NEWS

The US bombed Iran’s nuclear sites Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan on June 22.

United States President Donald Trump has insisted that the strikes on several of Iran’s nuclear sites last week “completely destroyed” the facilities, rejecting US media reports citing a Pentagon assessment that the attacks only set Tehran’s nuclear programme back by a few months.

An initial intelligence evaluation suggested that the US bombardment failed to destroy Iran’s underground nuclear facilities, The New York Times, The Washington Post and CNN reported on Tuesday, citing officials familiar with the military intelligence report from the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).

Two people familiar with the assessment had told CNN that Iran’s “enriched uranium was not destroyed” and the centrifuges were “largely intact”.

Another source told the US broadcaster that, according to the assessment, enriched uranium had been moved before the US strikes on Sunday.

Trump has maintained that the US strikes destroyed nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.

“Fake news CNN, together with the failing New York Times, have teamed up in an attempt to demean one of the most successful military strikes in history,” Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social platform.

“The nuclear sites in Iran are completely destroyed!” he wrote.

When reporters asked him about Iran rebuilding its nuclear programme on Tuesday, Trump said: “That place is under rock. That place is demolished.”

The White House said the intelligence assessment was “flat-out wrong”.

Press secretary Karoline Leavitt told CNN in a statement: “Everyone knows what happens when you drop fourteen 30,000 pound bombs perfectly on their targets: total obliteration.”

Steve Witkoff, the US special envoy to the Middle East, also dismissed the intelligence report.

“All three of those had most, if not all, the centrifuges damaged or destroyed in a way that it will be almost impossible for them to resurrect that programme,” Witkoff told Fox News on Monday night.

“In my view, and in many other experts’ views who have seen the raw data, it will take a period of years.”

Witkoff also called the leaking of the report “treasonous”.

“It ought to be investigated. And whoever did it, whoever is responsible for it, should be held accountable,” he added.

Reporting from Washington, DC, Al Jazeera’s Shihab Rattansi said an information war is under way.

“There are clearly figures in Washington who are very keen to leak a very preliminary Defense Intelligence Agency bombing assessment,” he said.

He noted that White House reporters received a press statement, saying the “leaking of this alleged assessment is a clear attempt to demean President Trump and discredit the brave fighter pilots who conducted a perfectly executed mission to obliterate Iran’s nuclear programme”.

“This is the first moment we are seeing, post-bombing, of the information landscape and how this information will be used and what effect it might have on Donald Trump going forward,” Rattansi said.

Getty Images

Alamy

‘No incentive’ to recover fraudulent Covid loans

Despite Israel’s considerable military power in the Middle East, it can never achieve regional hegemony—a position that requires unquestionable dominance over all competitors and acceptance of its authority by neighboring countries. Since its establishment in 1948, Israel, relying on its military superiority and broad Western support, particularly from the United States, has managed to establish significant influence in the region. However, Israel’s ambitions to become the dominant power in the Middle East face structural, political, and social obstacles that go beyond its military capabilities. Israel’s recent attacks on Iran in June 2025, under the operation “Lion Rising,” are an example of the country’s aggressive efforts to weaken its rivals and demonstrate its authority. However, these actions have only led to greater regional instability and strengthened resistance against Israel. As Stephen Walt, a professor of international relations at Harvard, argues, true hegemony requires political acceptance and regional legitimacy—something Israel, due to its policies, is unable to achieve.

Limitations of Military Power

With a military budget of $27.5 billion in 2023 and access to advanced technologies, Israel possesses one of the region’s most powerful militaries. Its attacks on Lebanon, Syria, and recently Iran, which targeted both military and civilian infrastructure, demonstrate its ability to strike heavy blows against its competitors. However, military power alone is not sufficient for hegemony. A regional hegemon must be able to fully suppress its rivals or compel them to accept its authority—a challenge Israel has failed at. For example, despite weakening Hezbollah and other resistance groups after attacks in 2023 and 2024, these groups continue to act as a resilient force against Israel. The June 2025 attacks on Iran, while causing significant damage, have not been able to fully halt Iran’s nuclear program. Reports suggest that the Fordow facility remains operational, and Iran is able to accelerate its pursuit of nuclear capabilities. These failures highlight that Israel’s military power, while destructive, cannot lead to lasting dominance, as regional resistance against it persists.

Lack of Regional Legitimacy

Hegemony requires acceptance and legitimacy among regional countries, something Israel lacks due to its aggressive and occupation-driven policies. The occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the siege and bombing of Gaza, and the repression of Palestinians, condemned by human rights organizations as gross violations of human rights, have painted Israel as a repressive force. These policies have not only angered Palestinians but have also prevented regional countries, including powerful players like Turkey and Qatar, from accepting Israel as the dominant power. Even countries that have established diplomatic relations with Israel, such as the UAE and Bahrain, maintain these relations largely for strategic reasons and under Western pressure, not out of acceptance of Israel’s hegemony. Furthermore, recent attacks on Iran, conducted amidst nuclear negotiations, have exacerbated regional anger and strengthened Iran’s position as a force of resistance against Israeli aggression. This lack of legitimacy is a significant barrier to Israel’s hegemonic ambitions.

Geopolitical Complexity of the Middle East

The Middle East is a region of multiple actors and conflicting interests, making it practically impossible for any country, including Israel, to achieve hegemony. Iran, despite economic and military pressures, still maintains significant influence in Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen, although its proxy networks have been weakened. Turkey, with its own regional ambitions, and Saudi Arabia, with its vast financial resources, are also powerful competitors unwilling to accept Israeli dominance. Even the fall of the Assad regime in Syria, which was seen as a blow to Iran, failed to shift the balance of power in Israel’s favor, as new actors like Sunni groups backed by Turkey entered the fray. Hegemony requires military superiority over a mix of rivals, but Israel has not been able to establish full dominance even over a single actor like Iran, which, despite recent attacks, still has the ability to respond. These geopolitical complexities, combined with persistent regional resistance, prevent Israel from achieving hegemonic status.

Dependence on the West and Strategic Fragility

Despite its military power, Israel is heavily dependent on the support of the United States and Europe. Annual U.S. military aid of $3.8 billion and political backing in institutions like the United Nations form the backbone of Israel’s power. However, this dependence creates a strategic vulnerability. If Western support decreases—either due to changes in U.S. domestic policies or global pressure for Israel to be held accountable for human rights violations—Israel will lose its ability to maintain its current position. True hegemony requires strategic self-sufficiency, which Israel lacks. Moreover, aggressive actions like the “Lion Rising” operation increase the risk of drawing the U.S. into a broader conflict, which could reduce Western support. This fragility shows that Israel, rather than a hegemon, functions more as a player dependent on foreign powers.

Global Consequences of Israel’s Actions

Israel’s efforts to weaken its rivals, such as the recent attacks on Iran, have not led to hegemony but have instead exacerbated regional and global instability. These attacks, carried out amid nuclear negotiations between Iran and global powers, disrupted diplomatic efforts and increased the risk of a broader conflict. These actions could disrupt the global energy supply chain, as Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz plays a critical role in oil and gas markets. Additionally, the anger generated by Israel’s aggressive policies has sparked widespread protests in the Muslim world, raising the risk of political and security instability on a global scale. These consequences, rooted in Israel’s actions, show that the pursuit of hegemony not only remains unattainable but leads to further instability.

The Need for Peace, Not Domination

Israel cannot become the hegemon of the Middle East because true hegemony requires a combination of military power, political legitimacy, and regional acceptance—elements Israel lacks. Israel’s long-term security lies not in military domination but in achieving a lasting political agreement with its neighbors, including the Palestinians. Israel’s aggressive policies, from occupying Palestinian territories to attacking Iran, have only strengthened regional resistance and pushed the country further from its hegemonic goal. The world must recognize this reality and, instead of blindly supporting Israel’s actions, focus on diplomacy and dialogue to establish lasting peace in the Middle East. Only through this approach can the endless cycle of tension and conflict be broken.

Airlines are forced to reroute or cancel flights, affecting major hubs like Doha and Dubai, despite a ceasefire announced between Iran and Israel.

The Israel-Iran conflict, together with the military intervention of the United States and Tehran’s retaliation, has continued to heavily disrupt global travel despite some Middle East nations saying their airspaces were now open again.

The delays, suspensions and cancellations by multiple airlines continued on Tuesday after Iran launched a limited missile attack on US forces at Qatar’s Al Udeid Air Base on Monday in retaliation for US strikes on Sunday at three Iranian nuclear sites.

Qatar temporarily closed its airspace just hours earlier, forcing state-owned Qatar Airways to announce that its flights were suspended because of the closure.

Airports throughout the region have been on edge since Israel began the deadly conflict on June 13 – with a surprise barrage of attacks on Iran, which retaliated with its own missile and drone strikes.

In the days following the US strikes, more and more carriers cancelled flights, particularly in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, which sit just across the Persian Gulf from Iran.

While US President Donald Trump announced a truce between Tehran and Tel Aviv late on Monday night, many airlines have halted select routes through the middle of the week, citing safety concerns.

Middle East carriers severely affected

Dubai-based Emirates suspended all flights to Iran and Iraq, including those serving Baghdad and Basra, through June 30. An unspecified number of other Emirates flights were rerouted but continuing to operate as scheduled, using flight paths well distanced from conflict areas, according to the airline, which added that some flights may be delayed.

Gulf Air, the carrier of the Kingdom of Bahrain, extended the cancellation of scheduled flights to Jordan until June 27.

Air tracking data from FlightAware showed 382 cancellations worldwide just after 10:30am ET (14:30 GMT) Tuesday, following 834 cancellations seen on Monday.

Airports in the Middle East are some of the busiest in the world, covering an area stretching from Iran and Iraq to the Mediterranean and serving as a connecting hub for flights between Europe and Asia.

However, in an early sign of normalcy returning to the region, Iraqi airspace reopened and flights were now transiting it, flight-tracking website Flightradar24 wrote on X on Tuesday.

It’s unclear whether Iranian airspace is now also open to international arrivals and departures to and from Tehran.

In the meantime, the Israel Airports Authority says Ben Gurion Airport near Tel Aviv is returning to full operation.

Meanwhile, Singapore Airlines cancelled some flights to and from Dubai starting Sunday and through Wednesday, citing “a security assessment of the geopolitical situation in the Middle East”.

And British Airways said it had suspended flights to and from Doha through Wednesday, adding that it “will keep the situation under review”.

Since Sunday, the Middle East has lurched from escalating war to fragile ceasefire. A truce seems to be holding, and what US President Donald Trump called “The 12 Day War” between Israel and Iran seems to be over – for now.

Meanwhile, Trump, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Iran’s leaders have all claimed that the pause in the conflict happened on their terms.

So, what’s the truth? What did Israel achieve? Did Iran manage to defend its strategic assets? And is the truce a pathway to peace?

How did events unfold?

Late on Saturday night, at Israel’s behest, the US entered the Israeli-Iranian war with strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, “completely obliterating” them, in Trump’s words.

On Monday, Iran struck back, firing missiles at the largest US airbase in the Middle East, Al Udeid in Qatar.

It appeared as though the Middle East was poised for a broader, longer war.

But within hours, Trump announced on Truth Social, his social media platform, “It has been fully agreed by and between Israel and Iran that there will be a Complete and Total CEASEFIRE.”

Trump called it “the 12 Day War … that could have gone on for years and destroyed the Middle East”.

Four hours after the ceasefire was supposed to take effect, Israel launched a strike against Iran in retaliation for what it said were two ballistic missiles entering its airspace, launched from Iran. Both were intercepted. Israel’s retaliation destroyed a radar station near Tehran.

Trump was furious. “I’m really unhappy that Israel went out this morning,” he told reporters.

“We’ve got two countries that have been fighting so hard and for so long, that they don’t know what the f*** they’re doing.”

Iran said it did not fire those missiles. By 11:30 GMT the ceasefire was back in effect. Trump spoke to Netanyahu.

“ISRAEL is not going to attack Iran. All planes will turn around and head home, while doing a friendly ‘Plane Wave’ to Iran. Nobody will be hurt, the Ceasefire is in effect!” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

What did Israel achieve?

Israel has long claimed that Iran is its number one existential threat, but it has never before struck Tehran’s nuclear facilities.

On June 13, it crossed that red line, bombing the surface installations of the Natanz fuel enrichment plant and the Isfahan nuclear technological complex. Iran retaliated by launching drones and missiles at Israel.

Israel had struck nuclear installations in Syria and Iraq before, but it has now proved it can carry out a complex mission much further afield.

It also withstood international accusations that its mission wasn’t legal. Israel claims it was anticipatory self-defence, but not everyone agrees that Iran is developing a nuclear bomb, or that it planned to use it against Israel imminently.

“I speak with world leaders and they are very impressed by our determination and the achievements of our forces,” Netanyahu said on June 18.

Finally, Israel proved it can convince the US to enter a limited Middle Eastern offensive it has started. In previous wars in 1967 and 1973, the US had provided material support to Israel when it was attacked, but had not assisted it with direct operational involvement.

Netanyahu thanked Trump for “standing alongside us”.

Operation Rising Lion against Iran took place in the wake of conflicts that Israel has waged against Iran’s regional allies – the Houthis in Yemen, Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hamas and Hezbollah have been weakened over the past two years.

Did Iran manage to defend its nuclear programme?

Israel managed to significantly damage surface targets in Iran, and the US claims to have destroyed underground nuclear facilities.

But while satellite photography shows that their missiles hit their mark, there is no independent confirmation available to verify what was destroyed. That will need on-site inspections.

“At this time, no one – including the IAEA – is in a position to have fully assessed the underground damage at Fordow,” said Rafael Grossi, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations nuclear watchdog, on Monday, after the US strikes. “Given the explosive payload utilized, and the extreme vibration-sensitive nature of centrifuges, very significant damage is expected to have occurred,” he said.

Also unknown are the whereabouts of 400 kilogrammes (880 pounds) of highly enriched uranium that the IAEA has said Iran now possesses.

Mohammad Eslami, the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organisation, suggested the nuclear programme would emerge unscathed. “Preparations for recovery had already been anticipated, and our plan is to prevent any interruption in production or services,” he said on Tuesday in a statement carried by the semi-official Mehr news agency.

Meanwhile, confusion lingers over the source of two ballistic missiles that hit Israel on Tuesday morning, three and a half hours after the ceasefire began. Iran’s government officially denied having launched the missiles.

So who did? And were they fired accidentally – like the Iranian missile that accidentally brought down a Ukrainian passenger plane in 2021, killing 176 people?

How likely is another strike on Iran?

What Israel and Iran have agreed to is a ceasefire. They haven’t made peace.

On Iran’s nuclear programme, experts say that there are – broadly speaking – two possible future paths.

Renewed UN inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities and a new treaty with Iran, perhaps resembling former US President Barack Obama’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action of 2015, might help Tehran ease global pressure on its programme, though it was Trump who pulled out of the JCPOA, not Iran.

This is where European powers can play a role. Three of them, the United Kingdom, France and Germany, met with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on June 20, along with the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, in an effort to avert US strikes. That bid failed, but although the EU cannot alone leverage Iran into a compromise, it can act as a counterpoint to US-Israeli hard power.

“Iran will try to involve the Europeans diplomatically by proposing enhanced monitoring and making commitments in its nuclear programme,” Ioannis Kotoulas, an adjunct lecturer in geopolitics at Athens University, told Al Jazeera.

“The US could accept a peaceful nuclear programme – [US Secretary of State Marco] Rubio has already said so. The likelihood is that the US won’t try to force regime change,” he said. “Europe is now Iran’s only way out. Russia is unreliable.”

But Israel has previously tried to scupper any nuclear deal between the West and Iran, and is unlikely yo accept a fresh agreement.

And will Iran even be open to a compromise, after the US pulled out of its previous nuclear deal with Tehran, then changed goalposts during recent talks, and finally joined Israel in bombing Iranian nuclear facilities while they were supposed to be negotiating an agreement?

“That really depends on dynamics within the country and how any climbdown is phrased, but there have already been calls to cease uranium enrichment from activists within the country,” Ali Ansari, a professor of Iranian history at St Andrews University, told Al Jazeera.

So far, Iran sounds unyielding in the pursuit of its nuclear programme.

On Monday, the national security committee of Iran’s parliament approved a bill pushing for the full suspension of Tehran’s cooperation with the IAEA if approved in a plenary session.

Meanwhile, Trump emphasised on Tuesday on social media that he would not allow Iran’s nuclear programme to resume.

If that fundamental tension remains intact, another round of strikes and counterstrikes that suck in the US might only be a matter of time.

The US agency harshly criticised Boeing’s safety culture as well as ineffective oversight by the FAA.

Boeing failed to provide adequate training, guidance and oversight to prevent a midair cabin panel blowout of a new 737 MAX 9 flight in January 2024, which spun the planemaker into a major crisis, the United States National Transportation Safety Board has said.

The board on Tuesday harshly criticised Boeing’s safety culture and its failure to install four key bolts in a new Alaska Airlines MAX 9 during production, as well as the ineffective oversight by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

NTSB chair Jennifer Homendy said at a board meeting that the incident was entirely avoidable because the planemaker should have addressed the unauthorised production that was identified in numerous Boeing internal audits, reports and other forums for at least 10 years.

“The safety deficiencies that led to this accident should have been evident to Boeing and to the FAA,” Homendy said. “It’s nothing short of a miracle that no one died or sustained serious physical injuries.”

Boeing’s on-the-job training was lacking, the NTSB said, adding that the planemaker is working on a design enhancement that will ensure the door plug cannot be closed until it is firmly secured.

The accident prompted the US Department of Justice to open a criminal investigation and declare that Boeing was not in compliance with a 2021 deferred prosecution agreement. CEO Dave Calhoun announced he would step down within a few months of the midair panel blowout.

Homendy praised new Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg, but said, “He has his work cut out for him, a lot of challenges to address, and that’s going to take time.”

Boeing said it regretted the accident and was continuing to work on strengthening safety and quality across its operations.

The FAA said on Tuesday that it has “fundamentally changed how it oversees Boeing since the Alaska Airlines door-plug accident and we will continue this aggressive oversight to ensure Boeing fixes its systemic production-quality issues”.

Damaged reputation

The incident badly damaged Boeing’s reputation and led to a grounding of the MAX 9 for two weeks as well as a production cap of 38 planes per month by the FAA, which still remains in place.

“While Boeing is making progress, we will not lift the 737 monthly production cap until we are confident the company can maintain safety and quality while making more aircraft,” the FAA added.

Boeing created no paperwork for the removal of the 737 MAX 9 door plug – a piece of metal shaped like a door covering an unused emergency exit – or its re-installation during production, and still does not know which employees were involved, the NTSB said on Tuesday.

Then-FAA administrator Michael Whitaker said in June 2024 that the agency was “too hands off” in Boeing oversight and has boosted the number of inspectors at Boeing and the MAX fuselage manufacturer’s, Spirit AeroSystems, factories.

Boeing agreed last July to plead guilty to a criminal fraud conspiracy charge after two fatal 737 MAX crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia. But it last month struck a deal with the US Justice Department to avoid a guilty plea.

The Justice Department has asked a judge to approve the deal, which will allow Boeing to avoid pleading guilty or facing oversight by an outside monitor.

Earlier this month, Boeing’s problems resurfaced when an Air India flight crashed soon after takeoff from the western Indian city of Ahmedabad, killing all but one on board. The aircraft being flown was a nearly 12-year-old Dreamliner. Investigations behind that crash are currently under way.

Getty Images

Heat pump progress but a long way to go

Make electricity cheaper

Israel is no longer concealing its intention to forcibly displace Palestinians from their homeland, as it now announces this plan more openly than ever before through official rhetoric at the highest levels, said Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor in a report issued today.

Through actions on the ground and institutional measures designed to reframe the crime as “voluntary migration”, explained Euro-Med Monitor, Israel has attempted to implement its displacement campaign by exploiting the international community’s near-total silence, which has enabled the continuation of the crime and Israeli impunity despite the unprecedented nature of humanity’s first livestreamed genocide.

“Israel is now attempting to carry out the final phase of its crime, and its original goal: the mass expulsion of Palestinians from Palestine, specifically from the Gaza Strip. For a year and a half, Israel has carried out acts of genocide, killing and injuring hundreds of thousands of people, erasing entire cities, dismantling the Strip’s infrastructure, and systematically displacing its population within the enclave. These actions aim to eliminate the Palestinian people as a community and as a collective presence.”

The current plans for forced displacement, said the Geneva-based rights group, are a direct extension of Israel’s long-standing, settler-colonial project, aimed at erasing Palestinian existence and seizing land. What distinguishes this stage, it added, is its unprecedented scale and brutality.

“Israel is targeting over two million people who have endured a full-scale genocide and have been stripped of even the most basic human rights, under coercive, inhumane conditions that make living any sort of a normal life impossible. Israel’s deliberate objective is to pressure Palestinians into leaving by making it their only means of survival.”

Having succeeded in revealing the weak principles of international law, such as protections for civilians based on their perceived racial superiority or lack thereof, Israel is now reshaping the narrative once again.

READ: Gaza reaches WHO’s most critical malnutrition level amid Israeli blockade

“Armed with overwhelming force and emboldened by the international community’s abandonment of legal and moral responsibilities, Israel seeks to portray the mass expulsion of Palestinians as ‘voluntary migration’,” said the group. “This is a blatant attempt to rebrand ethnic cleansing and forced displacement using dishonest language — like ‘humanitarian considerations’ and ‘individual choice’ — and is a direct contradiction of legal facts and the reality on the ground.”

Euro-Med Monitor emphasised that forced displacement is a standalone crime under international law, because it involves the removal of individuals from areas where they legally reside, using force, threats, or other forms of coercion, without valid legal justification.

“Coercion, in the context of Israel’s genocide in the Gaza Strip, goes beyond military force. It includes the creation of unbearable conditions that render remaining in one’s home practically impossible or life-threatening.” A coercive environment includes fear of violence, persecution, arrest, intimidation, starvation or other forms of hardship that strip individuals of free will and force them to flee.

“Israel has already committed the crime of forced displacement against Gaza’s population, having driven them into internal displacement without legal grounds and in conditions that violate international legal exceptions, which only permit evacuation temporarily and under imperative military necessity, while ensuring safe areas with minimum standards of human dignity,” said Lima Bustami, Director of Euro-Med Monitor’s Legal Department.

“None of these standards have been met. In fact, Israel has used this widespread and repeated pattern of displacement as a tool of genocide, aimed at destroying and subjecting the population to deadly living conditions.”

Bustami added that although the legal elements of the crime are already fulfilled, Israel is further escalating it to a more lethal level against the Palestinian people, manifesting its settler-colonial vision of expulsion and replacement. “Now it is attempting to market the second phase of forced displacement — beyond Gaza’s borders — as ‘voluntary migration’: a transparent deception that only a complicit international community — one that chooses silence over accountability — would accept.”

Today, the people of the Gaza Strip endure catastrophic conditions that are unprecedented in recent history, said Euro-Med Monitor. “Israel has obliterated all forms of normal life; there is no electricity or infrastructure, and there are no homes, no essential services, no functioning healthcare or education systems, and no clean water services.”

Indeed, the group’s report notes that around 2.3 million Palestinians are confined to less than 34 per cent of the Strip’s 365 square kilometres. Approximately 66 per cent of the territory has been turned into so-called “buffer zones”, or areas that are completely off-limits to Palestinians and/or that have been forcibly depopulated through Israeli bombings and displacement orders. “Most of the population is now living in tattered tents amid the spread of famine, disease and epidemics and an accumulation of waste, conditions symptomatic of the near-complete collapse of the humanitarian system.”

Moreover, Israel continues to systematically block the entry of food, medicine and fuel; destroy all remaining means of survival; and obstruct any efforts aimed at reconstruction or restoring even the minimum conditions for a healthy life.

“These conditions in place are not the result of a natural disaster,” the Euro-Med report says pointedly. “They have been deliberately engineered by Israel as a coercive tool to pressure the population into leaving the Gaza Strip. The absence of any genuine, voluntary alternative for Palestinians in the enclave renders this situation a textbook case of forcible transfer, as defined under international law and affirmed by relevant jurisprudence.”

READ: Israel advocate says, ‘I’m OK with as many dead kids as it takes’

According to Bustami, “While population transfers may be permitted in certain humanitarian contexts under international law, any such justification collapses if the humanitarian crisis is the direct consequence of unlawful acts committed by the same party enforcing the transfer. It is impermissible to use forced displacement as a response to a disaster one has created, a principle clearly upheld by international tribunals, particularly the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.”

Framing this imposed reality as a “voluntary” migration and an option not only constitutes a gross distortion of truth, said Euro-Med Monitor, but also undermines the legal foundations of the international system, erodes the principle of accountability, and transforms impunity from a failure of justice into a deliberate mechanism for perpetuating grave crimes and entrenching the outcomes of such crimes.

“Repeated public statements from the highest levels of Israel’s political and security leadership have escalated in intensity over the past year and a half, and expose a clear, coordinated intent to displace the population of the Gaza Strip. In a blatant bid to enforce a demographic transformation serving Israel’s colonial-settler agenda, senior Israeli officials — including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir — have publicly called for the expulsion of Palestinians from the Strip and for the settlement of Jewish Israelis in their place.”

Netanyahu expressed full support in February 2025 for US President Donald Trump’s plan to resettle Palestinians outside of the Gaza Strip, describing it as “the only viable solution for enabling a different future” for the region. Likewise, Smotrich announced in March that the Israeli government would back the establishment of a new “migration authority” to coordinate what he termed a “massive logistical operation” to remove Palestinians from the Strip.

Ben-Gvir, meanwhile, has openly advocated for the encouragement of “voluntary migration” coupled with calls to resettle Jewish Israelis in the territory.

The human rights organisation referred to the 23 March decision of the Israeli Security Cabinet to establish a dedicated directorate within the Ministry of Defence, to manage what it calls the “voluntary relocation” of the Gaza Strip’s residents to third countries. “This is evidence that this displacement is not a by-product of destruction or political rhetoric, but an official policy,” it noted. “This policy is being implemented through institutional mechanisms, directed from within Israel’s own security apparatus, with full operational powers, executive structures, and strategic goals.”

READ: Israel bombing kills 4-year-old twin girls as they slept in Gaza

Furthermore, current Defence Minister Israel Katz’s statement on the new directorate confirmed that it would “prepare for and enable safe and controlled passage of Gaza residents for their voluntary departure to third countries, including securing movement, establishing movement routes, checking pedestrians at designated crossings in the Gaza Strip, as well as coordinating the provision of infrastructure that will enable passage by land, sea and air to the destination countries.”

The true danger of establishing such a directorate, said Euro-Med Monitor, lies not only in its institutionalisation of forced transfer, but in the new legal and political reality it seeks to impose. “It rebrands displacement as an ‘optional’ administrative service while stripping civilians of their ability to make free, informed decisions, therefore cloaking a war crime in a veneer of bureaucratic legitimacy.”

Any departure from the Gaza Strip under current circumstances cannot be considered “voluntary”, it added, but rather constitutes, in legal terms, forcible transfer, which is strictly prohibited under international law. “All individuals compelled to leave the Strip retain their inalienable right to return to their land and property immediately and unconditionally. They also have the full right to seek compensation for all damages and losses incurred as a result of Israeli crimes and rights violations, including the destruction of homes and property, physical and psychological harm, the assault on human dignity, and the denial of livelihood and basic rights.”

Under its obligations as an occupying power responsible for the protection of the civilian population, Israel is prohibited from forcibly transferring Palestinians and bears full legal responsibility to ensure their protection from this crime.

The rules of international law, particularly customary international law and the Geneva Conventions, require all states not to recognise any situation arising from the crime of forcible transfer and to treat it as null and void. States are also obligated to withhold all material, political and diplomatic support that would contribute to the entrenchment of such a situation.

“International responsibility goes beyond mere non-recognition,” said the rights group. “It includes a legal duty for states to take urgent effective steps to halt the crime, hold perpetrators accountable, and provide redress to victims. This includes ensuring the safe, voluntary return of all displaced persons from the Gaza Strip, and providing full reparations for the harm and violations they have suffered. Any failure to act in this regard constitutes a direct breach of international law and complicity that could subject states to legal accountability.”

READ: Israeli air strike hits Gaza children’s hospital

Euro-Med Monitor said that the international community must move beyond deafening silence and abandon paltry rhetorical condemnations, which have come to represent the maximum response it dares to make in the face of the livestreamed genocide unfolding before its eyes. “It must act swiftly and effectively to halt Israel’s ongoing project of mass displacement in the Gaza Strip and prevent it from becoming an entrenched reality. This action must be based on international legal norms, a commitment to justice and accountability, and an honest reckoning with the root structural cause of the crimes: Israel’s unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory since 1967.”

Endorsing or remaining silent about Israeli plans to forcibly transfer Palestinians out of the Gaza Strip not only exonerates Israel but rewards it for its illegal conduct by granting it gains secured through mass killing, destruction, blockade, and starvation, said the organisation. “This is not just a series of war crimes or crimes against humanity, it embodies the legal definition of genocide, as established by the 1948 Genocide Convention and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.”

All states, individually and collectively, must uphold their legal obligations and take all necessary measures to halt Israel’s genocide in the Gaza Strip.

This includes taking immediate, effective steps to protect Palestinian civilians and to prevent the implementation of the US-Israeli crime of forcible transfer that is openly threatening the Strip’s population.

“The international community must impose economic, diplomatic, and military sanctions on Israel for its systematic and grave violations of international law. This includes halting arms imports and exports; ending all forms of political, financial and military support; freezing the financial assets of officials involved in crimes against Palestinians; imposing travel bans; and suspending trade privileges and bilateral agreements that offer Israel economic advantages that sustain its capacity to commit further crimes.”

The rights group insisted that states must also hold complicit governments accountable — chief among them the United States — for their role in enabling Israeli crimes through various forms of support, including military and intelligence cooperation, financial aid and political or legal backing.

“The ethnic cleansing and genocide taking place right now in the Gaza Strip would not be possible without Israel’s decades-long unlawful colonial presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. This is the root structural cause of the violence, oppression, and destruction in the besieged enclave,” concluded Euro-Med Monitor. “Any meaningful response to the escalating crisis in the Strip must begin with dismantling this colonial reality, recognising the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, and securing their freedom and sovereignty over their national territory.

“As Israel and its allies must be compelled to abide by the law, international intervention is the only path to ending the genocide, halting all forms of individual and collective forcible transfer, dismantling the apartheid regime, and establishing a credible framework for justice, accountability, and the preservation of human dignity.”

OPINION: Palestinian voices are throttled by the promotion of foreign agendas

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

As tensions escalate between Iran and its Western adversaries, the Iranian government is now considering one of the most consequential diplomatic withdrawals in contemporary arms control history: the potential abandonment of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). This decision, should it materialize, would not merely represent a legal realignment of Iran’s international obligations but would constitute a seismic strategic maneuver—disrupting the global nonproliferation architecture, reshaping diplomatic alliances, and accelerating the regional arms race in a Middle East already teetering under the weight of protracted conflict and fractured diplomacy.

Established in 1970, the NPT rests on three foundational pillars: preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, facilitating the peaceful use of nuclear technology, and promoting disarmament. Iran’s current commitment to the treaty has remained, at least in formal terms, one of the last remaining legal barriers preventing its open development of nuclear weapons. As of 2025, 191 states remain parties to the NPT, making it the most widely adopted arms control agreement in human history. However, should Iran exit, the symbolic and material damage to this institutional cornerstone may extend well beyond the region.

From a strategic standpoint, Iran’s withdrawal would signal a clear departure from what Jacques E.C. Hymans in Achieving Nuclear Ambitions (2017) characterizes as “nuclear latency”—the state of possessing technological capability without crossing the threshold. Until now, Iran has carefully danced on the periphery of weapons capability, maintaining plausible deniability while accumulating enriched uranium and advanced centrifuge design. Abandoning the NPT, however, would mark an irreversible step from latency to overt preparation, thereby dismantling the carefully curated ambiguity that has served as both shield and sword in Tehran’s nuclear diplomacy.

The political ramifications of this decision are likely to be equally profound. In Nuclear Politics (2017) by Alexandre Debs and Nuno Monteiro, the authors argue that nuclear proliferation is inherently political—tied not only to the technological constraints of a state but also to its perception of existential threat and diplomatic isolation. With the recent U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear infrastructure, Tehran’s calculus has dramatically shifted. The strikes may have paradoxically accelerated the very outcome they purported to prevent, legitimizing within Iran a discourse of resistance that views nuclear armament not as an offensive ambition, but as a necessary deterrent in an anarchic international system.

On the diplomatic front, Iran’s departure would further erode the authority of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the organization charged with verification and monitoring under the NPT. As explained in Maria Rost Rublee’s Nonproliferation Norms (2017), much of the success of nonproliferation hinges on normative adherence, not merely technical inspections. Should Iran expel inspectors and cease all cooperation with the IAEA—as is anticipated in the wake of withdrawal—other states disillusioned with Western double standards may reconsider the utility of remaining bound by a treaty perceived as discriminatory and selectively enforced.

The security implications are perhaps most destabilizing. Mark Fitzpatrick, a noted arms control expert, argues that such a move would remove Iran’s final legal constraints and free it to pursue weaponization openly. Already, Iran is believed to possess over 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60% purity, technically just short of the 90% required for a weapon. With the infrastructure for advanced enrichment in place and a cadre of nuclear scientists—despite the assassination of several key figures by Israeli operations—still intact, Fitzpatrick warns that Iran could feasibly complete a weapons program within a year. This timeline finds corroboration in Jeffrey Lewis’ The 2020 Commission Report on the North Korean Nuclear Attacks Against the United States (2018), which, while fictionalized, illustrates how rapidly a state with the technical base and political will can escalate from enrichment to deployment.

Moreover, Iran’s exit from the NPT would not exist in isolation. The regional fallout, especially in terms of proliferation contagion, cannot be overstated. As noted in Shashank Joshi’s The Future of Nuclear Deterrence (2020), the exit of one state from the global arms control regime often triggers anxieties in others, particularly those with existing rivalries. Saudi Arabia has already pledged to match Iran’s nuclear capabilities should it proceed toward weaponization, and Egypt, long aggrieved by Israel’s undeclared arsenal and exemption from NPT scrutiny, may see an opportunity to challenge the status quo. The fragile balance of deterrence across the Middle East could thus collapse into a cascade of armament and instability.

The global normative order also stands at risk. If the U.S.—itself a founding signatory of the NPT—can target another signatory’s nuclear infrastructure without consequence, and if the IAEA proves unable to enforce compliance or prevent escalation, then the treaty’s legitimacy may begin to unravel. As articulated in Fiona Cunningham’s Nuclear Norms in East Asia (2021), international regimes rely not merely on legal instruments but on perceived fairness and reciprocity. The perception that the NPT regime disproportionately penalizes non-Western states while tolerating exceptions for allies—such as Israel or India—could hasten a broader exodus from the treaty.

Russia’s role as a potential counterbalance on the diplomatic chessboard must also be considered. While Moscow remains a signatory of the NPT and is unlikely to openly assist Iran in developing a nuclear weapon, its alignment with Tehran in international forums—especially at the United Nations Security Council—could serve as a strategic shield against renewed sanctions or enforcement actions. This maneuvering resembles the patterns described in Andrew Futter’s Hacking the Bomb (2018), which explores how nuclear power is now shaped as much by information warfare and diplomatic alliance as by kilotons and centrifuges.

Finally, there is the matter of strategic miscalculation. Should Iran proceed with weaponization and Israel respond with preemptive strikes—potentially supported again by U.S. tactical operations—the possibility of a full-scale regional war would no longer be hypothetical. As Caitlin Talmadge notes in The Dictator’s Army (2017), nuclear breakout scenarios often escalate not through deliberate choice, but through misinterpretation, miscommunication, and the psychology of brinkmanship. Each step away from treaty obligations narrows the window for de-escalation and expands the risk of unintended catastrophe.

In conclusion, Iran’s threatened withdrawal from the NPT represents not merely a response to recent attacks but a profound inflection point in international security architecture. The unraveling of treaty commitments, the weakening of normative frameworks, and the potential for cascading proliferation across the Middle East suggest that the cost of unilateral coercive diplomacy may be greater than the strategic benefits it purports to yield. The global community stands at a precipice, where the pursuit of short-term tactical gains may irreparably fracture the long-standing scaffolding of nuclear restraint.

Ruling sides against authors who alleged that Anthropic trained an AI model using their work without consent.

A United States federal judge has ruled that the company Anthropic made “fair use” of the books it utilised to train artificial intelligence (AI) tools without the permission of the authors.

The favourable ruling comes at a time when the impacts of AI are being discussed by regulators and policymakers, and the industry is using its political influence to push for a loose regulatory framework.

“Like any reader aspiring to be a writer, Anthropic’s LLMs [large language models] trained upon works not to race ahead and replicate or supplant them — but to turn a hard corner and create something different,” US District Judge William Alsup said.

A group of authors had filed a class-action lawsuit alleging that Anthropic’s use of their work to train its chatbot, Claude, without their consent was illegal.

But Alsup said that the AI system had not violated the safeguards in US copyright laws, which are designed for “enabling creativity and fostering scientific progress”.

He accepted Anthropic’s claim that the AI’s output was “exceedingly transformative” and therefore fell under the “fair use” protections.

Alsup, however, did rule that Anthropic’s copying and storage of seven million pirated books in a “central library” infringed author copyrights and did not constitute fair use.

The fair use doctrine, which allows limited use of copyrighted materials for creative purposes, has been employed by tech companies as they create generative AI. Technology developpers often sweeps up large swaths of existing material to train their AI models.

Still, fierce debate continues over whether AI will facilitate greater artistic creativity or allow the mass-production of cheap imitations that render artists obsolete to the benefit of large companies.

The writers who brought the lawsuit — Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber and Kirk Wallace Johnson — alleged that Anthropic’s practices amounted to “large-scale theft”, and that the company had sought to “profit from strip-mining the human expression and ingenuity behind each one of those works”.

While Tuesday’s decision was considered a victory for AI developpers, Alsup nevertheless ruled that Anthropic must still go to trial in December over the alleged theft of pirated works.

The judge wrote that the company had “no entitlement to use pirated copies for its central library”.

NATO Chief Mark Rutte also said Europe would increase defence spending in a ‘BIG way’ thanks to US pressure.

United States President Donald Trump has shared a series of texts from NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte praising his attacks on Iran and the pressure he placed on allies to increase their military spending.

Trump shared Rutte’s texts in a screenshot posted to his social media website, Truth Social, on Tuesday, as he travels to a NATO summit in the Netherlands.

“Mr President, dear Donald, Congratulations and thank you for your decisive action in Iran, that was truly extraordinary, and something no one else dared to do. It makes us all safer,” the message reads.

Afterwards, Rutte defended Trump’s decision to share what appeared to be private messages. The NATO chief added that his tone in the messages – which some said seemed to mimic Trump’s own style of writing – was “appropriate”.

The messages highlight European efforts to form a productive relationship with Trump, who has frequently said the continent must spend more on its military capabilities. He has also questioned the value of the US’s economic and security partnerships with NATO allies in Europe and Canada.

The texts also underscore the widespread praise Trump has received from European leaders for his bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities, even though those strikes are considered by many to be illegal under international law.

In his messages, Rutte commends Trump for pushing European nations to increase their military spending, stating that NATO members have agreed to boost such spending to 5 percent of their gross domestic product (GDP).

“Europe is going to pay in a BIG way, as they should, and it will be your win,” said Rutte, adding that Trump had achieved what “NO American president in decades could get done”.

Trump had been pushing for increases to NATO defence spending since his first term, from 2017 to 2021. He has long accused NATO allies of taking advantage of the US by relying on its military might.

Previously, NATO members had agreed to a spending goal that represented 2 percent of their GDP. Trump had pushed for that to be raised to 5 percent, with 3.5 percent of that sum dedicated to “hard defence” investments like weaponry.

Some countries, however, including Spain, have pushed back against the calls to increase military spending, calling the demand “unreasonable”.

“There’s a problem with Spain. Spain is not agreeing, which is very unfair to the rest of them, frankly,” Trump told reporters on Air Force One on his way to the two-day meeting.

Trump, meanwhile, has continued to send mixed signals about his commitment to NATO, a mutual defence alliance created during the Cold War. It has been a cornerstone of US and European cooperation ever since.

Trump has long signalled ambivalence towards Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, NATO’s founding document. That article includes a mutual defence clause that requires NATO members to consider an attack on one country to be an attack on the group as a whole.

When pressed about his commitment to Article 5 on Tuesday, Trump told reporters that there could be “numerous definitions” of the clause. Rutte, asked about the comment, said he had “no doubt” that the US was committed to mutual defence.

Criticisms of NATO are not new or unique to Trump. Sceptics have pointed out that the threat it was created to balance against, the USSR, had long ceased to exist. Proponents, meanwhile, have argued the alliance serves as an important bulwark against modern-day military aggression.

But Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 breathed new life into the organisation, expanding its ranks with the addition of countries like Finland and Sweden and prompting increased calls for greater defence spending.

US President Donald Trump said he does not support regime change in Iran, calling it a path to chaos, and claimed nuclear weapons are “the last thing on Iran’s mind right now.” Israel and Iran are observing a ceasefire after 12 days of hostilities.

French club Lyon have been demoted to Ligue 2 because of the poor state of their finances.

The club were provisionally demoted by the DNGC, the body which oversees the accounts of French professional football clubs, in November.

Lyon officials including owner John Textor, met with the DNGC on Tuesday but failed to convince the body that the club had sufficiently improved their financial situation to lift the punishment.

Last October, his Eagle Football Group announced debts of £422m.

Seven-time French champions Lyon raised around £45m with the sales of Maxence Caqueret to Como in January and Rayan Cherki to Manchester City in June in an attempt to improve their finances.

High earners such as Alexandre Lacazette and Anthony Lopes have also been released.

Lyon have the right to appeal against the decision. Should it stand, Lyon will be replaced in the top flight by Reims, who were beaten in the relegation play-off by Metz.

Textor is also the largest shareholder of Brazilian club Botafogo and co-owner of Premier League club Crystal Palace, though he agreed a deal to sell his 46% stake in the Eagles on Monday.

Palace qualified for the Europa League by winning the FA Cup but their place is in doubt because Lyon also qualified by finishing sixth in Ligue 1.

Textor’s perceived involvement with both clubs could be in breach Uefa rules, which prevent multiple teams under one multi-club ownership structure competing in the same European competition.

The Eagles hope Textor’s decision to sell his stake to New York Jets owner Woody Johnson will avoid that scenario.

The Rapid Support Forces (RSF) have killed 31 people from the Salha area, including children, in the largest documented mass killing in the area, the Sudanese Doctors Network said yesterday.

The network warned that the mass killing of “unarmed civilians” threatens the lives of thousands of people in Salha, south of Omdurman.

It considered the mass killings a war crime and a crime against humanity, calling on the international community to take urgent action to rescue the remaining civilians and open a safe exit for them to leave the Salha area.

It also calls on the international community to pressure the RSF leaders to stop crimes and violations against civilians under their control.

UN: More than 480 killed in Sudan’s North Darfur state in past two weeks

A New Chapter in Global Escalation

Israel’s attack on the heart of Iran in June 2025 was not just the latest episode in the long history of the Middle East conflict. It was a loud signal that great power rivalry is now transforming into an open struggle, with Asia and the Global South as the main arenas of interest. For China, which has always maintained a balance between Iran and Israel, this war is a real test of its diplomatic strategy and national interests.

China: From Balancing to Taking Sides?

China has historically pursued a policy of “dual engagement” in the Middle East—strengthening economic ties with Israel while building a strategic partnership with Iran, especially in the areas of energy and security. However, the 2025 war revealed a significant shift in Beijing’s attitude. Just a day after the Israeli attack, China’s Ambassador to the UN, Fu Cong, openly called Israel’s actions a violation of Iran’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, while urging an end to Israel’s “military adventurism.” This strong statement was reinforced by President Xi Jinping and Foreign Minister Wang Yi, who reiterated their support for Iran’s right to self-defense and rejected further US military involvement.

This policy is not just rhetoric. China is a major buyer of Iranian oil, with more than 80% of Iran’s oil exports going to China—even amid Western sanctions. The 25-year partnership signed in 2021 deepens energy dependence and infrastructure investment, making Iran a key pillar of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in the region. This relationship, economically and geopolitically, positions China as the main defender of Iran’s interests in global forums.

However, this position carries significant risks. China-Israel relations, which previously flourished in the technology and infrastructure sectors, are now experiencing serious rifts. Israel and its Western allies see China’s stance as a bias that undermines trust and narrows the space for dialogue. Iran, on the other hand, views China as an important strategic partner in the face of Western pressure, although it remains aware of the limits of Beijing’s commitment to direct military involvement.

Immediate Impact on Asia and the Global South: Energy, Economics, and Uncertainty

The domino effects of the conflict were immediately felt in Asia and the Global South. The surge in world oil prices—topping $75 per barrel—triggered inflation, increased the fiscal burden on energy-importing countries, and depressed people’s purchasing power. Indonesia, India, and ASEAN countries immediately evacuated residents from conflict zones, strengthened energy reserves, and prepared for economic contingency scenarios.

Asia’s dependence on Middle Eastern energy has now become a strategic vulnerability that cannot be ignored. Any threat to the Strait of Hormuz, a vital route for one-third of the world’s oil supply, immediately shakes markets and creates investment uncertainty. For countries in the Global South, energy price volatility means the risk of slowing growth, weakening currencies, and rising living costs—issues that exacerbate inequality and increase the potential for domestic political instability.

China as Mediator: Ambitions, Challenges, and Realities

China is seeking to capitalize on this momentum to assert itself as a global mediator. Beijing has actively offered itself as a mediator, pushed for a ceasefire, and called for multilateral dialogue in forums such as the UN and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). In its official narrative and state media editorials, China has emphasized the importance of a political solution, respect for sovereignty, and rejection of Western-style “unilateral intervention.”

However, the effectiveness of China’s mediation role faces real limitations. China’s influence over Israel is very limited, given Tel Aviv’s closeness to Washington and skepticism of Beijing’s neutrality. On the other hand, China’s over-involvement risks provoking a confrontation with the United States, which remains the dominant player in the Middle East. The reality on the ground shows that while China has been able to construct a narrative as a new counterbalance, its ability to truly change the dynamics of the conflict is still constrained by its limited military and political leverage.

Strategic Implications: Global Polarization and the Future of Asia

The Iran-Israel conflict deepens global polarization between Israel’s pro-Israel bloc (the US and its Western allies) and Iran’s pro-Iran bloc (China, Russia, and much of the Global South). Asian and Global South countries are now faced with a strategic dilemma: balancing relations with the two great powers without getting caught up in a rivalry that could undermine regional stability.

For China, this conflict is a test of its ambition to become a leader of the Global South and a counterweight to Western dominance. Beijing’s firm stance in defending the principle of sovereignty and rejecting military intervention is a strong message to developing countries that have long felt marginalized in the global order. However, the challenge ahead is how to transform this diplomatic capital into real influence in resolving conflicts and building inclusive collective security mechanisms.

Conclusion: Asia and the Global South as Deciders of the Future

The Iran-Israel conflict and China’s response mark a new chapter in world geopolitics. Asia and the Global South are no longer spectators, but rather determiners of the future of the global order. By strengthening solidarity, policy innovation, and collective diplomacy, developing countries can take a greater role in maintaining world peace and prosperity. The challenges are great, but the opportunities to build a more inclusive and equitable world order are now wide open—and China, along with Asia and the Global South, is at the center of that change.

Iranian president says neither Qatar nor its people were targets of attack on US base in the gas-rich Gulf nation.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has expressed his “regret” to Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani over Tehran’s missile attack on a US base on Monday.

In a phone call on Tuesday with the emir, Pezeshkian noted that neither Qatar nor its population were the target of the attack on the Al Udeid Air Base, the United States base in Qatar, and that it did “not represent a threat” to the Gulf nation, the Diwan (emir’s office) said in a statement.

“[Pezeshkian] stressed that the State of Qatar will remain a neighbouring, Muslim, and sisterly state, and expressed his hope that relations between the two countries will always be based on the principles of respect for the sovereignty of states and good neighbourliness,” the statement said.

Iran launched 19 missiles at the US base, which is the largest in the Middle East, with Qatari defence forces intercepting 18 of them, according to officials from the Ministry of Interior. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said it had launched this “powerful and devastating missile attack” in response to the “blatant military aggression” by the US on Iran’s nuclear facilities on Sunday.

سمو الأمير المفدى يتلقى اتصالاً هاتفياً من فخامة الرئيس الدكتور مسعود بزشكيان رئيس الجمهورية الإسلامية الإيرانية. https://t.co/xrn7hpCfPR

— الديوان الأميري (@AmiriDiwan) June 24, 2025

Translation: His Highness the Emir receives a phone call from His Excellency Dr. Masoud Pezeshkian, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

During the Iranian attack, a series of flares and loud explosions were observed in Qatar’s capital, Doha, as well as other areas of the country. Qatari officials confirmed that the airbase was evacuated before the attack.

According to the Diwan, the emir “reiterated Qatar’s strong condemnation” of the attack, considering it a “flagrant violation of its sovereignty and airspace”.

“His Highness the Emir also expressed that this violation is completely inconsistent with the principle of good neighbourliness and the close relations between the two countries, especially since Qatar has always been an advocate of dialogue with Iran and has made strenuous diplomatic efforts in this regard,” the statement added.

Iran and Qatar have long enjoyed fraternal relations, and the Qatari government has condemned both the Israeli and US attacks on Iran. But Qatar’s Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani spoke at a news conference on Tuesday of a “scar” to relations between Doha and Tehran that would need time to heal.

Earlier on Tuesday, Qatar’s Foreign Ministry said it sent a letter to United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and the UN Security Council, denouncing the IRGC’s “extremely dangerous escalation” and saying the attack posed a “direct threat to regional peace and security”.

The tit-for-tat attacks between the US and Iran come amidst the conflict between Israel and Iran, which began on June 13, after the Israeli army struck multiple targets inside Iran.

Hours after the attack on the Al Udeid Air Base, US President Donald Trump announced late on Monday that Israel and Iran had agreed to a ceasefire. Nevertheless, both countries have accused each other of violating the truce.

The ceasefire between Israel and Iran is already showing signs of strain – and has triggered frustration, and a televised expletive, from United States President Donald Trump, who accused Israel of undermining the deal just hours after its announcement.

The ceasefire, brokered by the US and Qatar, came into effect late Monday following days of intensive missile barrages between the two foes. Israel’s last wave of strikes targeted Iranian military infrastructure near Isfahan, prompting retaliatory drone launches by Tehran.

Iran violated the ceasefire, “but Israel violated it too”, Trump told reporters on the White House’s South Lawn on Tuesday as he departed for the NATO summit.

“So I’m not happy with them. I’m not happy with Iran either. But I’m really unhappy if Israel is going out this morning.”

“I’ve got to get Israel to calm down,” he said. “Israel, as soon as we made the deal, they came out and dropped a load of bombs, the likes of which I’ve never seen before.”

As he prepared to head to a NATO summit in The Hague in the Netherlands, Trump’s anger flared on the White House Lawn: “We have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the f*** they’re doing.”

A day earlier, Trump boasted on his Truth Social app that “the Ceasefire is in effect!”

“ISRAEL is not going to attack Iran. All planes will turn around and head home, while doing a friendly ‘Plane Wave’ to Iran. Nobody will be hurt,” Trump wrote.

Trump’s unusually public display of anger at Israel saw the US leader apparently trying to force his ally to call off warplanes in real time on Tuesday.

Earlier the same morning, he had posted on Truth Social: “ISRAEL. DO NOT DROP THOSE BOMBS” – without it being clear which bombs he was referring to.

“IF YOU DO IT IS A MAJOR VIOLATION. BRING YOUR PILOTS HOME, NOW!”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seemed to quickly accede, with his office saying in a statement on Tuesday that Israel still carried out one more attack near Tehran after Trump’s appeal, but is refraining from “further strikes”.

Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz had said earlier on Tuesday that he had ordered the military to mount new strikes on targets in Tehran in response to what he claimed were Iranian missiles fired in a “blatant violation” of the ceasefire.

Iran denied launching any missiles and said Israel’s attacks had continued for an hour and a half beyond the time the ceasefire was meant to start.

For his part, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said that his country would not fire at Israel if it was not fired upon, but that a “final decision on the cessation of our military operations will be made later”.

Despite the rocky start, Trump voiced support for the ceasefire itself, clarifying he is not seeking regime change in Iran, after some mixed messaging in recent days, and insisting that the ceasefire remains in effect.

If it holds, the truce would be a big political win for Trump in the wake of his risky gamble to send US bombers over the weekend to attack three nuclear facilities in Iran that Israel and the United States claim were being used to build an atomic bomb in secret.

US intelligence and the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog had previously recorded no indication Iran was developing a nuclear weapon.

Reporting from Tehran, Al Jazeera’s Ali Hashem said Iranian officials appeared to welcome Trump’s remarks, viewing them as a potential opening for diplomatic engagement.

“It might give the impression that Trump is serious about this ceasefire,” Hashem said.

In Washington, Al Jazeera’s Phil Lavelle, said Trump is feeling “quite annoyed” at and perhaps “betrayed” by Netanyahu violating the ceasefire.

“He was angry with both Israel and Iran. But you could really tell some of the extra anger there, the extra fury was aimed at Israel,” Lavelle said.

The US leader had said the truce would be a phased 24-hour process beginning at about 04:00 GMT Tuesday, with Iran unilaterally halting all operations first. He said Israel would follow suit 12 hours later.

Israel has been bombing Iran in an offensive that began June 13. The US joined the attack with a mission starting overnight Friday to Saturday against the deeply-buried and hard-to-access Fordow complex and two other sites.

Iranian officials say more than 400 people have been killed in air strikes. Retaliatory missile strikes have killed 28 people in Israel, the first time large numbers of Iranian missiles have penetrated – and on a daily basis – its much vaunted air defence systems, which mainly the US has provided.

What did Israel accomplish in Iran after 11 days of incessant bombing? Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed in his statement acknowledging the ceasefire that the Israeli goals have been achieved. Such an assertion seems problematic, to say the least.

At the start of the short-lived war, he declared two goals: “decapitating the nuclear programme” and “regime change”.

Was the nuclear programme decapitated? The answer is likely negative. It seems that Iran transported fissionable material out of the Fordow facility attacked by the United States. This stockpile is the most important part of the nuclear programme, so “decapitation” seems to have failed.

What damage, if any, did Israel inflict on the Iranian nuclear programme? That is also unclear. Israel managed to persuade the US to attack Iranian nuclear facilities using bunker-busting bombs, Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOPs), but the US did little else to help the Israeli offensive. The extent of destruction would be hard to evaluate since Iran is unlikely to grant outside access.

Has Israel generated “regime change” in Iran? The brief answer is that it has very much achieved the opposite. Israel attempted to trigger an uprising against the regime by killing military leaders of Iran’s various security structures. This strategy is based on the firm Israeli belief that the best way to destabilise an enemy is through assassinations of senior leaders. This has never worked. The only possible exception was the effect Hassan Nasrallah’s death had on Hezbollah in Lebanon, but that had a great deal to do with internal Lebanese political dynamics. In all other cases, Israeli assassinations have failed to create any major political change.

In the case of Iran, the assassinations rallied the people around the government. Israel assassinated the senior commanders of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), perhaps the most powerful element in current Iranian politics, but also one of the most hated by the Iranian public. Regardless, many Iranians who consider themselves staunch opponents of the Islamic Republic and especially of the IRGC found themselves supporting it. Iranians saw Iran in its entirety under attack and not just “the regime”.

Israel’s attempts to bomb “regime symbols” only made the situation worse. It attempted to spin its air strikes on Evin Prison, infamous for the torture of political prisoners, as a contribution to the struggle of the Iranian people against the repression of the Islamic Republic. But Israel’s bombs effectively worsened the situation of the prisoners, as the authorities moved many of them to unknown locations.

Bombing the “Israel doomsday clock”, which Israelis often employ as a demonstration of Iran’s commitment to Israel’s destruction, was simply pathetic.

Israel’s bombing of the Iranian state broadcaster IRIB was also absurd. Israel claimed it was curtailing the regime’s attempt to spread propaganda. As many Israelis pointed out, this bombing gave the Iranians the vindication they needed to threaten Israeli television stations as well.

If Israel did not manage to achieve its stated war goals, did it at least manage to rally the world behind it, to make the public forget about Gaza and recast Israel again as fighting the good fight? That seems dubitable at best. True, President Donald Trump and the US did strike Iranian nuclear facilities. By doing so, they violated several major rules of international law. This is likely to have long-term implications. However, Trump did not join the war alongside Israel. Immediately after the strike, the strategic bombers returned to the US.

Before and after carrying out the bombing, Trump iterated and reiterated his desire for a deal between the US and Iran, one that may also include Israel. It seems likely that the US president assisted Israel to serve his own interests as well as those of his allies in the Gulf.

While several world leaders, most notably German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, were quick to support the US strikes and “Israel’s right to defend itself”, no one adopted Israel’s stringent list of demands, which included that  Iran should not be able to enrich uranium at all.

The world returned to the formula of “no nuclear weapon”, with which Iran had already announced it was willing to comply.

When it comes to the operational development of the Middle East, the world appears to find Iran a legitimate partner for doing business. This is a loss for Israel and a victory for Iran.

The very real damage to the Israeli heartland should also be considered. Israel achieved aerial dominance over Iran very quickly and struck almost at will. Iranian missiles, however, repeatedly managed to penetrate the famed Israeli air defence system, strike at the heart of Israel and across the entire country, and bring it to a standstill while inflicting an unprecedented number of casualties as well as massive destruction. Israel was running low on interceptor missiles without hopes of immediate replenishment. The Israeli economy was quickly grinding to a halt. This was another triumph for Iran.

Iran emerged from the war bruised and bombed, suffering hundreds of casualties and real damage from incessant bombing around the country. But the Islamic Republic did not crumble, even when facing a massive Israeli force.

Iranian missiles hit home, Iran’s image was not tarnished (it was seen by most of the world as a victim of an Israeli attack), and Iran’s options for response were not severely constrained. Iran successfully de-escalated by warning in advance about its “retaliation” for the US strike on its military base in Qatar.

Iran was powerful enough to convince Trump to warn Israel not to attack after the ceasefire appeared to have been violated. Iran emerged as it prefers to emerge – still standing, and with potential for the future.

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

Zak Crawley is caught for 65 as India finally break England’s opening partnership, leaving the home side 188-1, chasing 371 for victory in the opening Test at Headingley.

WATCH / READ MORE: England v India first Test – day five

Available to UK users only.

Taiwo Adebulu got a grip on the story he had always wanted to tell in Kebbi State, North West Nigeria. Based in Lagos, the journalist travelled miles away to chase it, hoping to gather dozens of anecdotes from school girls abducted by terrorists. News of the 112 abducted schoolgirls had spread like wildfire, with major radio and television stations discussing it for weeks. Then, suddenly, everyone moved on as usual, but the parents and relatives of the abductees continued to rage in pain and anguish. 

Passionate about rejuvenating the lost voices of the girls, Adebulu, the Investigations Editor at TheCable, a Nigerian digital newsroom, flew to Yauri in Kebbi to interview the relatives of the abductees, who he found had been forced to marry the terrorists holding them captive. Someone had introduced him to two local fixers who had contacts with the victims’ families in Yauri. They agreed to meet, showing concern for the girls, who seemed forgotten.

He would work with them for three days to track the girls’ relatives. The journalist said it was an exhaustive journey. The fixers had feigned concerns for the girls, claiming to seek ways to secure their freedom. The journalist, who believes the stories of the forgotten girls needed to be told, thought their interests aligned. The situation changed when he was done conducting interviews and visiting the scene of the abduction.

Adebulu had offered the fixers ₦50,000, based on his limited logistics budget as a journalist. They had agreed on that amount before he left Lagos. Now, the fixers felt they deserved more; they wanted to be compensated well for taking the reporter around the community and connecting him to sources. For the journalist, it was a symbiotic relationship: “Help me tell the story of your people so that I can help amplify their lost voices.” The fixers, however, saw it as a transactional relationship — a clear case of sources for money. Tensions escalated when their intentions conflicted, and arguments ensued.

The journalist was then held to ransom, not by terrorists this time, but by the same fixers who had assisted him in telling the stories of the kidnapped girls. They demanded ₦200,000 for his release. “It was a hellish experience that I do not want to have again,” Adebulu tells me. Though he seemed to have moved on from the incident, his jittery voice gave away his anxiety. He bargained with the fixers, reducing the amount to ₦100,000 and pleading with them not to harm him.

Only the fixers knew his whereabouts – no one else. They had discouraged him from lodging in a proper hotel, citing security concerns. Instead, they took him to a nearly empty five-bedroom service apartment for safety. They threatened not to release him if he refused to pay at least ₦100,000. They issued this threat at night when everything was dark. Adebulu felt vulnerable and scared for his life, knowing he had no one to call or anywhere to run.

“We finally negotiated and settled for ₦100,000 that night. I made a ₦50,000 transfer and told them I would pay the remaining ₦50,000 the following day because I had a network issue. They claimed they didn’t receive the ₦50,000 I had sent, but I had already received confirmation that the transaction was successful,” he recalls.

“They then seized my iPhone, saying they would keep it as collateral if anything happened. My iPhone was worth around ₦500,000, significantly more than the ₦100,000 they wanted. So, it was safer for them to keep my phone,” Adebulu explains.

Anxiety and a sense of danger left him unable to sleep that night after his so-called fixers took away his phone. By early morning, he decided to leave the state immediately. After taking a bath, he contacted the fixers to ask if they had received the ₦50,000 he transferred the previous day. They denied it. To expedite his release and departure, the journalist sent an additional ₦100,000 that same morning. Following the second transaction, the fixers returned his mobile phone. They transported him by motorcycle to a nearby motor park, where he boarded a vehicle heading to Kontagora, Niger State in North-central Nigeria.

“When I arrived in Abuja and visited my bank, I was informed that both transactions, the ₦50,000 sent the previous day and the ₦100,000 sent the next morning, had been successfully processed. I immediately contacted the recipients and demanded a refund of the extra ₦50,000. However, they told me it couldn’t be returned; the money was gone for good. At that point, I realised there was nothing I could do. I simply had to accept the loss and move on,” he adds.

Throughout Africa, the number of journalists willing to cover violent conflicts is decreasing, not due to their choice. In Nigeria, these courageous reporters confront harsh realities: threats of murder from terrorists, assaults by government agents, and the emotional toll of witnessing human suffering. From 1992 to 2020, 1,378 journalists lost their lives globally, with many killed while covering domestic strife rather than foreign wars. Nigeria’s history is marked by violence, from the assassination of Suleiman Bisalla in Kaduna to the 2020 assault on Daily Post’s Sikiru Obarayese while covering the #EndSARS protest in Osun State, South West Nigeria. For every incident that receives attention, several more remain unreported. Despite the dangers they face, Nigerian conflict journalists are often deployed without trauma support, insurance, or adequate protection from their institutions. Their challenges don’t conclude at the battlefield; many return home burdened with emotional distress that goes unnoticed beyond the headlines.

For Adebulu, the story was told, but the emotional distress still lives with him. Although the investigative piece was later shortlisted for the Fetisov journalism award, arguably the most prestigious journalism laurel globally, his interest in such adventurous stories diminished due to the potential danger lurking around and the emotional that trailing them. It was an incredibly traumatic experience that he sincerely hopes never to relive. It was his first time facing such a situation: being held to ransom by fixers who seized his phone and left him genuinely fearing for his life.

“I wasn’t there for personal gain; I was trying to help the community by covering the abduction of the girls, shedding light on their harrowing ordeal, and documenting their stories in the hope of drawing much-needed support. Instead, I found myself in a vulnerable position, pressured by individuals who demanded an exorbitant amount of money simply because they had driven me around and arranged access to sources for interviews,” he says. 

The cunning fixer

Adebulu’s experience with deceitful fixers resonated with me, as I had a similar encounter while covering a story. In Niger State, a local fixer, Bago Abdullahi, is notorious for milking journalists, and he does this effortlessly. Swindlers are not only present in Kebbi and Niger states; this problem has become widespread for those striving to tell the stories of ordinary people caught in violence, especially in northern Nigeria.

As a chief investigative reporter at Premium Times in 2022, I travelled to Niger to unravel what I believed would be one of the most important stories of the time. I was determined to document the tragic story of six young girls killed during a Nigerian Air Force (NAF) surveillance strike in the small village of Kurebe.

The NAF had claimed that the operation was successful, targeting terrorists and criminal masterminds thriving in the community. However, I uncovered a different reality when I spoke to on-the-ground sources. The victims were all civilians, and those six girls, aged between three and six, were lost in a moment of sanctioned violence. Their homes were reduced to rubble, and both bombs and denial scarred their village.

Determined to uncover the truth, I travelled to the state to speak with the victims’ families, local eyewitnesses, and anyone who could shed light on what had happened. I knew the story I wanted to tell intimately, but I needed a local fixer to help navigate the complexities of access and trust. I found a man who initially presented himself as a defender of his people, motivated by a desire to see rural terrorism become a thing of the past in the state. He spoke convincingly, expressing his wish to share Kurebe’s story with the world. I believed him; his enthusiasm matched mine, and I thought I had found a genuine ally in the fight against terrorism.

I was wrong, as that facade quickly faded.

He demanded ₦250,000 upfront to transport five sources from Kurebe and neighbouring villages to the relatively safe town of Kuta, where I could interview them without fear of retaliation. I later discovered that the transport cost per person was under ₦3,000. One source mentioned that she received no more than ₦3,000 for the round trip. The fixer had told me each person would receive ₦25, 000. What happened to the rest of the money?  He pocketed it.

He had promised hotel accommodations for the sources but only provided them with a single, cramped room. When I confronted him about this, hoping to restore some dignity for those whose stories I aimed to amplify, he responded with further demands: an additional ₦100,000 this time, without any clear explanation.

I refused.

That’s when his demeanour shifted. The man who once claimed to be my ally became venomous. Insults poured in through text messages. He accused me of being ungrateful and hoarding the money my organisation sent. “You’ll win awards with this story,” he raged. “And yet you don’t want to give us our due!”

What he didn’t know was that I had received only ₦220,000 in total from my media organisation at that time, and I had been using my savings to make the trip happen. I wasn’t seeking glory; I was striving to document the truth.

Despite the insults, I completed the story, and it was published. However, I walked away feeling sickened by how easily noble intentions can be twisted by those who view tragedy as their currency. In the following months, other journalists confided in me that they, too, had been scammed by the same man – colleagues like Yakubu Mohammed, who faced similar deception, and Isah Ismail, a journalist with HumAngle, who had also fallen victim to his manipulative escapade. He was made to cough up ₦80,000 to connect him to sources who he claimed would be travelling from far places to Kuta, only for the journalist to realise that the locals were based there, not coming from elsewhere.

The pain of the Kurebe girls’ story stayed with me, but so did the sense of betrayal. It served as a reminder that even in pursuing justice, not all allies are who they claim to be.

Branded a betrayer

Yaqubu Muhammad, a Premium Times reporter, had even a more horrible experience while trying to document the plight of locals uprooted by war in Niger state. His story is similar to Adebulu’s but more worrisome, as it was a near-death experience. In 2020,  Mohammed was mistaken for a terrorist informant by soldiers surveilling the tense town of the Shiroro area in the state, causing him a life-threatening encounter.

His mission was to visit the hotspot of rural terrorism in Shiroro. He wanted to be in Kokki, Magami, Sarkin Zuma, and Uguwan Magero to tell the stories of victims of armed violence whose livelihood had been stolen by a new front of terrorists. Alongside Bello Kokki, his fixer, the journalist rode on a motorcycle for hours before getting to the hard-to-reach communities. He was initially scared, but despite the risk, Muhammad pressed on, driven by a sense of duty.

It took three hours for the journalist to travel from Lapai to Kuta. His fixer had picked him from there, riding him through farm fields and ghost villages sacked by terrorists. They had travelled through the ungoverned spaces unhindered, documenting the losses and the lives lost to terrorists in the axis. Later, they explored the Kwatai riverbank, speaking to dozens of displaced villagers who had built makeshift shelters. The sight left Mohammed in awe, pondering how people survived in such conditions.

“[…] the storylines were dotted with bloody tales through the teary eyes of sedentary villagers,” he wrote in a reporter’s diary. He returned to the riverbank, staying behind to continue his interviews, but his fixer had to leave due to fear of impending attacks. That night, he slept in a makeshift hut with other displaced people, unaware of the danger lurking around the place.

When the cock crowed the following morning, some soldiers stormed the camp. His face was strange to them; it was the first time they saw someone carrying a camera, wanting to speak to displaced persons. It was a satellite community, and it was hard to reach. “Oga! Let’s shoot him; he’s a bandit’s informant,” one soldier yelled. The soldiers dragged him out, accusing him of espionage. Surrounded by armed men ready to fire, the journalist says he was already imagining his obituary. The more he tried explaining that he was just a journalist trying to tell the story of locals caught up in the armed violence, the more he was looked at with disdain, insults and harassment. “You are a spy. You came to take pictures and send to bandits,” one of them insisted, with his pleas falling on deaf ears.

After a few hours of grilling the journalists, letting out the sweat in him, a senior officer intervened to de-escalate the situation. The officer asked the reporter to present his ID card and phone for verification. “You are lucky,” the officer said after verifying his identity. If not, you would have been gone by now.”

Scared for his life, Mohammed left the camp immediately, with his heart pounding. He believes surviving that moment was a miracle, as scores of journalists had been killed in a similar situation. The experience left a deep scar, knowing that the story could have been told with a bullet-pierced skin. The trauma was compounded by the fact that he had been trying to help, not harm.

Two years later, he shared the behind-the-scenes account through WikkiTimes, hoping to shed light on journalists’ dangers in conflict zones. “It was indeed an examination,” he said, referencing the mental and emotional toll. “I am no longer naive,” he wrote. “But I will not stop telling the stories that matter.”

Damilola Ayeni is another Nigerian journalist who has faced a similar ordeal with security operatives. He travelled to a terrorist-affected zone in the Republic of Benin and ended up behind bars, despite identifying himself. He was tracking the movements of elephants from Nigeria to the conflict zone of the Benin Republic, only to be detained by local authorities. He spent days in detention before finally gaining his freedom following media pressure. 

Numerous cases of Nigerian journalists facing mistreatment by terrorists, military personnel, and civilian groups often remain unreported or receive minimal coverage. According to the Wilson Centre, it is estimated that for every reported incident of journalist assault in Nigeria, there are at least four cases that go unrecorded.

“Appropriate legislation should be adopted to compel media owners to prioritise the general welfare of journalists, particularly those working in dangerous zones. Media advocacy groups and civil society organisations should also consider bringing attention and support to journalists working in dangerous zones,” says Olusola Isola, a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Peace and Strategic Studies at the University of Ibadan. “Media owners in Nigeria should consider providing personal protection equipment for journalists on dangerous assignments, as well as medical evacuation services and life insurance policies.”