Category: News

United States President Donald Trump is insistent that “productive” negotiations have taken place with Iran to end the war he launched with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu almost a month ago. The major problem with that narrative is that Iran’s top officials have repeatedly denied it.

Amid the fog of war and the propaganda being pushed by all sides, it is hard to know who to believe. But an analysis of what each side has to gain from any negotiations – and a potential end to the conflict – could bring more clarity.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

Trump’s comments that there were “major points of agreement” after “very good” talks with an unnamed “top” Iranian figure came as stock markets opened in the US for the start of the trading week. The five-day deadline he gave for a positive response from Iran also happens to coincide with the end of the trading week.

Many have cynically noted that timing, especially as it comes after a two-week period in which oil prices have fluctuated in line with events in the Middle East, leading to a high of about $120 a barrel last week.

Trump’s talk of negotiations may also give time for more US troops to arrive in the Middle East, if Washington decides to conduct some form of ground invasion of Iranian territory.

Among those questioning Trump’s motives was the man believed by some to be the senior Iranian official Trump was referencing: the Iranian parliamentary speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf.

“No negotiations have been held with the US, and fakenews is used to manipulate the financial and oil markets and escape the quagmire in which the US and Israel are trapped,” Ghalibaf wrote on social media.

The impact on stock markets and oil prices is not just relevant to the US and Trump, but also to Iran. However, for Tehran, the benefit comes in the damage the war is doing to the US and global economies.

The Iranian state wants the US to feel economic pain from the war, as a means of deterrence for any future Israeli or US attack on Iran.

Therefore, as much as it is in the US interest to play up talk of negotiations in order to calm the markets, it is also in Iran’s interest to downplay any talk to do the exact opposite, and not give the Trump administration any breathing space.

US benefits?

Consequently, both sides have their own narratives on negotiations, and public comments will do little to inform us as to whether those negotiations are really taking place, or in what form they may be.

That instead leads us into what each side has to gain from negotiations, and an actual end to the war at the current stage.

Trump appears to have underestimated the consequences of the conflict that he launched with Netanyahu on February 28, and the ability of the Iranian state to withstand the attacks against it without collapsing.

“They weren’t supposed to go after all these other countries in the Middle East … Nobody expected that,” he said last week, adding that even “the greatest experts” didn’t believe that.

Leaving aside that experts – including US intelligence officials – had repeatedly made those warnings, reality has now made Trump aware of the consequences he had previously ignored.

While some allies and supporters may continue to push him to plough on with the conflict, Trump has previously shown himself amenable to cutting deals to extricate himself from difficult situations, and it is not far-fetched to see the benefits of doing so in this instance.

The US president has already ordered his government to issue temporary sanctions waivers on some Iranian oil, in an effort to calm oil prices. This is the first time Iran has lifted sanctions on any Iranian oil since 2019, and it will not be lost on Iran that the waivers have come as a result of their policy to expand the conflict to the wider Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, a key waterway through which a fifth of the world’s oil and liquified natural gas transits.

The war was already unpopular in the US – and now even more so, as consumers see the impact on petrol prices and potentially other areas of the economy, all in the run-up to congressional elections later this year, in which Trump’s Republicans are likely to do poorly.

Trump, therefore, has the options of extending this war – and suffering the economic and political cost, or ending it – and facing the criticism that he was unable to finish what he termed as a “short-term excursion”.

The Iranian perspective

But whatever Trump wants to do, the decision is not totally in his hands. Iran, attacked for the second time in less than a year, now appears to have less of an incentive to end the war without the establishment of an effective deterrent to another in the future.

Gone are the days of the telegraphed attacks on US assets and the slow climb up the escalation ladder. From the outset of the current war, it was clear that Iran had changed its tactics and was not as interested in restraint.

It is now arguably in the Iranian state’s benefit to drag out the conflict and inflict more suffering on the region, if it wants to ensure its survival.

There may also be a belief that interceptor stocks in Israel are running low, allowing Iran to strike targets more effectively. The thinking – particularly among the hardliners who now appear to be in the ascendancy in Iran – will be that now is not the time to stop, and allow those interceptor stocks to replenish.

And yet, Iran is suffering. More than 1,500 people have been killed across the country, according to the government. Infrastructure has been heavily damaged, and the power grid could be next. Relations with Gulf neighbours have nosedived, and, after repeated Iranian attacks, are unlikely to return to their previous levels after the conflict.

More moderate voices in Iran will look at that and think that things could easily get worse. They can argue that some form of deterrence has been achieved, and that the time is now ripe to talk. And if they can get some concessions – such as a promise of no future attacks, or greater authority in the Strait of Hormuz – they may decide that the time is right to make a deal.

The final qualification spots for the FIFA World Cup 2026 are about to be sealed via UEFA and intercontinental playoffs.

With the FIFA World Cup 2026 kicking off on June 11, the final spots that are still up for grabs are being fiercely fought by nations in qualifiers around the globe.

The last governing body to complete their continental playoff route is UEFA, with four European spots still up for grabs at the showpiece event.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

Thereafter, FIFA’s Play-Off Tournament – an intercontinental competition – will provide the last-chance saloon for two more of the best non-qualified finishers from the other continental processes around the globe.

Al Jazeera Sport takes a look at UEFA’s final continental playoff path as that draws to a close.

Which UEFA teams are still in with a chance of World Cup qualification?

There will be more European teams than from any other continent at the World Cup: 16.

There are still 16 European teams, meanwhile, vying for the final four of the UEFA qualifying positions for the World Cup:

• Italy, Northern Ireland, Wales, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ukraine, Sweden, Poland, Albania, Slovakia, Kosovo, Turkiye, Romania, Denmark, North Macedonia, Czechia and the Republic of Ireland

Which UEFA teams have already qualified for the World Cup?

The 12 European teams that have already qualified for the World Cup are:

• Germany, Switzerland, Scotland, France, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Austria, Norway, Belgium, England, and Croatia

What is the pathway to the World Cup for the remaining UEFA teams?

The remaining teams are divided into four paths. Only the winner of each path will qualify:

Path A:

• Italy vs Northern Ireland and Wales vs Bosnia and Herzegovina
  The winner of this path joins World Cup Group B (with Canada, Qatar, and Switzerland).

Path B:

• Ukraine vs Sweden and Poland vs Albania
  The winner of this path joins World Cup Group F (with the Netherlands, Japan, and Tunisia).

Path C:

• Slovakia vs Kosovo and Turkiye vs Romania
  The winner of this path joins World Cup Group D (with USA, Paraguay, and Australia).

Path D:

• Denmark vs North Macedonia and Czechia vs Republic of Ireland
  The winner of this path joins World Cup Group A (with Mexico, South Africa, and South Korea).

When are the first set of UEFA playoffs for World Cup qualification?

The first round of pathway matches will be played by the 16 remaining teams on March 27, and are single-leg semifinals.

When are the second set of UEFA playoffs for World Cup qualification?

The second round of pathway matches will be played on March 31, with the four winners of each pathway final progressing to the FIFA World Cup 2026. These matches will also be played over a single leg.

How have the UEFA qualifiers reached this stage?

The four final UEFA qualifying places are being decided by the teams that were the 12 runners-up from the group qualifying stage and four based on performances in the UEFA Nations League.

How were the home teams decided for the UEFA playoffs?

The highest-ranked teams are hosting the semifinals. The hosts of the finals were determined by a draw.

Pressure on Italy as playoff hopefuls eye 2026 World Cup

There is no doubt that Italy are the biggest name not amongst those nations that have already qualified.

The four-time champions are seeking to avoid the ignominy of missing out on a World Cup for a third consecutive time.

The spotlight has been on the Italian domestic league, Serie A, for falling behind the other leagues on the continent with their clubs struggling to compete in European competitions.

There will be no greater evidence of Italian football’s fall from grace, however, than the failure to reach the finals.

“It’s undeniable that there’s nervousness,” coach Gennaro Gattuso said. “Only someone without blood running through their veins wouldn’t feel it.”

Will there be any more qualifiers for the World Cup after UEFA’s?

Yes. There is a different format for the intercontinental playoffs, which FIFA simply calls the Play-Off Tournament.

Two teams will advance from a field of six.

The lineup of teams was comprised of two nations from CONCACAF (Jamaica, Suriname) and one each from Asia (Iraq), Africa (DR Congo), South America (Bolivia) and Oceania (New Caledonia).

India has arrested six Ukrainian nationals and an American citizen for allegedly entering India’s northeast region without permits and crossing to neighbouring Myanmar to train armed groups in drone warfare.

The foreign nationals were arrested by Indian police on March 13 at three different airports across the country. According to Indian media reports, the US national was detained by the Bureau of Immigration at Kolkata airport, three Ukrainians were detained in Lucknow, and three more in Delhi. It is not clear if they were on their way to Myanmar or returning from the country.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

India’s National Investigation Agency (NIA) has charged them with violating the country’s “anti-terror” laws, and they will be held in custody until March 27.

Local police also arrested two more American tourists on Saturday for flying drones near Coast Guard headquarters in the southern city of Kochi – where India is harbouring sailors from an Iranian ship that it hosted in military exercises in February. Another Iranian ship that India had hosted was torpedoed by the US early in the war, embarrassing New Delhi and killing dozens of Iranian sailors.

Why have these Americans and Ukrainians been arrested? What does this mean for India’s relations with Myanmar, Ukraine and the US?

Here’s what we know:

Who has been arrested?

According to Indian media reports, the seven foreign nationals arrested by the NIA have been identified as Matthew Aaron VanDyke from the US, and Hurba Petro, Slyviak Taras, Ivan Sukmanovskyi, Stefankiv Marian, Honcharuk Maksim and Kaminskyi Viktor, who are all Ukrainian citizens.

According to VanDyke’s personal website, he participated in the Iraq War and Libya’s civil war. He is the founder of a Washington, DC-based consulting firm called Sons of Liberty International. The organisation’s website says it “provides free security consulting and training services to vulnerable populations to enable them to defend themselves against terrorist and insurgent groups”. The company also ran operations in Ukraine between 2022 and 2023, when it provided training and advice to Ukraine’s military in using non-lethal equipment.

Not much is known about the Ukrainian citizens who have been arrested.

The NIA did not specify when the foreign nationals entered India nor when they crossed into Myanmar.

The two American tourists arrested in Kochi have been identified as 32-year-old Katie Michelle Phelps and 35-year-old Christopher Ross Harvey, both from California.

Why has India arrested the suspects in the Myanmar case?

The seven men were initially detained by the NIA for entering India’s northeastern state of Mizoram without valid permits and then illegally crossing into Myanmar.

This is not the first time foreign nationals have been arrested by India for entering northeastern states bordering the subcontinent’s approximately 1,640km (1,020-mile) border with Myanmar. In April 2025, a Belgian photojournalist was arrested by police in Mizoram for allegedly entering the state without valid travel documents and then crossing into Myanmar.

On March 16, the NIA told a court in New Delhi that the seven foreign nationals had crossed to Myanmar to train armed groups fighting the military government in drone warfare.

According to The Indian Express daily newspaper, the NIA said the accused were involved in illegally “importing huge consignments of drones from Europe to Myanmar via India” for the use of “ethnic armed groups”. The agency added that these groups also allegedly supported “Indian insurgent groups” by supplying weapons and training them in “terrorist” activities.

India’s northeastern states like Mizoram and Manipur, which border Chin state in northern Myanmar, have a troubled history marred with ethnic tensions. Ethnic groups from the states, like Manipur’s Kuki National Army (KNA), also operate in Myanmar and have been actively fighting against the military government.

India, therefore, requires foreigners to obtain special permits before entering some northeastern states bordering Myanmar, particularly since the 2021 military coup there.

Angshuman Choudhury, a researcher and writer who specialises in political and security issues in the India-Myanmar borderland, told Al Jazeera that the Indian government views the India-Myanmar border as a major vulnerability, especially because it remains unfenced.

“Technically, anyone crossing the border without a valid visa or permit under the Free Movement Regime (FMR) is liable for prosecution. The surveillance tends to be higher when it concerns foreign journalists,” he said.

Foreigners who cross over into Myanmar from India to report on the conflict or support resistance forces there are not, in themselves, viewed as security concerns for India, he explained.

“These forces have little to do with India and are fighting their own war against the Myanmar military government,” Choudhury noted. “But the Indian state still views their act of using Indian territory to cross into resistance-held territory as a violation of its own sovereignty and a security risk. This threat perception is aggravated by concerns that their support for Myanmar’s resistance forces may indirectly strengthen anti-India insurgents, although evidence for that remains sparse.”

Why is Ukraine involved in this?

In recent years, Ukraine has deepened its ties with India but has also been accused by rights groups of supporting Myanmar’s military government. The six Ukrainians, by contrast, have been arrested for allegedly providing support to armed groups resisting the government.

In September 2021, months after the military coup, Justice For Myanmar, a group focusing on human rights violations in the country, accused Ukraine of supporting Myanmar’s military with arms exports and technology transfers.

But in a statement on March 19, Ukraine firmly rejected “any insinuations regarding the possible involvement of the Ukrainian State in supporting terrorist activities” and also asked India to release its nationals.

A statement from Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said: “Ukraine is a state that faces the consequences of Russian terror on a daily basis and, for this very reason, takes a principled and uncompromising stance in combating terrorism in all its forms.

“We also emphasise that Ukraine has no interest in any activity that could pose a threat to the security of India … Instead, it is Russia, as an aggressor state, that seeks under every circumstance to drive a wedge between friendly countries – Ukraine and India,” the Foreign Ministry added.

Media reports have suggested that Russia could have been involved in the arrests.

NIA officials told Germany’s international broadcaster DW News that it was possible that Russian authorities had shared intelligence about the foreign nationals’ movements.

Choudhury told Al Jazeera that this would be logical, given Russia’s growing ties with the military government in Myanmar.

“From Moscow’s vantage point, exposing the presence of Ukrainian drone experts in the India-Myanmar borderland also reaffirms the Russian view that Kyiv is contributing to the destabilisation of unstable regions across the world. This may turn global opinion against Ukraine and its Western allies like the US,” he said.

Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Maria Zakharova accused Ukraine of trying “to conceal the incident and to keep its citizens’ questionable activities, which were clearly designed to destabilise the situation in the region, under wraps”.

In a statement on March 20, Zakharova said the incident clearly showed that “[Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s neo-Nazi regime has a core exporter of instability worldwide.”

Meanwhile, the US has not yet commented on its citizen’s arrest.

A US ⁠Embassy spokesperson told the Reuters news agency that the country’s embassy in India was aware of the arrest but could not comment on the case “for privacy reasons”.

Why were the American tourists in Kochi arrested?

Kochi, in the southern Indian state of Kerala, is home to sensitive Indian Navy and Coast Guard facilities.

The headquarters near which the American tourists were allegedly flying drones falls within what authorities describe as a red zone: drone activity is strictly forbidden there.

But the arrests also come at a time when Kochi is hosting more than 180 crew members of the Iranian warship IRIS Lavan, which was given emergency docking permission in early March after the US-Israeli war on Iran began.

The IRIS Dena, another Iranian warship, was attacked by a US submarine in the Indian Ocean, just off Sri Lanka, at the start of the war while it was returning home from naval exercises hosted by India. IRIS Lavan was also a part of those exercises.

What do the arrests mean for Indian relations with the US, Ukraine and Myanmar?

Choudhury said the arrests could serve to strengthen trust between New Delhi and the Myanmar government in Naypyidaw, given the growing military challenge that the latter is facing from resistance forces along the border.

He said in the short term, the arrests could “adversely affect the India-Ukraine relationship”, however.

“Although I believe both sides will rely on backdoor channels to manage this issue – especially since Ukraine can’t afford to alienate India at this juncture,” he said.

Choudhury said the incident would not severely affect relations between India and the US, as Matthew VanDyke’s relationship with the current US administration is not clear.

“Washington, DC might not consider him an important enough figure to damage its bilateral relationship with New Delhi, which is already strained but appears to be steadily returning to normalcy,” he said.

United States President Donald Trump announced on Monday that he is pausing attacks on Iran’s power infrastructure for five days and claimed that Washington and Tehran had held “very good and productive conversations” aimed at ending their war.

The same day, Trump told reporters that his envoys were talking to a senior Iranian official.

While Trump did not name the official, multiple news outlets in Israel and the US have reported that special envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, are talking to the Iranian parliament’s speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf.

Both the Iranian government and Ghalibaf have denied that talks between Washington and Tehran are taking place. And in the Iranian system, any negotiations with the US would need to be approved by new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei and the Supreme National Security Council for them to have any legitimacy.

Who is Ghalibaf, and what do we know about these supposed negotiations?

What do we know about the talks Trump claims to be having?

On Saturday, Trump issued a 48-hour ultimatum to Iran to reopen the critical shipping route through the Strait of Hormuz or risk US attacks on its power plants. In response, Iran said it would attack energy and water facilities in Israel and the Gulf. Ghalibaf also threatened companies that hold US Treasury bonds.

Then on Monday, Trump wrote in a Truth Social post that Washington and Tehran had held “very good and productive conversations regarding a complete and total resolution of our hostilities in the Middle East”. He ordered US forces to hold fire against Iranian power plants for five days.

Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has rejected Trump’s claims that negotiations were under way. Iranian officials accused Trump of pausing his threatened attacks only in an attempt to calm energy markets.

News outlets reported on Monday that Trump said his envoys were in contact with a senior Iranian official.

“We are dealing with a man that I believe is the most respected – not the supreme leader. We have not heard from him,” Trump said told reporters on Monday.

Trump said he did not want to name the Iranian leader because he did not want to get him killed, but, the US news websites Axios and Politico and multiple Israeli publications have reported that Witkoff and Kushner had been in touch with Ghalibaf.

However, on Monday, Ghalibaf wrote in an X post: “No negotiations have been held with the US, and fake news is used to manipulate the financial and oil markets and escape the quagmire in which the US and Israel are trapped.”

Who is Ghalibaf?

Ghalibaf, 64, is Iran’s parliamentary speaker.

He served as the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) air force from 1997 to 2000. After this, he served as the country’s police chief. From 2005 to 2017, he was the mayor of Tehran.

Ghalibaf stood in elections for president in 2005, 2013, 2017 and 2024. He withdrew his bid for president before the election in 2017.

In May 2020, Ghalibaf became the parliamentary speaker, replacing Ali Larijani, who had been speaker from 2008. Larijani was a close adviser to former Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who was killed on the first day of the US-Israeli war on February 28. Larijani, Iran’s top security official, was also killed on March 17 in an Israeli strike.

What has Ghalibaf said during the war?

In his posts online, Ghalibaf has been among the fiercest critics of the US and Israel and has repeatedly issued threats to Israel, the US and the Gulf. Those threats have often echoed the IRGC’s warnings – but at times have gone even beyond what the military itself has threatened to do.

On March 14, he mocked Trump for claiming that the US had defeated Iran. Three days later, he declared that the Strait of Hormuz would not return to its pre-war state. On Sunday, Ghalibaf posted that financial bodies that fund Washington’s military are legitimate targets for Iran: “US treasury bonds are soaked in Iranians’ blood. Purchase them, and you purchase a strike on your HQ and assets.”

And on Monday, Ghalibaf posted a thread of posts on X, denying that talks with the US were taking place.

“Iranian people demand complete and remorseful punishment of the aggressors,” he wrote. “All Iranian officials stand firmly behind their supreme leader and people until this goal is achieved.”

What is the likelihood of any talks right now?

Experts think negotiations are plausible as pressure is building on Trump to end the war but are cautious about any predictions over whether they might succeed.

“I would assess the likelihood of talks at 60 percent for several reasons,” Iranian-American economist Nader Habibi told Al Jazeera.

Habibi explained that the costs of the war were high for all parties. Trump faces pressure to contain the war and prevent attacks on energy infrastructure. He faces pressure from Gulf countries and major economic partners, such as European countries, Japan and South Korea, who have been harmed by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. He also faces mounting concerns among his fellow Republicans worried about the rising cost of fuel impacting the party’s chances in the midterm elections scheduled for November.

He added that Iran faces pressure as well. “Iran’s surviving leadership is under considerable stress and is worried about attacks to key energy and power plant infrastructure.”

Habibi added that several mediating countries, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkiye, have been able to establish a communication channel with Iranian officials. This paves the way for negotiations.

Additionally, China is also using its influence to get Iran to negotiate, Habibi said.

“Israel and the United States were expecting a short war with a path to regime collapse. Now they are revising their expectations and are aware of the high cost of a prolonged war in which Iran is able to hit targets in Israel.”

What’s next?

“It is hard to predict whether any talks that take place in the next few days will be successful,” Habibi said.

He added that there might be a reduction in violence and some confidence-building measures on both sides during the negotiations but there is no guarantee of a comprehensive deal that could end the war.

“There might be disagreement between Israel and the US on requirements for ending the war. Similarly, some factions among Iran’s ruling elite might resist the concessions that Iran is expected to offer to meet the demands of the United States,” Habibi said.

Islamabad, Pakistan – The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has said Pakistan is ready to host talks between the United States and Iran amid US President Donald Trump’s claims of ongoing negotiations between Washington and Tehran.

“If the parties desire, Islamabad is always willing to host talks,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Tahir Andrabi told Al Jazeera on Tuesday. “It has consistently advocated for dialogue and diplomacy to promote peace and stability in the region.”

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

Hours later, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif also wrote on X that Pakistan “stands ready and honoured to be the host to facilitate meaningful and conclusive talks for a comprehensive settlement of the ongoing conflict”.

Iran has categorically denied that it is engaged in any talks with the US, contradicting Trump.

But multiple US and Israeli media outlets have reported that Pakistan, Egypt and Turkiye have been serving as messengers between Washington and Tehran, hoping to broker an off-ramp in a war that has led to the greatest energy crisis in modern history.

Some of those reports have suggested that Islamabad could emerge as the city to host talks later this week. According to US-based outlet Axios, two possible formats are under discussion for a meeting in Islamabad. One involves Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, US envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner. Another envisions US Vice President JD Vance meeting Iran’s parliament speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who has dismissed Trump’s claims of talks as an attempt to “escape the quagmire in which the US and Israel are trapped”.

Still, some facts are confirmed: Pakistani army chief Field Marshal Asim Munir spoke to President Trump on Sunday. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif called Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian a day later. This was followed by Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar holding separate calls with his Iranian and Turkish counterparts.

Fragile diplomacy, hardened positions

The picture emerging from analysts and officials is one of tentative but fragile diplomatic movement, significant enough to pause some military activity but not yet amounting to substantive negotiations.

Trump claimed the US and Iran had already reached “major points of agreement”, suggesting tentative steps towards de-escalation in the US-Israel war on Iran.

Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei confirmed that messages had arrived through “friendly countries”, conveying a US request for negotiations, but said Iran had responded according to “the country’s principled positions”.

An Iranian official, quoted by state-linked Press TV, outlined Tehran’s conditions for ending the war on Monday. These included guarantees against future military action, closure of all US military bases in the Gulf region, full reparations from Washington and Tel Aviv, an end to regional conflicts involving Iran-aligned groups, and a new legal framework governing the Strait of Hormuz.

The White House has declined to spell out details of the talks that Trump claims were held. “These are sensitive diplomatic discussions, and the US will not negotiate through the press,” press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement.

Mehran Kamrava, director of the Iranian Studies Unit at the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies and professor at Georgetown University in Qatar, said Trump’s approach followed a familiar pattern.

Washington, he argued, has relied on sustained military and economic pressure to force Tehran to negotiate on US terms, a strategy that has yet to succeed.

“This is consistent with Trump’s resort to gunboat diplomacy and his assumption that he can continue to pressure and threaten Iranians into negotiating,” he told Al Jazeera. “We have seen, however, that there has been resistance to this sort of pressure tactic by the Iranian side and that the Iranians have not responded to threats the way the Americans have anticipated.”

Part of the explanation for the Iranian refusal to succumb to Trump’s pressure, analysts say, is structural. Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, argued that the war had — paradoxically — strengthened Iran’s position on the key issue of sanctions.

“The reality is that the war has provided Iran with de facto sanctions relief. Iran is exporting more oil now than before the war at twice the price,” he told Al Jazeera, referring to the Trump administration’s decision, last week, to lift sanctions on Iranian oil already on boats out at sea. “It has leverage, and it will not agree to end the war without formalising sanctions relief.”

That, he added, is precisely what Washington appears reluctant to offer. “I am not seeing signs in the US that Trump is fully ready for serious diplomacy, since it will have to entail sanctions relief for Iran.”

Khalid Masood, a former Pakistani diplomat and envoy to China, said pressure to find an exit was nonetheless mounting on all sides.

“The US has also realised there are limits to hard power, you can be powerful and still not achieve everything in your favour,” he said. “There is war fatigue, with regional and global fallout, and US allies are feeling it. When you put all of this in context, one comes to the conclusion that the US is now keen on some kind of arrangement,” Masood told Al Jazeera.

Dania Thafer, executive director of the Gulf International Forum, however, urged caution. Any settlement, she said, would require sustained and intensive diplomacy.

“Iran, for its part, may also seek to impose sufficient costs to reinforce long-term deterrence, and it is not yet clear that it believes this objective has been met,” she told Al Jazeera.

War escalation and global stakes

After 12 days of fighting last year, and months of sabre rattling since the beginning of this year, the latest war on Iran began on February 28 when the US and Israel launched coordinated strikes that killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and many other senior officials, just a day after Oman’s foreign minister had declared a breakthrough “within reach”.

Iran responded with sustained missile and drone attacks on Israel, US bases and civilian infrastructure across Gulf states.

The head of the International Energy Agency (IEA) has warned that the disruption already exceeds the combined oil crises of 1973 and 1979. The Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly a fifth of global crude oil flows, has effectively been closed since the first day of the war, though Iran has in recent days allowed a few tankers from India, Pakistan, China and Turkiye to pass through, and is in talks with other countries — including Japan — to allow their vessels transit through the narrow passageway.

Trump had initially announced a 48-hour ultimatum for Iran to reopen the strait or face strikes on its power plants, which was due to expire on Monday night. Hours before that, he announced a five-day pause on those attacks, which will end on Saturday.

Even as diplomacy appears to have kicked in, the Pentagon accelerated deployments to the Gulf. The USS Boxer Amphibious Ready Group and the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit were moved from California three weeks before schedule.

The 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit on board the USS Tripoli is already en route from Japan. The US is also weighing options, including seizing Kharg Island, which handles about 90 percent of Iran’s crude exports, and sending ground forces to secure Tehran’s enriched uranium stockpiles.

The US has already struck military installations on Kharg Island, warning that critical oil facilities could be targeted if Iran continues to block the strait.

Masood said the parallel military build-up was deliberate.

“The US is still moving the Marines, which signals that if the talks do not work out, it could lead to something,” he said.

“Israel wants the action to continue and is likely unhappy with the talks. The Israelis might well play the role of spoiler. If this process does not reach a conclusion, then the US and Israel will resort to force, which would be deeply unfortunate.”

Pakistan’s diplomatic opening

Pakistan’s role in the current diplomacy draws on a set of relationships built over time.

When Munir visited the White House for an unprecedented lunch meeting with Trump in June 2025, the first time a US president had hosted a Pakistani military chief who was not also president, Trump said publicly that Pakistan “knows Iran very well, better than most”.

The meeting, which lasted more than two hours, included discussions of rising Israel-Iran tensions.

Ahead of last year’s strikes, Munir also travelled to Iran alongside Sharif, meeting senior Iranian officials.

Since the war began in February, Islamabad has maintained its outreach. On March 3, Foreign Minister Dar told parliament that Pakistan was “ready to facilitate dialogue between Washington and Tehran in Islamabad”.

In the same address, Dar revealed that Pakistan had pushed back against Washington’s demand for zero uranium enrichment, instead proposing a monitored framework. “It was agreed that there should be surveillance of two to three countries, and Iran was happy with that,” he said.

Pakistan’s leverage lies in a rare combination of ties. It is the only Muslim-majority country with nuclear weapons and does not host US military bases.

It maintains longstanding ties with Saudi Arabia, dating back to 1947, reinforced by a strategic defence pact signed in September 2025. At the same time, it shares a 900km (560-mile) border with Iran and hosts the world’s second-largest Shia Muslim population.

Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, recently referenced Pakistan in a message marking the Persian New Year, Nowruz, saying he had a “special feeling” towards its people.

Masood said these overlapping relationships give Islamabad credibility.

“Pakistan’s importance also stems from its standing as a major Islamic country with considerable credibility. It has ties with the Gulf, with Saudi Arabia, and with Iran; everybody is open to Pakistan playing a mediating role,” he said. “Iran has publicly praised us, and in that sense, Pakistan is well-placed to make a positive contribution.”

Former diplomat Salman Bashir said mediation also serves Pakistan’s own interests.

“Pakistan’s relations with the Trump administration have been very good, and we have been talking to Iran as well,” he said. “It would very much be in our interest, because we could be affected by this conflict.”

Quincy Institute’s Parsi agreed Pakistan is well-positioned but cautioned that timing remains critical.

“Pakistan is well-positioned to help advance the diplomacy, but ultimately, the conflict has to be ripe for mediation,” he said. “It does not appear that it is quite yet, but it is important to begin the diplomacy before the moment of ripeness has arrived.”

The groundwork for the latest diplomatic push was laid in Riyadh last week, when Saudi Arabia convened an emergency meeting of foreign ministers from 12 Arab and Islamic countries, including Pakistan and Turkiye.

The meeting produced a joint statement condemning Iran’s attacks on Gulf countries’ infrastructure and affirming their right to self-defence.

Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud warned that Riyadh’s patience was not unlimited and that the kingdom “reserves the right to take military action if deemed necessary”.

On the sidelines, the foreign ministers of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkiye also held a separate coordination meeting, the first in that format, and some Pakistani sources say Islamabad’s emergence as a potential venue for dialogue between the US and Iran stems from that meeting.

Meanwhile, the Gulf states, which have been targeted by Iran, have notably stayed out of formal mediation.

Thafer of the Gulf International Forum said the calculus was unlikely to shift until the attacks on Gulf countries stopped.

“For some Gulf states, stopping hostilities against their respective country would be a prerequisite for taking on any meaningful mediating role,” she said. “If a country such as Pakistan or any other country were able to facilitate that outcome, it would likely be viewed positively across Gulf capitals.”

Kamrava identified Israel as a central obstacle, even though the US and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) were willing to end the war on Iran.

“Israel does not want an end to the war and does not want the US to negotiate with Iran, directly or through intermediaries like Pakistan,” he said. “The GCC and the US want the war to end, and end soon, and therefore welcome it.”

On the limits of mediation, he was blunt. “No one can compel Iran to negotiate. It seems that Iran has the real leverage here through its missile capabilities.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday said he had spoken to Trump about the negotiations, and that the US president believed that there was a chance to leverage gains made by US and Israeli troops in Iran to “realise the war’s objectives through an agreement that will safeguard our vital interests”.

However, he stopped short of endorsing the talks and made clear that Israeli strikes in Iran would continue regardless.

Parsi said regional actors would need to exert pressure on Washington as well as Tehran.

“Trump has in the past shown that he listens when regional players present their position as a bloc,” he said. “Israel will undoubtedly seek to sabotage any such efforts, though.”

Masood, the ex-Pakistani diplomat, however, saw a convergence of interests.

“I think everybody should want this to succeed,” he said. “The Israelis have taken a significant hit in the last few weeks, so there would be a general interest among all parties in finding an off-ramp and an avenue for de-escalation.”

The actor faces allegations of sexual misconduct by at least 60 women, all of which he denies.

A United States jury has found stand-up comedy and television superstar Bill Cosby liable for drugging and sexually assaulting a woman in 1972, awarding her $59.25m.

After a nearly two-week trial in Santa Monica, California, jurors on Monday found the 88-year-old guilty of the sexual battery and assault of Donna Motsinger, who was a server at a restaurant in Sausalito near San Francisco at the time of the aggression.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

In her lawsuit, filed in 2023, Motsinger said Cosby had invited her to his stand-up comedy show at a theatre in nearby San Carlos. Both were in their 30s at the time.

She said Cosby gave her wine and two pills that she believed were aspirin, and that she was going in and out of consciousness as two men put her in a limousine.

“She woke up in her house with all her clothes off,” the lawsuit said. “She knew she had been drugged and raped by Bill Cosby.”

In court filings, Cosby’s lawyers argued that the allegations rested almost entirely on speculation and assumption, saying Motsinger “freely admits that she has no idea what happened”.

Cosby did not testify at the trial, whose witnesses included Andrea Constand, the Temple University sports administrator he was convicted of sexually assaulting in a Pennsylvania criminal court in 2018. The state’s Supreme Court threw out the verdict, and Cosby was freed from prison after serving nearly three years of a three- to 10-year sentence.

The once beloved actor, known as “America’s Dad” for his role on the Cosby Show, was the first celebrity to be convicted after the #MeToo movement was popularised following a number of allegations against well-known individuals in October 2017.

Motsinger’s lawsuit echoed allegations of rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment made by at least 60 women against Cosby, all of which he has denied.

The jury awarded Motsinger $17.5m in past damages and $1.75m for future damages, including “mental suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, inconvenience, grief, anxiety, humiliation, and emotional distress”.

Then, in a second phase of the trial on Monday afternoon, it awarded an additional $40m in punitive damages.

Cosby has settled several similar lawsuits and has been ordered to pay in others, but Monday’s award is likely the most he has had to pay in a case.

His lawyer, Jennifer Bonjean, said they were disappointed in the outcome and would appeal the verdict.

Motsinger said the verdict was not about her but about holding Cosby accountable. “I have carried the weight of what happened to me for more than 50 years. It never goes away,” she said.

“Today, a jury saw the truth and held him accountable. That means everything. I hope this gives strength to other survivors who are still waiting for their moment to be heard.”

The United States-Israeli war on Iran has caused the biggest oil disruption in history, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). The agency was founded in 1974 as a direct response to the 1973 oil embargo, which saw Arab nations, led by Saudi Arabia, cut production in response to Washington’s support for Israel during its war with Egypt and Syria that year.

In 1973, embargoed countries faced a combined shortage of 4.5 million barrels of oil per day, about 7 percent of the global supply at the time.

Today, Iran has strangled transit through the narrow Strait of Hormuz, allowing only a handful of ships to go through and halting the transport of more than 20 million barrels of oil per day – roughly one-fifth of global petroleum consumption.

Since the start of the war, the price of Brent crude, the international benchmark, has soared from $66 per barrel to more than $100.

In a bid to ease the crisis, the IEA’s 32 members have agreed to release 400 million barrels of oil from their strategic reserves.

The IEA also has issued guidance to consumers and businesses, recommending that they travel less, work remotely and use electricity for cooking rather than gas, as geopolitical risks drive up not just the price of crude but also the cost of diesel, heating oil and jet fuel.

But experts agreed these measures will do little to address a global oil shortage if the current situation persists.

More than 50 years after the 1973 oil embargo, Al Jazeera examines how that episode compares with today’s crisis.

What happened in 1973?

On October 6, 1973, Egypt and Syria launched an attack on Israel to reclaim territory Arab nations had lost six years earlier.

The 1967 Six-Day War had resulted in the Israeli occupation of Syria’s Golan Heights; Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula; the Gaza Strip, which Egypt previously controlled; and the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which Jordan had controlled.

To catch Israel off guard, the Egyptians and Syrians had chosen the date of the Yom Kippur religious holiday, the only day of the year in Israel in which there are no radio or television broadcasts, shops close and transportation shuts down as part of religious observations.

King Faisal of Saudi Arabia warned US President Richard Nixon that supporting Israel would jeopardise oil supplies. Despite that, Nixon authorised a large military airlift.

So on October 17, 1973, Arab oil-exporting nations belonging to the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC) retaliated by raising the price of oil by 70 percent, cutting production by 5 percent per month and banning oil shipments to the US. The Netherlands, Portugal and South Africa were also targeted for their roles in providing diplomatic and military support to Israel.

At the time, the Middle East accounted for 36 percent of world oil production, and the embargo left the world short of 4.5 million barrels of oil per day.

How did the oil embargo affect petrol prices in 1973?

In the US, where oil imports dropped by 15 percent, the impact was quickly felt. The price of crude oil surged from less than $3 a barrel to more than $12 within months, equivalent in today’s money to a jump from $22 to somewhere between $75 and $80.

American drivers, who had been paying about 38 cents for a gallon (3.8 litres) of petrol at the start of 1973, were paying 55 cents by 1974, an almost 45 percent increase. Petrol stations also ran dry.

In November 1973, Nixon appeared on national television to ask Americans to make sacrifices. Nixon’s administration lowered speed limits, imposed fuel rationing and introduced year-round daylight saving time as an emergency energy conservation measure.

Western Europe and Japan also suffered acutely from the crisis. Japan at the time was importing about 235 billion litres (62 billion gallons) of oil annually with three-quarters of its energy coming from foreign crude oil, of which 77 percent was from Gulf countries. The United Kingdom introduced a three-day workweek, and European governments banned driving on Sundays.

How have petrol prices been affected now?

Before the US and Israel began their strikes on Iran on February 28, Brent crude oil cost $66 a barrel. Within the first week of the war on Iran, it had risen above $100 a barrel – a 60 percent increase.

As soon as the conflict began, Brent futures rose almost 7 percent. On Monday, prices for Brent futures had dropped more than 10 percent to about $100 a barrel after US President Donald Trump’s announcement of a five-day delay before threatened strikes on Iranian energy facilities to allow talks to take place.

At US filling stations, the national average petrol price climbed from less than $3 a gallon across the country to an average of more than $5 in some states – even hitting $8 in some states such as California.

In other countries, petrol prices have risen by more than 50 percent, including in Cambodia, where prices rose almost 68 percent from February 23 to March 11; Vietnam, where they rose almost 50 percent; Nigeria (35 percent); Laos (33 percent); and Canada (28 percent).

The Middle East is home to five of the world’s top 10 oil producers: Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Iran and Kuwait, who use the narrow channel between Iran and Oman to export their oil. It is the only waterway available to Gulf oil and gas producers needing to send supplies to the open ocean for shipping to buyers.

Gavekal Research, an independent macroeconomic research firm, has estimated that Gulf exporters, including Iran, could reroute at most 3.5 million barrels of oil per day (bpd) that they usually send by ship to terminals outside the strait via oil pipelines. But as long as the bulk of shipping traffic remains suspended at either end of the Strait of Hormuz, the world would still face a supply shortfall of about 15 million bpd.

What happened in the aftermath of 1973?

The oil embargo was lifted in March 1974, but its economic consequences took the better part of a decade to be resolved.

US inflation hit 12.3 percent in 1974, up from 3.4 percent in 1972. This is because movements in the price of oil have a far-reaching knock-on effect. Oil is used to manufacture many items we use on a daily basis, and natural gas is vital for the manufacture of urea, one of the world’s most common fertilisers. Without fertiliser, crop yields are much smaller, and food prices surge.

The recession that followed the 1973 oil shock was among the deepest of the post-World War II era, affecting those countries most dependent on oil, namely in the Western Hemisphere. In the US, unemployment climbed from 4.6 percent in October 1973 to 9 percent by May 1975 while its gross domestic product (GDP) grew by 5.7 percent in 1973 and contracted by 0.5 percent the following year.

Other major economies were hit hard as well, particularly Japan, whose GDP grew at 8 percent in 1973 and shrank by 1.2 percent in 1974. In the same period, the UK’s GDP saw figures of 7.3 percent growth and a 1.7 percent contraction.

The US Federal Reserve raised its benchmark interest rate from 5.75 percent in 1972 to a high of 12 percent in 1974 but still could not contain inflation. Fed Chairman Paul Volcker ultimately led the central bank to raise rates to 20 percent in 1980-1981, triggering a second, even deeper recession to finally break the high inflation rate. In the UK, the benchmark interest rate rose to a record high of 17 percent in November 1979 while other Group of Seven countries also saw double-digit interest rates.

What could happen now?

Many economists are talking about the prospect of stagflation, which is the combination of high inflation, stagnant economic growth and high unemployment, which defined the 1970s in Western countries like the US and the UK.

Major oil shocks have historically summoned such stagflation. Economists pointed to the crises of 1973, 1978 and 2008 as evidence that every significant spike in oil prices has been followed, in some form, by a global recession.

In lower-income countries, where populations spend a far greater share of their income on food and which import large quantities of grain and fertiliser, rising oil prices could rapidly translate into skyrocketing food prices and lower food supplies.

How did governments respond to the oil crisis of 1973?

Besides implementing energy conservation measures, such as reducing heating oil supplies by about 15 percent to homes and offices, heating homes at lower temperatures and reducing the amounts of fuel for aircraft, the Nixon administration also created the Federal Energy Office to coordinate the government’s response to the crisis.

Secretary of State Henry Kissinger brokered talks with Arab leaders and pushed for an Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights. Those negotiations bore fruit in January 1974 with the First Egyptian-Israeli Disengagement Agreement, and the embargo was formally lifted in March 1974 although the higher oil prices it had unleashed were there to stay.

The crisis left a lasting mark on energy policies worldwide. Nixon launched Project Independence, aiming for full US energy self-sufficiency by 1980, while governments across Europe doubled down on developing nuclear power. Investment poured into wind, solar and geothermal research, and fuel efficiency standards for cars were tightened.

The US is now energy self-sufficient and has been a net total energy exporter since 2019, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

Over the longer term, Japan underwent fundamental restructuring to reduce its dependence on imported oil and diversify into alternative energy sources, including liquefied natural gas. It also underwent a shift away from oil-intensive industries into sectors like electronics.

How are governments responding to the oil crisis now?

Within days of the conflict starting, the IEA’s 32 member nations coordinated the largest emergency drawdown of their strategic oil reserves in the agency’s history, and the 400 million barrels were more than double the volume released after the 2022 outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine war. The US alone is contributing 172 million barrels over the course of this year.

The IEA’s emergency architecture has been activated only six times since the agency’s founding in 1974: 1991, 2005, 2011, twice in 2022 and 2026. Member nations collectively hold more than 1.2 billion barrels in their strategic reserves with a further 600 million barrels held by the oil industry under government obligation.

The 400 million barrel release will compensate for about 20 days of oil flow through the Strait of Hormuz but will take months to implement fully. Even deployed at maximum scale, however, the emergency architecture built in direct response to the 1973 embargo cannot cover a sustained closure of the strait.

On Friday, in a bid to control oil prices, the Trump administration lent more than 45 million barrels of crude from its strategic petroleum reserve to oil companies.

Other countries have their own reserves as well.

China, for example, has strategic petroleum reserves that are estimated to be able to sustain about 200 days of normal consumption, according to Deutsche Bank Research. However, for many developing nations, the cushion is far thinner.

Why is this crisis different?

Analysts argued that the historical parallel between today’s crisis and that in 1973-1974, while instructive, obscures important structural differences.

In 1973, the shock was delivered by a unified, multinational bloc targeting specific Western countries. The current disruption stems from a single actor controlling a single transit point with no coordinated production cut among Gulf producers and some countries more vulnerable than others.

One of the most enduring legacies of 1973 was the resulting diversification of global investment in alternatives to Middle Eastern oil, such as North Sea oil, US shale, liquefied natural gas and nuclear energy. Oil’s share of global primary energy has fallen from 46.2 percent in 1973 to 30.2 percent today.

However, that diversification has been overwhelmingly concentrated in members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development with Europe, North America, Japan, South Korea and Australia all substantially reducing their oil dependency.

In 1973, the shock was concentrated on Western economies, which were the primary targets. In 2026, the most vulnerable economies are the developing Asian markets that have grown fastest over the past 30 years and about 80 percent of whose oil imports pass through the Strait of Hormuz. Vietnam holds fewer than 20 days of oil reserves. Pakistan and Indonesia hold about 20 days each.

The oft-injured 15-time major winner is hoping to use the tournament as a test run before the Masters next month.

Tiger Woods will return to competitive ‌golf, minus most of the walking, when he tees it up for Jupiter Links ⁠Golf Club on ⁠the last night of the Tomorrow’s Golf League (TGL) finals on Tuesday in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

Sahith Theegala birdied the final hole, giving Los Angeles Golf Club two points ⁠and a 6-5 comeback win over Jupiter Links Golf Club in the first match of the title series on Monday.

Recommended Stories

list of 2 itemsend of list

The best-of-three set concludes on Tuesday night with the second match and, ⁠if necessary, the decisive match.

Woods has been serving as an adviser and unofficial cheerleader for his TGL team while working his way back from lumbar disc replacement surgery in October and a left Achilles tendon rupture that occurred last spring.

The back operation was the seventh Woods, 50, has ‌undergone.

The last time Woods participated in a full-fledged golf event was when he missed the cut at the 2024 Open Championship at Royal Troon in Scotland.

Asked last week about playing at the Masters next month, Woods said, “I said I’ve been working on it. Sometimes I have good days, sometimes I have bad days. Disc replacement is not a lot of fun.

“… So as I said, I’ve had a lot of ⁠procedures prior to that, so the body doesn’t quite heal like ⁠it was when I was 24. Doesn’t quite bounce back. So I have good days when I can pretty much do anything, and other days where it’s hard, to just, to move around.”

On Monday, Jupiter’s team of ⁠Max Homa, Tom Kim and Kevin Kisner led 3-2 after nine holes of triples play against the Los Angeles team of Justin Rose, ⁠Tommy Fleetwood and Theegala.

In singles, Rose beat Homa, and then ⁠Fleetwood topped Kim to put LA up 4-3. Theegala topped Kisner, and then Rose defeated Homa as Jupiter went back in front 5-4.

After Fleetwood and Kim halved their hole, it came down to Theegala vs Kisner. With the hammer ‌thrown, doubling the value of the hole, Theegala reached the green in two on the par-5 15th hole, and he got the birdie. Kisner’s chip-in attempt from off the green would ‌have ‌halved the hole and given Jupiter the victory if it had gone in, but it came up short.

In the inaugural TGL finals last year, the Atlanta Drive GC swept New York Golf Club 2-0.