iran refuses to show up to the talks in Islamabad.
“It [would be] a fragile pause, not a durable ceasefire,” Vaez said. “As long as maritime pressure and mutual accusations continue, the risk of miscalculation remains very high.”
“Without a diplomatic framework, it would be buying time, not building stability,” he added.
Tabrizi agreed. Already, though, the war has fundamentally changed the US-Iran equation, she said.
“President Trump is arguing that regime change has happened because the figures that they are dealing with are different,” Tabrizi said. “Iran probably doesn’t seem to see the US as an existential threat like before the fighting started.”
Scenario 4: Talks fail, and the ceasefire expires
Trump’s repeated threats to restart the bombing of Iran in the absence of a deal also open up a fourth scenario: If Iranian negotiators do not travel to Islamabad for the talks, that threat will be tested.
“Then lots of bombs start going off,” Trump said to PBS News on Monday when asked about what follows if the ceasefire expires. Trump added that Iran was “supposed to be there” for the negotiations. “We’ll see whether or not it’s there. If they’re not there, that’s fine too,” he said.
Ghalibaf said on Tuesday that Trump “seeks to turn this negotiating table, in his own imagination, into a table of surrender or to justify renewed warmongering”.
“We have prepared to reveal new cards on the battlefield,” he added, suggesting that Tehran was prepared militarily for a resumption of the fighting.
But if the ceasefire collapses, “the next round is likely to get very ugly very quickly,” Vaez warned. “The US will likely target critical infrastructure in Iran, which in turn will torch the rest of the region.”
United States President Donald Trump has said a nuclear agreement currently being negotiated with Iran will be “far better” than the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which he withdrew from in 2018 during his first term in office.
The original 2015 accord took roughly two years of negotiations to reach and involved hundreds of specialists across technical and legal fields, including multiple US experts. Under it, Iran agreed to restrict the enrichment of uranium and to subject itself to inspections in exchange for the relaxation of sanctions.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
But Trump took the US out of that pact, calling it the “worst deal ever”. Before the initial US-Israeli strikes on Iran at the end of February, the US had made new demands – including additional restrictions on Tehran’s nuclear programme, the restriction of its ballistic missiles programme and an end to its support for regional armed groups, primarily in Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq.
Trump’s latest remarks come amid growing uncertainty about whether a second round of talks will proceed in the Pakistani capital Islamabad, as a two-week ceasefire between the US-Israel and Iran approaches the end in just a day.
So, what was the JCPOA, and how did it compare to Trump’s new demands?
What was the JCPOA?
On July 14, 2015, Iran reached an agreement with the European Union and six major powers – China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, the US, and Germany – under which these states would roll back international economic sanctions and allow Iran greater participation in the global economy.
In return, Tehran committed to limiting activities that could be used to produce a nuclear weapon.
These included reducing its stockpile of enriched uranium by about 98 percent, to less than 300kg (660lb), and capping uranium enrichment at 3.67 percent – far below weapons-grade of 90 percent, but high enough for civilian purposes such as power generation.
Before the JCPOA, Iran operated roughly 20,000 uranium-enriching centrifuges. Under the deal, that number was cut to a maximum of 6,104, and only older-generation machines confined to two facilities, which were subject to international monitoring.
Centrifuges are machines which spin to increase the concentration of the uranium-235 isotope – enrichment – in uranium, a key step towards potential bomb-making.
The deal also redesigned Iran’s Arak heavy water reactor to prevent plutonium production and introduced one of the most intrusive inspection regimes ever implemented by the global nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
In exchange, Iran received relief from international sanctions which had severely damaged its economy. Billions of dollars in frozen assets were released, and restrictions on oil exports and banking were eased.
The deal came to halt when Trump formally withdrew Washington from the nuclear deal in 2018, a move widely criticised domestically and by foreign allies, and despite the IAEA saying Iran had complied with the agreement up to that point.
“The Iranian regime supports terrorism and exports violence, bloodshed and chaos across the Middle East. That is why we must put an end to Iran’s continued aggression and nuclear ambitions. They have not lived up to the spirit of their agreement,” he said in October 2017.
He reimposed crippling economic sanctions on Tehran as part of his “maximum pressure” tactic. These targeted Iran’s oil exports, as well as its shipping sector, banking system and other key industries.
The goal was to force Iran back to the negotiating table to agree to a new deal, which also included a discussion about Tehran’s missile capabilities, further curbs on enrichment and more scrutiny of its nuclear programme.
What has happened to Iran’s nuclear programme since the JCPOA?
During the JCPOA period, Iran’s nuclear programme was tightly constrained and heavily monitored. The IAEA repeatedly verified that Iran was complying with the deal’s terms, including one year after Trump announced the US’s withdrawal from the agreement.
Starting in mid-2019, however, Iran began incrementally breaching the deal’s limits, exceeding caps on uranium stockpiles and enrichment levels.
In November 2024, Iran said it would activate “new and advanced” centrifuges. The IAEA confirmed that Tehran had informed the nuclear watchdog that it planned to install more than 6,000 new centrifuges to enrich uranium.
In December 2024, the IAEA said Iran was rapidly enriching uranium to 60 percent purity, moving closer to the 90 percent threshold needed for weapons-grade material. Most recently, in 2025, the IAEA estimated that Iran had 440kg (970lb) of 60-percent enriched uranium.
What are Trump’s latest demands for Iran’s nuclear programme?
The US and its ally, Israel, are pushing Iran to agree to zero uranium enrichment and have accused Iran of working towards building a nuclear weapon, while providing no evidence for their claims.
They also want Iran’s estimated 440kg stock of 60pc enriched uranium to be removed from Iran. While that is below weapons-grade, it is the point at which it becomes much faster to achieve the 90 percent enrichment needed for atomic weapons production.
In March 2025, Tulsi Gabbard, the US director of national intelligence, testified to Congress that the US “continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon”.
On Sunday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, in a strongly worded statement, said Trump had no right to ”deprive” Iran of its nuclear rights.
(Al Jazeera)
What else is Trump asking for?
Restrictions on ballistic missiles
Before the US-Israel war on Iran began, Tehran had always insisted negotiations should be exclusively focused on Iran’s nuclear programme.
US and Israeli demands, however, extended beyond that. Just before the war began, Washington and Israel demanded severe restrictions on Iran’s ballistic missile programme.
Analysts say this demand was at least partly triggered by the fact that several Iranian missiles had breached Israel’s much-vaunted “Iron Dome” defence system during the 12-day war between the two countries in June last year. While Israel suffered only a handful of casualties, it is understood to have been alarmed.
For his part, Trump has repeatedly warned, without evidence, about the dangers of Iran’s long-range missiles, claiming Iran is producing them “in very high numbers” and they could “overwhelm the Iron Dome”.
Iran has said its right to maintain missile capabilities is non-negotiable. The JCPOA did not put any limits on the development of ballistic missiles.
However, a United Nations resolution made when adopting the nuclear agreement in July 2015 did stipulate that Iran could not “undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons”.
Ending support for proxy groups
The US and Israel have also demanded that Iran stop supporting its non-state allies across the Middle East, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen and a number of groups in Iraq. Together, these groups are referred to as Iran’s “axis of resistance”.
In May last year, Trump said Tehran “must stop sponsoring terror, halt its bloody proxy wars, and permanently and verifiably cease pursuit of nuclear weapons”, during a GCC meeting in Riyadh.
Three days before the war on Iran began in February, during his State of the Union address to Congress, Trump accused Iran and “its murderous proxies” of spreading “nothing but terrorism and death and hate”.
Iran has refused to enter a dialogue about limiting its support for these armed groups.
Can Trump really get a new deal that is ‘much better’ than the JCPOA?
According to Andreas Kreig, associate professor of Security Studies at King’s College, London, Trump is more likely to secure a new deal that closely resembles the JCPOA, with “some form of restrictions on enrichment, possibly with a sunset clause, and international supervision”.
“Iran might get access to frozen assets and lifted sanctions much quicker than under the JCPOA, as it will not agree to a long drawn-out, gradual lifting of sanctions,” Krieg pointed out.
However, he warned that the political landscape in Tehran has hardened. “Iran now is a far more hardline and less pragmatic player that will play hardball at every junction. Trump cannot count on any goodwill in Tehran,” he said.
“The IRGC is now firmly in charge… with likely new powerful and tested levers such as the Strait of Hormuz,” he said, referring to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which operates as a parallel elite military force to the army and has a great deal of political and economic power in Iran. It is a constitutionally recognised part of the Iranian military and answers directly to the supreme leader.
Overall, Krieg stressed, the US-Israel war on Iran “leaves the world worse off than had Trump stuck to the JCPOA”, even if a new compromise is eventually reached.
Moreover, since the revocation of the JCPOA, the US and Israel have waged two wars on Iran, including the current one. The 12-day war in June last year included attacks on Iran’s nuclear sites and killed more than 1,000 people.
Attacks on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure have continued since the latest war began on February 28, including on the Natanz enrichment facility, Isfahan nuclear complex, Arak heavy water reactor, and the Bushehr nuclear power plant.
Nevertheless, King’s College’s Krieg said there is still room for a negotiated outcome if Tehran and Washington scale back their demands.
“Both sides can compromise on enrichment thresholds, and on temporary moratoriums on enrichments. But Iran will not surrender its sovereignty to enrich altogether, and the Trump administration will have to meet them halfway,” he said.
“While the Iranians will commit on paper not to develop a nuclear weapon, they will want to keep R&D [research and development] in this space alive.”
Economic incentives will be central, he added. “Equally, Iran would want to get immediate access to capital and liquidity. Here, the Trump administration is already willing to compromise.”
Korir broke the Boston Marathon record, finishing in in 2 hours, 1 minute, 52 seconds in the world’s fifth-fastest time.
By Reuters and The Associated Press
Published On 21 Apr 202621 Apr 2026
John Korir broke the Boston Marathon course record in a Kenyan sweep as compatriot Sharon Lokedi defended her title on a chilly day with a gusty tailwind.
The defending champion rode a tailwind on Monday to the fastest finish in the race’s 130-year history, winning in 2 hours, 1 minute and 52 seconds. That was 70 seconds faster than Geoffrey Mutai’s then-world best in 2011, and the fifth-fastest marathon of all time.
The top three men beat the previous record.
Korir said he knew he was on a record pace at the 25-mile (40km) mark, but he did not bother to check the clock as he crossed the finish line. He was informed of his accomplishment by Boston Athletic Association president Jack Fleming and jumped for joy.
“When they told me I had run the course record, that’s when I started to be happy,” said the 29-year-old Kenyan, who last year joined his brother to become the first relatives to win the race. “I knew I would defend my title. But I didn’t know I could run that fast.”
A relaxed Korir surged past Ethiopia’s Milkesha Mengesha at the 20-mile (32.1km) mark to take control of the race. Korir ran alone for the final 6 miles (9.6km), breaking the record set in 2011 by compatriot Geoffrey Mutai in 2:03:02.
Korir clocked his last mile of the race in four minutes and 26 seconds. Before crossing the finish line, he smiled broadly as he stuck out his tongue in a playful gesture.
John Korir ran alone for the final 6 miles (9.6 kilometres) of the marathon [Natalie Reid/Imagn Images via Reuters]
Meanwhile, Lokedi won the women’s race in two hours, 18 minutes and 51 seconds. She set the course record last year in 2:17:22.
With about 5 miles (8km) to go, Lokedi had Loice Chemnung, also of Kenya, clinging to her pace. But then Lokedi dropped her rival with a blistering surge, running mile splits under four minutes and 50 seconds in the last stage of the race.
“I was just like, ‘let me push it and see how it goes,’” Lokedi said. “I left it all out there. That’s all I can say.”
Kenyan women took the top four spots. Jess McClain placed fifth in 2:20:49, the fastest time ever for an American woman at Boston.
It was a chilly start to the 130th running of the race, with temperatures at 45F (7C) on a clear day that offered a tailwind of up to 10mph (16km/h) to the runners.
Kelvin Kiptum holds the marathon world record, with a 2:00:35 on the flatter Chicago course in 2023.
Israel has killed more than 700 people in Gaza since last year’s US-brokered ‘ceasefire’.
Published On 21 Apr 202621 Apr 2026
Dubai-based logistics giant DP World has held talks with representatives linked to Donald Trump’s so-called “Board of Peace” over managing supply chains and infrastructure projects in Gaza, according to the Financial Times (FT) newspaper.
The talks reportedly explored whether the state-owned company could partner with the group to oversee logistics for humanitarian aid and commercial goods entering the besieged Palestinian enclave.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
That would include warehousing, cargo tracking systems and security arrangements, the report said. Other proposals discussed reportedly included building a new port in Gaza or on Egypt’s nearby Mediterranean coast, as well as creating a free-trade zone inside the war-ravaged territory.
The discussions form part of longstanding proposals by US officials to privatise much of the Palestinian territory’s services and infrastructure as part of their plans for a “new Gaza”.
But critics have accused such plans of sidelining Palestinians, bypassing international institutions, including the United Nations, and risking legitimisation of the forced displacement of Palestinians from their land.
The report comes as progress towards peace in Gaza has stalled. Israel continues to occupy large swaths of the enclave, while aid access remains heavily restricted despite a US-brokered “ceasefire” announced last October. Since then, Israeli attacks have killed more than 700 people and injured about 2,000, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health.
The FT said a draft proposal it reviewed described a vision for a “secure and traceable supply chain system” and a “port-led economic ecosystem”, alongside light industry and job-creation platforms.
It was not clear who drafted the document or how far the talks progressed.
A spokesperson for DP World told the newspaper they were not aware of any discussions. The United Arab Emirates’ Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not respond to FT’s request for comment.
DP World, owned by the Dubai government, is one of the world’s largest port operators and says it handles about 10 percent of global trade daily across more than 80 countries.
The company’s senior leadership was reshuffled after longtime chair Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem stepped down in February following scrutiny over his links to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Meanwhile, discussions linked to Gaza’s reconstruction have continued behind the scenes, including talks with companies in the security, finance and technology sectors, the FT said.
A joint assessment by the European Union, UN and World Bank said Gaza will require $71.4bn for reconstruction over the next 10 years, including $23bn needed in the next 18 months.
Voters in Virginia head to the polls on Tuesday to decide on a measure that could redraw the state’s congressional map and potentially shift the balance of power in Washington.
Major political figures, including former President Barack Obama and House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson, have weighed in on the high-stakes vote, with nearly $100m spent on campaigning around it.
Part of a broader redistricting battle that began in Texas and spread nationwide, the vote may be the Democrats’ last chance this year to gain seats by changing district maps. The vote comes about six months before the 2026 midterm elections.
Here is what we know:
What is Virginia voting on?
Virginia currently sends 11 members to the House. At the moment, six of them are Democrats, and five are Republicans, reflecting the state’s balance.
Democrats now want to redraw the map to favour them in a way that could help them win up to 10 of the 11 seats. Under the proposal, most districts would be safely Democratic or lean towards the party, with only one strongly Republican.
A breakdown would be:
Eight districts would be safely Democratic
Two would be competitive but lean Democratic
Only one would be safely Republican
If approved, this could give the Democrats several extra seats in Congress, helping them win back or strengthen control of the House in Washington, where majorities are often decided by just a few seats.
That would be a big political shift for the state, which was once closely contested but has become more Democratic-leaning in recent years.
Supporters depart a campaign rally against Virginia Democrats’ proposed state redistricting constitutional amendment [FILE: Ken Cedeno/Reuters]
How would the vote work?
Voters in Virginia can cast their ballots either early or on Election Day.
Polling stations will be open across the state on Tuesday:
Polls open at 10:00 GMT
Polls close at 23:00 GMT
Votes will be counted after polls close, with early results expected later that evening and fuller results overnight or the next day.
What are voters being asked to decide?
The proposed constitutional amendment is the only statewide contest on the ballot.
It reads:
“Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General Assembly to temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections, while ensuring Virginia’s standard redistricting process resumes for all future redistricting after the 2030 census?”
A “yes” vote would support allowing the General Assembly to redraw congressional districts before the midterms.
A “no” vote would leave current boundaries unchanged until the next round of regularly scheduled redistricting after the 2030 census.
What do the latest polls suggest?
The result is expected to be close.
A recent poll by State Navigate, a nonpartisan research group, suggests a small lead for supporters, with about 53 percent in favour and 47 percent against.
Why do district lines matter so much?
District lines decide how voters are grouped, which can shape who wins elections.
Moving the lines can make a district more favourable to a Democratic or Republican win, by adding or removing neighbourhoods and communities that lean one way or the other.
It can turn a close race into a safe seat, or the other way around. It affects which communities are kept together and who represents them.
This process, often called gerrymandering, allows parties to draw maps that benefit them.
In a closely divided state like Virginia, even small changes to the map can shift several seats and influence who holds power in Congress.
A 2023 study by Harvard University researchers found that gerrymandering often creates “safe” seats for politicians, meaning their races are less competitive.
In turn, those politicians become less responsive to the needs of their constituents, who become discouraged about voting as a result.
Supporters pray during a campaign rally against Virginia Democrats’ proposed state redistricting constitutional amendment [Ken Cedeno/Reuters]
When could new maps take effect?
If approved, the new map could be used as early as the next election cycle, including the upcoming midterms, depending on legal approval.
However, the plan could face legal challenges. Critics have questioned the ballot wording and the process used by lawmakers.
The Virginia Supreme Court has allowed the vote to go ahead while reviewing those concerns.
If it later finds that rules were broken, the results could be overturned, and the current maps would remain.
Why this vote could shape power in Washington?
A handful of seats could decide control of the US House.
Republicans currently hold a narrow 218–213 majority, but Democrats are seen as competitive heading into the midterms.
Political leaders have underscored the stakes.
Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic Party’s leader in the House, has pointed to Virginia as a crucial battleground, while Mike Johnson has said the result will be closely watched across the country.
US House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) speaks during a campaign rally [Reuters]
What it means to control the US House
The party with the majority (more seats) in Congress can:
Set the agenda, deciding which bills are brought up for debate
Control committees, including investigations and hearings
Pass legislation more easily (if they stay united)
Block bills from the minority party.
The majority party also chooses the speaker of the House, who has major influence over what reaches the floor.
Where else has this happened?
Virginia’s redistricting vote is part of a larger political battle playing out in the US. Republicans in Texas, encouraged by Donald Trump, have redrawn district maps to strengthen their advantage, prompting similar efforts in other states.
In rare cases, voters have been asked to decide directly, including in California last year and now in Virginia.
In California, voters backed the changes despite concerns about fairness. Now it’s Virginia’s turn to decide.
What Democrats are saying, and why?
Democrats argue the plan is a response to Republican actions in other states, not just a power grab.
Leaders like Obama had long opposed gerrymandering in principle, but have now backed the Virginia move, even releasing a video asking voters to go out and vote for the constitutional amendment.
Led by veteran guard McCollum, the Atlanta Hawks staged a late comeback to upset New York Knicks to tie their playoff series 1-1.
Published On 21 Apr 202621 Apr 2026
CJ McCollum scored six of his game-high 32 points in the final two-plus minutes on Monday night for the visiting Atlanta Hawks, who stormed back from an eight-point deficit in the last five minutes to stun the New York Knicks 107-106 in Game 2 of their Eastern Conference first-round series.
The Hawks ended on a 15-6 run to even the best-of-seven series at a game apiece. Game 3 is scheduled for Thursday night in Atlanta.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
The Hawks, whose only lead before their concluding surge was at 36-35, trailed by as many as 14 points in the third quarter. Atlanta fell behind 100-92 when Jalen Brunson hit a floater with 5:26 left.
The teams traded empty possessions before Atlanta scored on its next three possessions to pull within 100-99 on Jalen Johnson’s layup with 3:25 remaining. McCollum drove past Brunson for the go-ahead layup with 2:08 left.
New York’s OG Anunoby missed two free throws, and McCollum hit a short jumper, after which Brunson sank a 3-pointer to tie the score at 103-103. McCollum committed a turnover, and Brunson missed a mid-range jumper before McCollum put the Hawks ahead for good with a fadeaway jumper from the left baseline with 33.5 seconds left.
Nickeil Alexander-Walker blocked Brunson’s shot and fed Johnson for a dunk to put the Hawks up 107-103 with 10.2 seconds left. Following a timeout, Brunson hit a 3-pointer that circled around the rim and went in, after which McCollum was fouled by Hart but missed both free throws.
The Knicks had a timeout left, but they pushed the ball up the court, and Hart dished to Mikal Bridges, who missed a 12-foot attempt for the win from the left wing as time expired.
The Hawks shot 72.2 percent (13-for-18) in the fourth, while the Knicks shot just 22.7 percent (5-for-22).
Jonathan Kuminga had 19 points off the bench for the Hawks, while Johnson (17 points) and Onyeka Okongwu (15 points) also got into double figures.
Brunson scored 29 points for the Knicks. Hart recorded 15 points and 13 rebounds, while Karl-Anthony Towns had 18 points. Anunoby finished with 14 points, and Mitchell Robinson scored 13 points off the bench. Bridges added 10 points.
CJ McCollum #3 finished with a game-high 32 points in Game 2 [Nathaniel S Butler/Getty Images via AFP]
