Tag: News – Al Jazeera

Surging energy prices caused by the US-Israel war on Iran could ripple across the United States economy, heaping further strain on consumers at a time when cost-of-living issues are already a primary concern.

The price of crude oil increased from about $67 per barrel before the war began on February 28 to nearly $97 on Monday, as the conflict snarls production and transport in one of the most energy-rich regions on earth. Oil temporarily passed $100 per barrel on Sunday before slightly easing back.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

The price tracker GasBuddy reported on Monday that the average price of gas in the US has risen by 51 cents per gallon over the last week.

“Yes, yes, definitely,” said 52-year-old Alma Newell when asked if she was worried about price increases at a gas station in the coastal city of Goleta, California.

Newell said she is out of work with a shoulder injury and worried that rising costs could stretch her already limited budget.

“The prices have a big impact because I’m not working right now,” she said. “Food and rent are already very expensive.”

“It’s crazy,” she added. “Because the war is so unnecessary.”

Cost of living issues

Rising prices could deepen frustration with the administration of US President Donald Trump and put greater political pressure on the White House, already struggling to address cost-of-living issues with the crucial midterm elections set to take place later this year.

“I think the current price increase in oil suggests the US will see $3.50 to $4 gasoline by next week, and $5 diesel this week,” said Gregory Brew, a senior analyst on Iran and oil at the Eurasia Group.

The highest recorded average for gas prices at the pump was in June 2022, when prices soared to $5.034, months after the Russian war on Ukraine started, according to Gas Buddy, which tracks fuel prices going back to 2008.

“The impact [now] is more political than economic, as high gasoline prices generate negative press and can add to the perception that the government is not properly handling the economy. That means Trump will feel more political pressure to end this war quickly.”

A Pew Research Center poll in early February suggested widespread anxiety about the rising cost-of-living before the US and Israel launched attacks on Iran, with 68 percent of respondents saying they were very or somewhat concerned about gas prices.

“I’m not too worried myself because I have a hybrid car and ride my bike,” said 72-year-old Bjorn Birmir at the gas station in Goleta, California. “But for people in general, it will make life more expensive. Prices are already high, and it will make them even higher.”

Ongoing disruptions

The disruptions caused by the war include the shuttering of the Strait of Hormuz, a key node in global transit and shipping. Iran has long said that it could close down the strait in the event of a showdown with the US and Israel.

About 20 percent of global oil and a significant portion of natural gas pass through the strait, predominantly to Asia, supplies that are now stranded as traffic through the narrow waterway has ground to a halt. Iranian attacks on energy infrastructure in countries across the region have also led some countries to scale back production.

Other economic sectors are also feeling the squeeze.

Goods such as fertiliser, vital for agricultural production, are seeing price increases just ahead of the spring planting season in the Northern Hemisphere. About one-third of the global fertiliser trade passes through the Strait of Hormuz.

Effects of the war could ripple throughout the global economy, with poor countries especially hard-hit. Pakistan announced a series of austerity measures and cuts to fuel subsidies on Monday, while Bangladesh shuttered universities and announced restrictions on fuel use as a result of the war.

US officials and countries around the world have already discussed measures to help ease the shock of rising energy prices, including the potential release of strategic oil reserves in a bid to temporarily boost global supply.

The G7 said on Monday that it would take “necessary measures” to support energy supplies, but held off on announcing the release of strategic reserves, with energy ministers set to meet on Tuesday to discuss the matter further.

The US has a strategic oil reserve of more than 415 million barrels, one of the largest in the world, that it could release in coordination with allied countries.

But it is unclear when these measures would kick in and how long such steps could help fill the gaps created by the war.

Rachel Ziemba, adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, says that much depends on whether the war is brought to a speedy conclusion or continues on for weeks or even months, with the possibility of further escalation.

Thus far, neither the US and Israel nor Iran has suggested it are willing to stop the war anytime soon, although Trump told CBS News on Monday that “the war is very complete, pretty much”, comments that helped ease some of the price swings in oil and stocks.

“If the war continues, we would see oil prices not only remain elevated, but perhaps rally further as markets price in a more protracted outage,” said Ziemba. “There’s also the question of, when it does end, how much damage will be done to infrastructure and just how quickly supplies could come back online.”

Initial polling has suggested that the war is unpopular in the US, with a Quinnipiac University poll released on Monday finding that 53 percent of voters who responded oppose Trump’s military action in Iran, including 60 percent of political independents.

That lack of popular support could present a political headache for Trump and his Republican Party if voters connect the war to increasing prices. Thus far, Trump has largely dismissed concerns about the war’s possible impact on the rising cost of living.

“Short term oil prices, which will drop rapidly when the destruction of the Iran nuclear threat is over, is a very small price to pay for USA, and World, Safety and Peace,” Trump said in a Truth Social post on Sunday. “ONLY FOOLS WOULD THINK DIFFERENTLY!”

Trump administration accuses the group of receiving support from the Iran and carrying out violence against civilians.

The United States has designated the Sudanese Muslim Brotherhood as a “terrorist” group, as the administration of President Donald Trump widens its crackdown on the organisation.

The State Department accused the Sudanese Muslim Brotherhood on Monday of receiving support from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

Washington labelled the group as a “specially designated global terrorist” (SDGT) and said that it will designate it as a “foreign terrorist organisation” (FTO) starting next week.

“The Sudanese Muslim Brotherhood uses unrestrained violence against civilians to undermine efforts to resolve the conflict in Sudan and advance its violent Islamist ideology,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement.

The SDGT designation enables economic sanctions against the group, while the FTO label makes it illegal to provide material support to it.

The State Department accused Muslim Brotherhood fighters in Sudan – where the Sudanese military is fighting against the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) paramilitary group – of conducting “mass executions of civilians”.

The RSF, which has been accused of major human rights violations, and its supporters often argue that they are fighting Muslim Brotherhood forces.

On Monday, the United Arab Emirates welcomed Washington’s move to blacklist the group in Sudan.

The UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the “US measure reflects the sustained and systematic efforts undertaken by the administration of President Trump to halt excessive violence against civilians and the destabilizing activities carried out by the Muslim Brotherhood in Sudan”.

In January, the Trump administration blacklisted Muslim Brotherhood affiliates in Lebanon, Jordan and Sudan, a move the groups rejected.

Established in 1928 by Egyptian Muslim scholar Hassan al-Banna, the Muslim Brotherhood has offshoots and branches across the Middle East, including political parties and social organisations.

The group and its affiliates say they are committed to peaceful political participation.

In the US and other countries in the West, right-wing activists have for years tried to demonise Muslim immigrant communities and Israel’s critics with accusations of links to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Some of Trump’s hawkish allies in Congress have also for years been calling for the group to be blacklisted.

The US military claims six men killed in a strike on a suspected drug-smuggling boat in the eastern Pacific Ocean.

The United States military says it has killed six men in a strike on an alleged drug-smuggling vessel in the Eastern Pacific Ocean as part of a campaign against traffickers.

The attack on Sunday brought the death toll to at least 157 people since early September when President Donald Trump’s administration began targeting those it calls “narcoterrorists” in small vessels.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

“Intelligence confirmed the vessel was transiting along known narco-trafficking routes in the Eastern Pacific and was engaged in narco-trafficking operations,” General Francis Donovan, commander of US Southern Command, posted on X with a video showing a small boat being blown up as it floated on the water.

As with most of the military’s statements on the more than 40 known strikes in the Eastern Pacific and Caribbean Sea, US Southern Command said it targeted alleged drug traffickers along known smuggling routes. The military did not provide evidence that the vessel was ferrying drugs.

Trump has said the US is in “armed conflict” with cartels in Latin America and has justified the attacks as a necessary escalation to stem the flow of drugs into the US. But his administration has offered little evidence to support its claims of killing “narcoterrorists”.

In a meeting with Latin American leaders on Saturday, Trump encouraged them to join the US in taking military action against drug-trafficking cartels and transnational gangs, which he said pose an “unacceptable threat” to the region’s security.

To that end, Ecuador and the US conducted military operations this past week against organised crime groups in the South American country.

With Saturday’s gathering, Trump aimed to demonstrate that he remains committed to focusing US foreign policy on the Western Hemisphere, even while waging a war on Iran that has had repercussions across the Middle East.

Critics have questioned the overall legality of the boat strikes as well as their effectiveness, in part because the fentanyl behind many fatal overdoses is typically trafficked to the US over land from Mexico, where it is produced with chemicals imported from China and India.

The boat strikes also drew intense criticism after the revelation that the military killed survivors of the very first boat attack with a follow-up strike. The Trump administration and many Republican lawmakers said it was legal and necessary while Democratic lawmakers and legal experts said the killings were murder, if not a war crime.

On Thursday, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the campaign to hunt down boats allegedly bringing drugs from South America had been so successful that it was now hard to find targets.

Top Democratic senators in the United States have called for an investigation into the strike against a girls’ school in southern Iran, saying that the Pentagon must “provide clear answers” about the incident that killed at least 170 people.

Six lawmakers said in a joint statement late on Sunday that they are “horrified” by the bombing of the elementary school in Minab during the opening US-Israeli strikes against Iran on February 28.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

“The killing of school children is appalling and unacceptable under any circumstance,” said the senators who serve as the top Democrats on national security panels.

The push comes as new footage of the attack suggested that the site of the school was likely hit by a Tomahawk missile – a weapon used by the US that Israel and Iran do not possess.

The bombing of the elementary school in Minab has become emblematic of the growing civilian death toll from the conflict.

Iranian officials have said that US and Israeli strikes have damaged other schools as well as dozens of medical centres, residential buildings, street markets, a water desalination plant and other civilian targets.

US and Israeli attacks have killed 1,255 people – mostly civilians – in Iran since the start of the war, according to Deputy Health Minister Ali Jafarian.

“They were living in their homes or [were] at their workplace,” the health minister told Al Jazeera in a TV interview.

Hegseth on rules of engagement

In their statement, the US senators noted that Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth has openly boasted about loosening the rules of engagement in the attacks against Iran to allow US forces to bomb the country with little restraint.

“Secretary Hegseth needs to ensure the Department of Defense’s ongoing investigation into this strike is thorough, including whether any policy decisions may have contributed to the catastrophe, and provide clear answers to the American public and Congress about how and why this tragedy unfolded,” they said.

The legislators – who include Brian Schatz, Jeanne Shaheen, Jack Reed and Elizabeth Warren – said the “incident and any like it must be fully and impartially reviewed”.

Last week, Hegseth told reporters that US jets are unleashing the “most lethal” strikes on Iran with “maximum authorities”.

“No stupid rules of engagement, no nation-building quagmire, no democracy building exercise, no politically correct wars – we fight to win, and we don’t waste time or lives,” he said on March 2.

Days later, Hegseth emphasised that the rules of engagement are meant “to unleash American power, not shackle it”.

Despite mounting evidence and multiple visual investigations by news outlets suggesting that the strike on Minab was carried out with US weapons, US President Donald Trump has accused Iran of bombing the school.

“In my opinion and based on what I’ve seen, that was done by Iran,” Trump said last week.

For his part, Hegseth has stopped short of echoing the US president’s claim, stressing on multiple occasions over the past days that the Pentagon is investigating the incident.

‘US needs to stop focusing on denial’

Annie Shiel, US director at Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC), said there have been numerous incidents in recent years where the US “reflexively” denies civilian harm “only for investigations by the media, civil society, and the US military itself to prove otherwise”.

In 2021, the Pentagon initially denied killing civilians in a strike during the withdrawal in Afghanistan, calling the attack a “righteous” one that targeted ISIL (ISIS).

But weeks later, it acknowledged that the attack was a “tragic mistake” that killed 10 people, including seven children, after independent investigations confirmed the identities of the victims.

Shiel said the Trump administration is treating the “devastating” strike in Minab like a public relations issue.

“The US needs to stop focusing on denial and get to the truth about what happened and why through a thorough, transparent, independent investigation,” Shiel told Al Jazeera.

On Friday, United Nations experts condemned the Minab attack as a “grave assault on children”.

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

“There is no excuse for killing girls in a classroom.”

On February 28, the United States and Israel launched a war on Iran. The US-Israeli attacks came without prior warning or approval by the United Nations and targeted and killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Just two months earlier, the US launched another attack, on Venezuela, in which its special forces kidnapped Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro from his residence in Caracas and transferred him to New York, where he faces criminal charges in federal court.

In between these two violent attacks, US President Donald Trump withdrew from 66 international organisations, including 31 UN entities, and launched the Board of Peace, a new institution he chairs personally that he suggested might replace the UN.

These and other developments in recent years demonstrate that the world order the US helped establish in 1945 no longer serves its interests.

For eight decades, US treasure, diplomacy and military power sustained this architecture. Whatever one’s criticisms of how that power was exercised, the scale of the commitment was remarkable, and the US did not have to do this. It chose to.

The world of 2026 bears little resemblance to 1945. Europe has rebuilt. China has risen. Canada, Japan, South Korea and many Gulf States are rich. and Brazil, Indonesia, Nigeria, India, Vietnam and other countries are on the rise.

Today’s threats – climate change, pandemics, terrorism and others – were barely imaginable when the UN Charter was drafted. It is not unreasonable for Americans to ask why they should continue bearing a disproportionate burden for a system designed for a world that no longer exists.

The question is what the rest of the world intends to do. For too long, multilateralism has been something the US provided and others consumed. European nations sheltered under American security guarantees while criticising US foreign policy. Developing nations demanded institutional reforms while relying on American funding. Small states like those of the Caribbean invoked international law as our shield while contributing little to enforce it.

If we truly value this system, we must now demonstrate that value with resources, not merely rhetoric.

A powerful first step would be relocating the UN headquarters from New York as an acknowledgment of reality. Why should the world body remain in a nation that is withdrawing from so many of its parts and building alternatives?

Relocation would signal that the international community intends to preserve multilateralism regardless of American participation and that we are prepared to bear the costs of doing so. And there are many options for where the UN can be based. Geneva and Vienna can offer neutrality. Nairobi and Rio de Janeiro would centre the organisation in the Global South.

An island nation is also an option: Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Jamaica or Mauritius. Such a choice would underscore that this is now an institution for the vulnerable, not the powerful.

If the world can mobilise trillions for wars and bailouts, it can fund a headquarters move.

More fundamentally, the UN requires a new funding model. The US has provided roughly 22 percent of the regular budget and far more for peacekeeping. This dependency gave Washington outsized influence and made the organisation hostage to US domestic politics.

If we value multilateralism, we must fill the gap. The European Union, China, Japan, the Gulf states and emerging economies must contribute commensurate with their stake in a functioning international order. A diversified funding base would ensure survival and democratise global governance in ways long overdue.

The urgency of these reforms is underscored by the crises now unfolding. The attacks on Iran risk a wider regional conflagration that could draw in the Gulf states, disrupt global energy supplies and tip fragile economies into recession. The abduction of Venezuela’s president has destabilised Latin America and set a precedent that no sovereign leader is beyond the reach of unilateral force.

Meanwhile, the wars in Gaza and Sudan grind on, the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo remains engulfed in conflict and millions of displaced people strain the capacity of neighbouring states. In each case, the UN Security Council has proven unable or unwilling to act, paralysed by the very veto structure that privileges the powerful over the vulnerable.

A relocated and revitalised United Nations, funded broadly and no longer beholden to a single patron, would not resolve these crises overnight. But it could act with greater legitimacy and less selective morality.

It could authorise humanitarian corridors without fear that one member’s geopolitical interests will block action. It could convene emergency sessions on energy price stabilisation, coordinate debt relief for nations pushed to the brink by conflict-driven commodity shocks and deploy peacekeeping missions that are not contingent on one country’s budgetary politics. The point is not that a reformed UN would be perfect. It is that the current one is structurally incapable of responding to the very emergencies that demand collective action.

Every month of inaction widens the gap between what the institution promises and what it delivers, eroding the faith of the most vulnerable nations that multilateralism is worth defending at all.

Climate architecture also requires particular urgency of action. The American withdrawal from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change threatens the Green Climate Fund, the Adaptation Fund, and Loss and Damage mechanisms. For Small Island Developing States and other climate-vulnerable countries, these are lifelines, not abstractions.

The window for building climate finance independent of US participation is narrow, but it exists. Europe must demonstrate its climate leadership with resources. China, the world’s largest emitter, has the capacity to become a major contributor if it wishes to claim moral leadership.

For the Caribbean, this transformation demands both humility and ambition. Humility because we have long relied on frameworks we did little to fund. Ambition because we have 14 UN General Assembly votes, moral authority from the front lines of climate change and a tradition of punching above our weight.

The Caribbean Community (CARICOM) should propose a resolution on headquarters relocation and funding reform, convene like-minded states and strengthen the Caribbean Court of Justice as a regional anchor when global mechanisms falter. The blocs representing Small Island Developing States, Africa and other parts of the developing world have the numbers to reshape governance if they act in concert.

The US remains the world’s largest economy, its most powerful military force, and home to many of the institutions, universities, corporations and civil society organisations that drive global progress. Americans who believe in multilateralism remain numerous and influential. The door to renewed American engagement should always remain open.

But the rest of the world cannot wait indefinitely for US domestic politics to resolve itself. We must build institutions resilient enough to function with or without American participation.

In 1945, a war-weary and generous America chose to build rather than retreat, and that choice shaped the world we inherited. In 2026, a different America has made a different choice. We should accept it without rancour and recognise it for what it is, an invitation to finally take ownership of the international order we claim to value.

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

Walid Khalidi, the venerated Palestinian historian whose research helped document the Nakba and shaped generations of scholarship on Palestine, has died aged 100.

Khalidi, dubbed “the historian of the Palestinian cause”, passed away on Sunday in Massachusetts in the United States, according to an obituary issued by the Institute for Palestine Studies (IPS) – the research centre that he co-founded in 1963.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

Following the news, tributes from scholars, diplomats and Palestinian officials flooded social media, with Husam Zomlot, the Palestinian ambassador to the United Kingdom, calling Khalidi “a national treasure, a guardian of memory, and a mentor to generations” in a post on X.

Born in Jerusalem in 1925 into a prominent intellectual family, Khalidi received his early education in Ramallah before attending St George’s School in Jerusalem.

He later graduated from the University of Oxford in 1951 and went on to enjoy an illustrious academic career, teaching political studies at the American University of Beirut until 1982, before becoming a research fellow at Harvard University’s Center for International Affairs.

Chronicling the Nakba

Khalidi was perhaps best known for his meticulous documentation of the destruction of Palestinian villages during the Nakba (“catastrophe”), the ethnic cleansing of Palestine by Zionist militias in 1948.

His landmark book All That Remains, published in 1992, catalogued how more than 400 Palestinian villages were destroyed or depopulated during the first Arab-Israeli war and combined historical research, maps and testimonies to reconstruct the lives of communities that had disappeared.

The IPS described Khalidi as a “pioneer in uncovering many long-concealed features that explained how the Zionist movement succeeded in occupying Palestine in 1948”, adding that in the 1960s, he was the first to reveal “its master plan for the occupation of Palestine and the expulsion of its people, known as ‘Plan Dalet’”.

Another major work by Khalidi, Before Their Diaspora, used archival photographs to document Palestinian society before 1948, offering a rare visual record of daily life in cities and villages across the country.

Academic and diplomatic roles

After a period teaching at Oxford, Khalidi spent decades at the American University of Beirut, and co-founded the Institute for Palestine Studies, which grew into one of the leading research organisations dedicated to Palestinian history, politics, and society.

Khalidi later served as a research fellow at Harvard’s Center for International Affairs, lectured at institutions including Princeton University in the US, and was elected a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Beyond academia, he also played a role in Palestinian diplomacy.

After the 1967 war, which later became known as the Naksa, in which Israel seized the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza, the Syrian Golan Heights and Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, Khalidi moved towards diplomacy.

He served as an adviser to the Iraqi delegation to the United Nations, later joined an Arab Summit delegation to the British government in 1983, and, in the mid-1980s, served as a special adviser to the Arab League secretary-general.

He was also part of the joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation to the 1991 Madrid peace conference.

Khalidi was a proponent of a two-state solution, writing in Foreign Affairs in 1988 that a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders in “peaceful coexistence alongside Israel” was “the only conceptual candidate for a historical compromise of this century-old conflict”.

Khalidi is ‘synonymous with his beloved homeland’

Tributes from Palestinian officials and scholars highlighted Khalidi’s role in shaping the historical understanding of Palestine.

Khalil Jahshan, the executive director of the Arab Center Washington DC, said in a post on X  that Khalidi’s name was “synonymous with his beloved homeland, Palestine” as he offered  “heartfelt condolences to his family, to the people of Palestine, and to all who knew him”.

The Institute for Palestine Studies described Khalidi as one of the most prominent historians of Palestine and said his work helped build the foundation for modern scholarship on Palestine.

Jehad Abusalim, policy analyst and author of Light in Gaza, wrote on X that Khalidi had “dedicated his life to preserving Palestinian history”, adding that “his scholarship and research are a foundation that generations will continue to build on”.

For many historians, Khalidi’s legacy lies not only in his own scholarship, but also in the institutions he helped build and the generations of students and researchers he mentored.

At a time when much of Palestine’s historical record risked being scattered or lost, Khalidi devoted his career to documenting it.

His work ensured that the history of Palestinian society before and after 1948 would remain part of the global historical record.

The United States has once again been dragged into a catastrophic war in the Middle East. The US military is now attacking Iran not because our nation faces an imminent threat but because the Israeli government has long sought confrontation with Tehran and has finally found a willing partner in Washington.

This war is unnecessary, unjustified, unconstitutional, in violation of international law and entirely against the will of the American public.

Under the constitution, the power to declare war rests with Congress, not the president. Therefore, President Donald Trump’s decision to launch air strikes and pursue regime change in another country without congressional authorisation is illegal. It echoes the darkest chapters of post-9/11 American foreign policy when fear and deception were used to rush our nation into disastrous wars, the price of which we are still paying today.

On the global scale, attacking a sovereign nation – or as wanted war criminal Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu calls it, launching a “preemptive strike” – without an imminent threat violates the United Nations Charter and fundamental principles of international law. The bombing campaign – which is taking place during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, a time of increased spirituality and reflection – has already stained our national conscience.

On the first day of the war, a US air strike killed about 165 schoolgirls in the city of Minab. American weapons have once again made us complicit in the killing of children abroad.

And for what?

We are told this is about “security”. We are told this is about stopping Iran’s nuclear ambitions. But we’ve heard this before. For more than 30 years, Netanyahu has insisted that Iran is “weeks away” from a nuclear bomb. Those weeks have stretched into decades. Fear has been recycled as policy.

Let’s also be honest about something else: Iran, with all its objectionable and often detrimental regional ambitions, is not an imminent military threat to the United States. The American public understands this. Poll after poll shows Americans are weary of endless wars in the Middle East. Our communities want investments in healthcare, education, infrastructure and job creation – not another trillion-dollar conflict that sends our soldiers into harm’s way and destabilises yet another region.

So why is an American president who campaigned on “America First” governing as if he embraces “Israel First”? Why are American troops, American tax dollars and American credibility being placed on the line to fulfil the longstanding ambitions of a foreign government?

This is not a healthy alliance. It is a toxic dynamic in which the United States provides money, weapons, diplomatic cover and unconditional political support while being dragged into wars that make us less safe.

We are told this war is about human rights. About women’s rights. But bombs do not liberate people. Air strikes do not advance democracy. Slaughtering schoolgirls is not “feminist” foreign policy.

If human rights were truly the concern, our government would not selectively apply them based on geopolitical convenience. Our own ally, Israel, is engaged in a genocide that has killed and wounded more than 200,000 Palestinians, most of them civilians. Not funding that mass murder of children would have been a good start for our humanitarian concerns.

And Americans are right to ask these questions. At a time when transparency and accountability are demanded at home, especially as it pertains to the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files, why are we instead being thrust into another foreign war? The American people deserve honesty, not distraction.

This war will not bring stability. It will inflame the region, harm civilians, endanger US soldiers and potentially trigger a wider conflict with global consequences. It risks American lives and American security for objectives that do not serve the American public.

Congress had a chance to uphold its constitutional responsibility and stop unauthorised military escalation but failed to pass the war powers resolution sponsored by Representatives Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna. This vote reflects the strong influence of the Israeli lobbying group AIPAC and its money along with a troubling unwillingness by some lawmakers to stand up to powerful lobbying interests and unchecked executive power.

Congress, especially those members who claim to oppose endless wars, must continue pursuing every available avenue to reassert its authority and prevent further escalation; the stakes are far too high for elected officials to remain silent.

The American people do not want this war. It is time for our government to serve them, not the agenda of a foreign leader desperate to cling to power and evade accountability.

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

United States President Donald Trump has again promised to exert influence over who is selected as Iran’s next Supreme Leader, saying that, without Washington’s approval, whoever is picked for the role is “not going to last long”.

The statement on Sunday came just hours after a member of Iran’s Assembly of Experts said the clerical body had selected the replacement for Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was killed in the hours after the US and Israel launched the war with Iran on February 28.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

“He’s going to have to get approval from us,” Trump told ABC News, referring to a new supreme leader. “If he doesn’t get approval from us, he’s not going to last long.”

Trump added that he didn’t want future administrations to have “to go back” in the years ahead, an apparent reference to future military action.

“I don’t want people to have to go back in five years and have to do the same thing again, or worse, let them have a nuclear weapon,” he said.

Officials in Iran, which has launched retaliatory attacks across the Middle East, have repeatedly rejected the notion of Washington asserting influence over the selection.

Earlier on Sunday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Aragchi again vowed “we will allow nobody to interfere in our domestic affairs”.

“This is up to the Iranian people to elect their new leader,” he said, adding that Iranians had elected the Assembly of Experts, which will select the next supreme leader.

Oman says nuclear talks were ‘making progress’

Trump’s comments came as the war entered its ninth day, with the death toll in Iran rising to 1,332, with at least 11 killed across the Gulf, 11 killed in Israel, and six US soldiers killed to date.

The US president has offered shifting justifications for the war, repeatedly pointing to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, its ballistic missile programme, as well as the totality of Iran’s actions in the region since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Critics, including the majority of Democratic US lawmakers, have said Trump has provided scant evidence to prove Iran posed an immediate threat.

On Sunday, Oman Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi, who had been overseeing indirect US-Iran talks on Iran’s nuclear programme, again rejected US officials’ claims that Tehran had not entered into the negotiations in good faith.

Speaking during a ministerial meeting of the Arab League, Albusaidi said diplomatic initiatives seeking a “fair and honourable solution were making progress” when the US-Israeli attacks began.

He further warned that the region is facing “a dangerous turning point” as fighting escalates.

‘Short-term disruption’

Attacks from both sides appeared to have widened, with the US and Israel for the first time striking oil storage and refining facilities in Tehran, and Iran launching more strikes across the Gulf, including a drone attack that caused material damage to a desalination plant in Bahrain.

Both Bloomberg and Axios news have reported that the US and Israel have considered a special ground operation to seize Iran’s enriched uranium, with Israeli Ambassador to the US Yechiel Leiter telling CBS’s Face the Nation news programme that securing the nuclear fuel is “on our radar screen and we’re going to take care of it”.

For their part, top Trump administration officials spent Sunday seeking to alleviate concerns over the war’s knock-on effects on global oil and gas prices.

Rapidly rising prices represent a particular political vulnerability for Trump as his Republican Party faces legislative midterm elections in November.

Speaking to Fox News, White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said the administration was responding to what she called a “short-term disruption”.

She said the administration was “tapping into our newfound market in Venezuela”, referring to access US companies had gained to the South American country’s oil industry in the wake of the January 3 US abduction of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro.

Energy experts have said that rebuilding Venezuela’s oil industry would likely be a multi-year process, and have questioned what immediate impact it could have in offsetting current shortages.

Speaking on CBS’s Face the Nation, Energy Secretary Chris Wright also maintained that the war would not drag on and that any economic fallout would be fleeting.

Trump, who came into office vowing to end so-called “endless wars”, has said the operations against Iran could last “four to five weeks”, but he also said the conflict has “no time limit”.

Wright pointed to “a temporary period of elevated energy prices”, but denied there was an energy shortage “at all in the Western Hemisphere”.

He also underscored that the US has 400 million gallons of oil in the strategic oil reserves and the administration is “more than happy to use that if it’s needed”.

“What you want is emotional reactions and fear that this is a long-term war,” Wright said. “This is not a long-term war; it’s a temporary movement.”

Conceived in the long shadow of global devastation, the post–World War II order was constructed -imperfect yet purposeful – to shield humanity from a similar catastrophe.

In 1943, as the tides of battle in World War II began to turn in favour of the Allied powers, United States President Franklin D Roosevelt warned: “Unless the peace that follows recognises that the whole world is one neighbourhood, and does justice to the whole human race, the germs of another world war will remain as a constant threat to mankind.”

Today, that coveted peace is increasingly fragile.

The post-war architecture conceived to avert great-power conflict, institutionalise interstate cooperation, reduce hot wars, and entrench human rights within binding international law is now under acute pressures. It faces a combustible mix of resurgent ultranationalism, hyperintensified zero-sum strategic rivalries and hegemonic power plays, the fragmentation of longstanding alliances, and the brazen repudiation of established norms.

Multilateral institutions that once underwrote stability are increasingly marginalised or instrumentalised in the service of Machiavellian politics. Foundational treaties are hollowed out or breached outright, compliance regimes weakened, and enforcement mechanisms rendered inert—leaving the post-war international system exposed to the very coercive power politics it was designed to contain.

The result is a palpable drift towards an unchecked “force-based order”, under which might displaces right, and power eclipses principle.

International orders do not suddenly unravel because of political declarations broadcast at podiums, nor because of the conduct of aberrant outliers. They collapse when those collectively entrusted with their stewardship neglect to properly defend them – when resolve gives way to timidity, principle is bartered for political expedience, and moral clarity is supplanted by double standards.

Unless the international community acts with resolve to defend and modernise the international order – fortifying rather than constraining it, including by making it more representative and meaningfully inclusive – the global system will drift toward a far more volatile and perilous disequilibrium.

The United Nations charter – one of the central instruments of the post-war legal infrastructure – is under threat. The charter enshrines the bedrock rule of the modern international order that no state may threaten or use force except in self-defence or with UN Security Council authorisation.

That peremptory norm – the foundation of the collective security architecture – is now visibly fraying. As raw power eclipses legal restraint, and the silence or equivocation of the many emboldens the few, the prohibition on the illegal use of force risks sliding from binding law into empty rhetoric.

Almost overnight, the threat of force – and even unilateral military action undertaken without legal authorisation or meaningful deliberation – has begun to crystallise into a disturbing new normal. This accelerating erosion of established norms is not a passing anomaly; it is a structural shift with profound implications for international peace and security.

Institutions of international law, which have played a decisive role in preventing conflict and advancing accountability are also threatened.

The International Court of Justice – the UN’s highest judicial body – has successfully adjudicated numerous interstate disputes, demonstrating the power of legal mechanisms over hard power and military confrontation.

Efforts to hold perpetrators of atrocities to account – from Nuremberg to the creation of UN ad hoc tribunals – paved the way for the International Criminal Court (ICC). Its creation in 2002 sent a powerful message that mass atrocities as merely politics by other means must no longer receive a pass, that perpetrators must be held accountable, and that impunity can no longer be tolerated. The historic cultivation of these norms may be considered a crowning achievement as this normative transformation has not only awakened humanity’s consciousness regarding atrocities, but has also reshaped expectations of accountability for such grave crimes, and recast the very narrative and language with which we confront these vital questions.

And yet, those very powers that once shaped, and at least on the surface, nurtured these norms and institutions of international justice, now blatantly erode their integrity—whether by defiance, selective invocation, or politicisation. Thus, the edifice of collective restraint trembles, vulnerable to the machinations of those who prize unbridled power above principle.

To be sure, such regression diminishes the security and prosperity of all participants in the international system, irrespective of their size or influence.

Yet another grave assault on the very foundation of human rights advocacy lies in the entrenched “culture” of convenient indignation and performative empathy by states and self-serving and ideologically inclined actors alike.

Such expedient outrage and hollow sympathy erode the credibility of the pursuit of justice, undermining the universality of dignity for which we strive.

International law cannot be invoked à la carte, nor enforced with expedient selectivity.

Perhaps the greatest threat to international justice is not just outright opposition from ill-wishers but indifference and arbitrary application. The contrasting global reactions to different theatres of conflict in the past decade alone lay bare the hypocrisy that undermines faith in the universality and effectiveness of international law.

When our compassion is contingent upon political expedience, convenience or dictated by the fleeting spotlight of media attention or social media clickbait, we betray the fundamental, universal principle at the heart of human dignity.

Just as questionable are those who conveniently brandish the language of human rights not as “the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family”, but as a tactical instrument of lawfare deployed against political adversaries. Such deceptive tactics not only trivialise the suffering of victims but can also fuel and perpetuate the very conditions that enable even graver human rights abuses. Indeed, ancient wisdom bears counsel: “beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves”. In this environment, smaller states and middle powers, in particular, cannot afford passivity. They must coordinate with strategic clarity and act with resolve to defend and reinforce a rules-based global system anchored in real and principled commitment to international law and the peaceful settlement of disputes.

Perspective is important. The Western world, even when considered as a whole, comprises about 11 to 15 percent of the global population; the remaining 85 to 89 percent of humanity resides beyond it.

In a century increasingly defined by multipolarity, the convergent interests of the so-called Global North and Global South in safeguarding peace and stability within – and one hopes beyond – their respective spheres of influence must rise above the complacencies and double standards that have long underwritten the status quo.

True advocacy demands courage – to uphold and apply the law equally and impartially, even when doing so is uncomfortable, unpopular, or personally costly. It is the discipline to defend rights not only when they align with powerful interests, or “tribal” and prevailing sentiments but wherever justice demands it.

The legitimacy and potency of international justice are also fundamentally anchored in ethical leadership and an unwavering fidelity to principle. It is incumbent upon the stewards of international institutions, courts and tribunals to embody integrity, impartiality, and steadfast dedication to their mandates. When these ethical foundations are shaken or compromised, the repercussions are deep and lasting: public confidence disintegrates, victims suffer renewed injustice, adversaries are emboldened, and the quest for justice is dealt a blow. The character and courage of those at the helm are not mere virtues, but the cornerstone upon which the entire edifice of international justice stands.

This is our clarion call: should we permit the foundations of international law to erode—whether through selective justice, passive indifference, or the cynical calculus of unprincipled politics—the world would slip once more into the shadows of anarchy and chaos.

We cannot yield to a world order defined by unchecked aggression, the erosion of sovereign borders under predation, and the unravelling of hard-won international norms. To acquiesce to such decline is to legitimise disorder as a governing principle, invite instability, normalise coercion, and accelerate a descent into systematic violence.

The cost would be borne by societies worldwide, in shattered security, fractured institutions, and immeasurable human suffering.

It is our shared responsibility to avert this regression.

By steadfastly upholding international law, nations around the world do more than safeguard their own futures; they erect barriers against the reckless impulses of would-be aggressors, protecting all – including the aggressors themselves – from the dire consequences of unfettered conflict.

Indifference is not an option. Wilful blindness is complicity.

In standing in firm defence of international law, we are not only enforcing norms – we are shaping the trajectory of our civilisation and honouring the enduring promise of humanity itself.

The rule of law is one of humanity’s quiet triumph – a beacon guiding our gradual rise from unbridled brute force towards greater order, justice, and civilisation.

We must never allow the law to fall silent, for it stands as humanity’s foremost defender.

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

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has offered an apology to neighbouring countries that have been subjected to Tehran’s retaliatory strikes since the United States and Israel launched a military offensive on the country.

But Iran’s powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) expressed its disapproval of the president’s remarks on Saturday, warning neighbouring countries that Tehran would continue attacks if US and Israel used their territory to attack Iran.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Tehran is not going to stop attacks while Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, speaker of Iran’s parliament, underscored Tehran’s right to self-defence.

Iran’s leadership has been sending mixed messages about its attacks on neighbouring countries in the Gulf region. On Saturday and Sunday, more Iranian strikes were reported. On Saturday, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates said they were attacked.

So why is Iran sending mixed messages to Gulf countries? How should its statements be interpreted?

What have Iranian leaders said?

In a recorded message on Saturday, Pezeshkian pledged to halt attacks against neighbouring countries unless an attack on Iran originated from their soil.

“I personally apologise to neighbouring countries that were attacked by Iran. Our commanders, leaders and loved ones lost their lives due to the brutal aggression that took place, and our armed forces are heroes who gave their lives to defend our territorial integrity,” he said without specifying which countries he was referring to.

“We didn’t intend to violate neighbouring countries’ [territory]. As I have said many times, they are our brothers. We stand with these ones we love in the region,” he added.

Shortly after Pezeshkian’s apology, the IRGC weighed in and said the armed forces of Iran “once again declare that they respect the interests and national sovereignty of neighbouring countries and, up to this point, have committed no aggression against them”.

“However, should the previous hostile actions continue, all military bases and interests of criminal America and the fake Zionist regime on land, at sea, and in the air across the region will be considered primary targets and will come under the powerful and crushing strikes of the mighty armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran,” an IRGC statement added.

Pezeshkian later clarified on X that Iran had not in fact attacked any of its neighbours but rather “targeted US military bases, facilities, and installations in the region”.

Late on Saturday, the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council of Iran, Ali Larijani, echoed the IRGC’s message and said: “When the enemy attacks us from bases in the region, we respond – and we will continue to respond.”

“This is our right and a standing policy. Regional countries must either prevent the US from using their territory against Iran, or we will have no choice but to do it ourselves,” he added.

On Sunday morning with attacks across the Gulf continuing, Pezeshkian said his remarks on Saturday were misinterpreted by “the ⁠enemy that seeks to sow division ⁠with neighbours”.

According to Iranian state media, the president reiterated that Iran wants good relations with “the brotherly neighbouring countries” but has been forced to respond to attacks coming from the territories of other countries.

He stressed, however, that this response does not mean there is a dispute with those countries.

“Iran stands strong against those who attack it and will respond with strength,” he said.

Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs also issued a statement on Sunday emphasising “that Iran’s defensive operations against US military bases and installations in the region should by no means be construed as enmity or hostility towards the countries of the region”.

Khalid al-Jaber, executive director of the Middle East Council on Global Affairs in Doha, says different Iranian officials have sent several “contradictory” messages to countries in the region.

“We don’t know which one is true. We don’t think now, in war, that Iran is going to stop attacking some infrastructure in the Gulf,” al-Jaber told Al Jazeera, citing the attack on the water desalination plant in Bahrain a proof of that.

“Since the attack on Ayatollah Khamenei, it seems like there is no institute or a person or leadership we can talk to, or we can make a deal with, to try to understand what their perspective is, what their point of view is,” he said.

How should Iran’s messages be interpreted?

According to Al Jazeera’s Resul Serdar, Pezeshkian’s apology was overtaken by the Revolutionary Guard’s dominance.

“Political figures in Iran are responsible for running state affairs and nonstrategic affairs. But when it comes to strategic affairs, such as the country’s foreign and security policies, politicians don’t have a say, including the president, who, according to the constitution, is the number two in charge. This is a very well-known fact in Iran,” Serdar said.

The centre of power lies with the office of the supreme leader and with the IRGC, even during peacetime, he added.

On Sunday, Serdar said Iranians were interpreting Pezeshkian’s statement that his remarks had been misconstrued as one not meant for Gulf countries but instead for Azerbaijan and Turkiye.

“Azerbaijan because of the ethnic tensions. There are tens of thousands of Azeri [people] living in Iran, so an attack on them could backfire, and for Turkiye, it is a NATO member,” he said.

Azerbaijan has sought Iran’s apology after a drone attack targeted its autonomous Nakhchivan exclave on Thursday. Tehran, however, has insisted that it was not behind the attack.

On Wednesday, Turkiye’s Ministry of National Defence said a ⁠ballistic missile fired from ⁠Iran towards Turkish airspace had been intercepted and destroyed by NATO. But Iran’s ⁠armed forces have also denied firing ⁠any missile towards Turkish territory.

Ali Vaez, director of the Iran project at the International Crisis Group, told Al Jazeera that Pezeshkian’s occasional off-key remarks have underscored his limited political instincts and experience in navigating high-stakes moments.

“But in wartime, rhetorical missteps by civilian officials are ultimately beside the point: The only voice that truly matters is the IRGC’s,” he added.

How has the Gulf reacted?

After an apology and threats from Iranian officials, strikes on countries across the Gulf have continued.

On Sunday, an Iranian drone attack caused material damage to a water desalination plant in Bahrain, its Ministry of Interior said.

That came a day after Araghchi said the US attacked a desalination plant on Qeshm Island off southern Iran, setting a “precedent”. There has been no immediate comment from Iran since Bahrain’s statement. A majority of Gulf countries depend largely on desalinated water for their inhabitants’ consumption.

Also on Saturday, Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE reported incoming missiles and drones in their territories. On Sunday, Kuwait said two Ministry of Interior personnel were killed while on duty and attacks on its international airport and social security office caused fires.

Saudi Arabia said Sunday that an attack on Riyadh’s diplomatic quarter was foiled and several drones were downed in its airspace.

On Sunday, the Gulf Cooperation Council said Iran’s continued attacks against Bahrain and Kuwait are “dangerous acts of aggression” that threaten regional security and stability. The bloc comprises Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

So far, countries in the Gulf have intercepted and destroyed most of the Iranian missiles and drones but have not yet launched strikes against Tehran.

Vaez told Al Jazeera that the Gulf states can certainly retaliate but that is likely to lead to even more aggressive Iranian retaliation.

“Siding with Israel to bomb another Muslim state would also entail political consequences for the Gulf states,” he added.

How has the US reacted?

After the Iranian president’s apology on Saturday, US President Donald Trump said in a post on his social media platform, Truth Social, that Iran has surrendered to its neighbours.

“Iran is no longer the ‘Bully of the Middle East,’ they are, instead, ‘THE LOSER OF THE MIDDLE EAST,’ and will be for many decades until they surrender or, more likely, completely collapse!” Trump posted.

“Siding with Israel to bomb another muslim state would also entail political consequences for the Gulf states,” he added.

In an interview with Al Jazeera on Saturday, Hamidreza Gholamzadeh, director of the Iranian think tank Diplo House, said Trump’s interpretation of Pezeshkian’s comments as a “surrender” is “totally false”.

Gholamzadeh said Iran is asking its neighbours “that they stop cooperating with the United States or the Israeli regime and do not allow them to use their land or their airspace to attack Iran”, describing the request as something “very normal” and “legal”.