money

Here are the key events on day 1,210 of Russia’s war on Ukraine.

This is how things stand on Wednesday, June 18:

Fighting

• The death toll from dozens of Russian drone and missile strikes on Kyiv early on Tuesday rose to 16, according to Ukrainian authorities. Two people were also killed in attacks on the Black Sea port of Odesa, according to officials.
• North Korea will send thousands of military construction workers and deminers to support reconstruction efforts in Russia’s Kursk region, Russian news agencies reported citing the head of the Security Council, Sergei Shoigu, who made the comments as he met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Pyongyang.

Diplomacy

• Canada scrapped plans for the G7 to issue a strong statement on the war after opposition from the United States, a Canadian official told reporters on the sidelines of the summit, the Reuters news agency reported.
• Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said he told the G7 leaders that diplomacy was now “in crisis” and they needed to push US President Donald Trump to use his “real influence” to bring an end to the war. “Even if the American President is not putting enough pressure on Russia right now, the truth is that America still has the broadest global interests and the largest number of allies,” Zelenskyy said on Telegram.
• Ukraine called for an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council after Russia’s deadly attack on Kyiv and other cities, Andrii Melnyk, Ukraine’s UN ambassador, was quoted telling Ukraine’s national news agency, Ukrinform.
• The Trump administration’s Ukraine envoy, Keith Kellogg, is set to meet Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko in the coming days, the Reuters news agency reported, citing four people familiar with the plans. Kellogg has in private cast the trip as a step towards reviving talks aimed at ending Russia’s war in Ukraine, according to Reuters.

Sanctions

• The United Kingdom announced sanctions on people and entities accused of being tied to Russia’s finance, energy and military operations. The sanctioned individuals include two UK residents accused of sending electronics to Moscow.
• Australia announced sanctions on 60 vessels linked to Russia’s so-called “shadow fleet” of oil tankers, following the lead of several of its Western partners, including Canada and the European Union. “Russia uses these vessels to circumvent international sanctions and sustain its illegal and immoral war against Ukraine,” Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade said in a statement on Wednesday.

If passed, the bill will establish for the first time a regulatory regime for stablecoins, a fast rising financial product.

The United States Senate has passed a bill to create a regulatory framework for US-dollar-pegged cryptocurrency tokens known as stablecoins, in a watershed moment for the digital asset industry.

The bill, dubbed the GENIUS Act, received bipartisan support on Tuesday, with several Democrats joining most Republicans to back the proposed federal rules. It passed 68-30. The House of Representatives, which is controlled by Republicans, needs to pass its version of the bill before it heads to President Donald Trump’s desk for approval.

Stablecoins, a type of cryptocurrency designed to maintain a constant value, usually a 1:1 dollar peg, are commonly used by crypto traders to move funds between tokens. Their use has grown rapidly in recent years, and proponents say that they could be used to send payments instantly.

If signed into law, the stablecoin bill would require tokens to be backed by liquid assets – such as US dollars and short-term Treasury bills – and for issuers to publicly disclose the composition of their reserves on a monthly basis.

“It is a major milestone,” said Andrew Olmem, a managing partner at law firm Mayer Brown and the former deputy director of the National Economic Council during Trump’s first term.

“It establishes, for the first time, a regulatory regime for stablecoins, a rapidly developing financial product and industry.”

The crypto industry has long pushed for lawmakers to pass legislation creating rules for digital assets, arguing that a clear framework could enable stablecoins to become more widely used. The sector spent more than $119m backing pro-crypto congressional candidates in last year’s elections and had tried to paint the issue as bipartisan.

The House passed a stablecoin bill last year but it died after the Senate, in which Democrats held the majority at the time, did not take it up.

Conflict of interest

Trump has sought to broadly overhaul US cryptocurrency policies after courting cash from the industry during his presidential campaign.

Bo Hines, who leads Trump’s Council of Advisers on Digital Assets, has said the White House wants a stablecoin bill passed before August.

Tensions on Capitol Hill over Trump’s various crypto ventures at one point threatened to derail the digital asset sector’s hope of legislation this year as Democrats have grown increasingly frustrated with Trump and his family members promoting their personal crypto projects.

“In advancing these bills, lawmakers forfeited their opportunity to confront Trump’s crypto grift – the largest, most flagrant corruption in presidential history,” said Bartlett Naylor, financial policy advocate for Public Citizen, a consumer rights advocacy group.

Trump’s crypto ventures include a meme coin called $TRUMP, launched in January, and a crypto company he partly owns, called World Liberty Financial.

The White House has said there are no conflicts of interest present for Trump and that his assets are in a trust managed by his children.

Other Democrats have expressed concern that the bill would not prevent Big Tech companies from issuing their own private stablecoins, and argued that legislation needed stronger anti-money laundering protections and prohibitions on foreign stablecoin issuers.

“A bill that turbocharges the stablecoin market, while facilitating the president’s corruption and undermining national security, financial stability and consumer protection is worse than no bill at all,” said Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat, in remarks on the Senate floor in May.

The bill could face further changes in the House.

In a statement, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors called for “critical changes” to mitigate financial stability risks.

“CSBS remains concerned with the dramatic and unsupported expansion of the authority of uninsured banks to conduct money transmission or custody activities nationwide without the approval or oversight of host state supervisors,” said president and CEO Brandon Milhorn in a statement.

When Iranian missiles began raining down on Israel, many residents scrambled for cover. Sirens wailed across the country as people rushed into bomb shelters.

But for some Palestinian citizens of Israel – two million people, or roughly 21 percent of the population – doors were slammed shut, not by the force of the blasts and not by enemies, but by neighbours and fellow citizens.

Mostly living in cities, towns, and villages within Israel’s internationally recognised borders, many Palestinian citizens of Israel found themselves excluded from life-saving infrastructure during the worst nights of the Iran-Israel conflict to date.

For Samar al-Rashed, a 29-year-old single mother living in a mostly Jewish apartment complex near Acre, the reality of that exclusion came on Friday night. Samar was at home with her five-year-old daughter, Jihan. As sirens pierced the air, warning of incoming missiles, she grabbed her daughter and rushed for the building’s shelter.

“I didn’t have time to pack anything,” she recalled. “Just water, our phones, and my daughter’s hand in mine.”

The panicking mother tried to ease her daughter’s fear, while hiding her own, gently encouraging her in soft-spoken Arabic to keep up with her rushed steps towards the shelter, as other neighbours climbed down the stairs, too.

But at the shelter door, she said, an Israeli resident, having heard her speak Arabic, blocked their entry – and shut it in their faces.

“I was stunned,” she said. “I speak Hebrew fluently. I tried to explain. But he looked at me with contempt and just said, ‘Not for you.’”

In that moment, Samar said, the deep fault lines of Israeli society were laid bare. Climbing back to her flat and looking at the distant missiles lighting up the skies, and occasionally colliding with the ground, she was terrified by both the sight, and by her neighbours.

A history of exclusion

Palestinian citizens of Israel have long faced systemic discrimination – in housing, education, employment, and state services. Despite holding Israeli citizenship, they are often treated as second-class citizens, and their loyalty is routinely questioned in public discourse.

According to Adalah-The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, more than 65 laws directly or indirectly discriminate against Palestinian citizens. The nation-state law passed in 2018 cemented this disparity by defining Israel as the “nation-state of the Jewish people”, a move critics say institutionalised apartheid.

In times of war, that discrimination often intensifies.

Palestinian citizens of Israel are frequently subjected to discriminatory policing and restrictions during periods of conflict, including arrest for social media posts, denial of access to shelters, and verbal abuse in mixed cities.

Many have already reported experiencing such discrimination.

In Haifa, 33-year-old Mohammed Dabdoob was working at his mobile repair shop Saturday evening when phones simultaneously all rang with the sound of alerts, triggering his anxiety. He tried to finish fixing a broken phone, which delayed him. He then rushed to close the shop and ran towards the nearest public shelter, beneath a building behind his shop. Approaching the shelter, he found its sturdy door locked.

“I tried the code. It didn’t work. I banged on the door, called on those inside to open – in Hebrew – and waited. No one opened,” he said. Moments later, a missile exploded nearby, shattering glass across the street. “I thought I was going to die.”

“There was smoke and screaming, and after a quarter of an hour, all we could hear were the sounds of the police and the ambulance. The scene was terrifying, as if I were living a nightmare similar to what happened at the Port of Beirut,” he added, referring to the 2020 Beirut port explosion.

Frozen by sheer fear and shock, Mohammed watched from his hiding place in a nearby parking lot as the chaos unfolded, and soon enough, the shelter’s door opened. As those who were inside the shelter began trickling out, he looked at them silently.

“There’s no real safety for us,” he said. “Not from the missiles, and not from the people who are supposed to be our neighbours.”

Discrimination in shelter access

In theory, all citizens of Israel should have equal access to public safety measures – including bomb shelters. In practice, the picture is very different.

Palestinian towns and villages in Israel have significantly fewer protected spaces than Jewish localities. According to a 2022 report by Israel’s State Comptroller quoted by the newspaper Haaretz, more than 70 percent of homes in Palestinian communities in Israel lack a safe room or space that is up to code, compared to 25 percent of Jewish homes. Municipalities often receive less funding for civil defence, and older buildings go without the required reinforcements.

Even in mixed cities like Lydd (Lod), where Jewish and Palestinian residents live side by side, inequality is pronounced.

Yara Srour, a 22-year-old nursing student at Hebrew University, lives in the neglected neighbourhood of al-Mahatta in Lydd. Her family’s three-storey building, which is around four decades old, lacks official permits and a shelter. Following the heavy Iranian bombardment they witnessed on Saturday evening, which shocked the world around them, the family tried early on Sunday to flee to a safer part of the city.

“We went to the new part of Lydd where there are proper shelters,” Yara said, adding that her 48-year-old mother, who suffers from weak knees, was struggling to move. “Yet, they wouldn’t let us in. Jews from poorer areas were also turned away. It was only for the ‘new residents’ — those in the modern buildings, mostly middle-class Jewish families.”

Yara recalls the horror vividly.

“My mother has joint problems and couldn’t run like the rest of us,” she said. “We were begging, knocking on doors. But people just looked at us through peepholes and ignored us, while we saw the sky light up with fires of intercepted rockets.”

Fear, trauma and anger

Samar said the experience of being turned away from a shelter with her daughter left a psychological scar.

“That night, I felt completely alone,” she said. “I didn’t report it to the police – what’s the point? They wouldn’t have done anything.”

Later that evening, a villa in Tamra was hit, killing four women from the same family. From her balcony, Samar watched smoke rise into the sky.

“It felt like the end of the world,” she said. “And still, even under attack, we’re treated as a threat, not as people.”

She has since moved with her daughter to her parents’ home in Daburiyya, a village in the Lower Galilee. Together, they can now huddle in a reinforced room. With the alerts coming every few hours, Samar is thinking of fleeing to Jordan.

“I wanted to protect Jihan. She doesn’t know this world yet. But I also didn’t want to leave my land. That’s the dilemma for us – survive, or stay and suffer.”

While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated after the attacks that “Iran’s missiles target all of Israel – Jews and Arabs alike,” the reality on the ground told a different story.

Even before the war, Palestinian citizens of Israel were disproportionately arrested for expressing political views or reacting to the attacks. Some were detained merely for posting emojis on social media. In contrast, calls for vigilante violence against Palestinians in online forums were largely ignored.

“The state expects our loyalty in war,” said Mohammed Dabdoob. “But when it’s time to protect us, we’re invisible.”

For Samar, Yara, Mohammed, and thousands like them, the message is clear: they are citizens on paper, but strangers in practice.

“I want safety like anyone else,” said Yara. “I’m studying to become a nurse. I want to help people. But how can I serve a country that won’t protect my mother?”

This piece was published in collaboration with Egab.

The crisis in Sudan has become ‘a grave human rights and protection emergency’, the United Nations mission says.

The UN Independent International Fact-Finding Mission for Sudan has warned that both sides in the country’s civil war have escalated the use of heavy weaponry in populated areas while weaponising humanitarian relief, amid devastating consequences for civilians.

“Let us be clear: the conflict in Sudan is far from over,” said Mohamed Chande Othman, chair of the Fact-Finding Mission, which presented its latest findings to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on Tuesday.

“The scale of human suffering continues to deepen. The fragmentation of governance, the militarisation of society, and the involvement of foreign actors are fuelling an ever-deadlier crisis.”

The brutal conflict, now in its third year, erupted in April 2023 between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), and has killed tens of thousands of civilians and displaced more than 13 million Sudanese, according to United Nations data.

The UN has previously said that Sudan is experiencing the world’s “worst humanitarian crisis”.

The mission found that both sides escalated the use of heavy weaponry in populated areas. In May, an RSF drone strike on Obeid International Hospital in North Kordofan killed six civilians, while earlier this month, an SAF bombing in Al Koma killed at least 15 civilians.

Aid was also being weaponised by the SAF, which imposed bureaucratic restrictions, as well as by the RSF, which looted convoys and blocked aid, the group said.

The mission also documented a sharp rise in sexual and gender-based violence, including gang rape, abduction, sexual slavery, and forced marriage, mostly in RSF-controlled displacement camps.

Member of the Fact-Finding Mission Mona Rishmawi said what began as a political and security crisis has become “a grave human rights and protection emergency, marked by international crimes that stain all involved”.

“It is unconscionable that this devastating war is entering its third year with no sign of resolution,” she said.

Sudan has seen growing instability since longtime President Omar al-Bashir was removed from power in 2019 after months of anti-government protests.

In October 2021, the Sudanese military staged a coup against the civilian government of Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok, leading to his resignation in early 2022.

Sudan’s army chief, Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and rival Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, who leads the RSF, had shared power after the coup but then started fighting for control of the state and its resources in April 2023.

Last week, the Sudanese Army accused the forces of eastern Libyan military commander Khalifa Haftar of attacking Sudanese border posts, the first time it has charged its northwestern neighbour with direct involvement in the civil war.

Egypt, which has also backed Haftar, has long supported the Sudanese Army. Sudan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs accused the United Arab Emirates of backing the RSF, which it denies.

Beirut, Lebanon – When Israel attacked Lebanon in September 2024, Fatima Kandil left her home in Beirut’s southern suburbs, known colloquially as Dahiyeh. As the area sustained wide-scale Israeli air strikes, many Lebanese fled Dahiyeh for other parts of the country or, like Kandil, sought refuge in Iraq.

Nearly seven months after the November ceasefire between Israel and the armed Lebanese group Hezbollah – an agreement Lebanon says Israel has repeatedly violated – rockets are lighting up the night sky once again. But this time, Hezbollah is not involved. Instead, Israel and Iran are exchanging direct military attacks.

“We don’t know how this will all end, so we are undoubtedly tense,” Kandil, now back in Lebanon, told Al Jazeera. However, she added that she had a feeling of satisfaction seeing missiles rain down on Israel. “Our revenge is being taken,” she said.

While Kandil’s sentiment is shared by some in Lebanon, others – those who see Iran’s support for Hezbollah, a group that has dominated Lebanon militarily and politically for two decades, as nefarious – cheered on the Israeli attacks against Iran. Many people in Lebanon told Al Jazeera they hoped that stability would prevail and that their country wouldn’t be dragged back into a prolonged conflict or subjected to the ferocity and frequency of the Israeli attacks it suffered last year.

“People are taking precautions,” Karim Safieddine, a Lebanese political writer and academic, told Al Jazeera. “Some are readying their bags.”

No intervention … yet

Early Friday, Israel struck Iran and assassinated several top commanders in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) along with top nuclear scientists. Numerous civilians were also killed, including children, according to Iranian state media.

Hours later, Hezbollah released a statement condemning the Israeli attacks and offering condolences for the slain Iranian officers. But analysts say the statement was a clear sign that Hezbollah would not be entering the battle in support of Iran.

“Currently, there is no need for Hezbollah to intervene, as Iranian missiles are capable of confronting the Israeli occupation,” said Qassem Kassir, a Lebanese political analyst supportive of the group. “However, if the situation escalates into a full-scale war, nothing prevents the situation from changing.”

Hezbollah, founded amid the Lebanese civil war in 1982 with Iranian backing and funding, draws much of its support from Lebanon’s Shia Muslim community. The group began firing rockets at Israel on October 8, 2023, after the start of Israel’s war on Gaza.

Israeli attacks in Lebanon between October 2023 and November 2024 largely targeted areas where Shia live, killing around 4,000 civilians and fighters, according to Lebanon’s Ministry of Public Health.

Many Lebanese are still reeling from the damage left by Israel’s attacks. Some remain displaced from their villages in southern Lebanon, which was razed. Hezbollah’s priority is to ensure that homes and towns are built in the area.

While Israel is still hitting targets around the country, mostly in southern Lebanon but occasionally in the Beirut suburbs as well, any resumption of military activity by Hezbollah would likely draw an even more intense Israeli response and further disrupt reconstruction efforts.

Much of Hezbollah’s military arsenal was reportedly destroyed during the Israeli attacks, though analysts believe they have retained some arms, including ballistic missiles.

Still, Hezbollah’s lack of intervention in the current Israel-Iran conflict is “evidence of their lack of capacity”, Safieddine said. Hezbollah may not have the means to intervene militarily.

The Israeli campaign on Lebanon also left Hezbollah’s political leadership battered. Many of the group’s most senior military figures, including longtime leader Hassan Nasrallah, were assassinated. The group’s political hegemony is now being challenged by the Lebanese state, with pressure from the United States and Israel, as it moves to disarm Hezbollah and bring the use of force under the state’s exclusive authority.

For now, analysts believe there is a consensus and understanding between Tehran and Hezbollah that the group will not intervene.

“Domestic political circumstances make it extremely difficult for Hezbollah to join in Iranian retaliation,” Nicholas Blanford, a nonresident senior fellow with the US-based think tank Atlantic Council, told Al Jazeera. “And the Iranians recognise they can’t call on them.”

The battle within

While Hezbollah is sometimes referred to as an Iranian proxy, many experts say the group is more accurately described as a close ally of the IRGC and the Iranian government with shared interests and a similar ideology.

During Israel’s heavy bombardment of Lebanon between September and November 2024, Iran’s intervention was relatively limited. Israel invaded southern Lebanon, and while Israeli troops have pulled out of most of the Lebanese territory they entered during the war, they still occupy five points.

“There’s resentment and unhappiness toward Iran by Hezbollah because they feel Iran let them down in the recent conflict,” Blanford said. Iran reportedly asked Hezbollah not to use some of its more lethal weapons, which analysts linked to fears of an Israeli response on Iranian territory.

As for Israel’s attacks on Iran, there’s no indication that Tehran has asked Hezbollah to get involved yet, according to Kassir, the analyst thought to be close to Hezbollah. But that might change if a protracted war draws in actors from around the region.

Blanford said he doesn’t expect to “see Hezbollah joining in full scale”, but noted that if Israel starts to struggle in its fight against Iran, it could lead to “some activity along the Blue Line”, the line traversing Lebanon’s southern border. If that happens, Blanford said, Hezbollah may look to carry out operations in the Israeli-occupied areas of Lebanon.

Israel’s plans for Lebanon and Hezbollah remain unclear, but the sound of Israeli drones, an ever-present buzz during the most severe days of the war, has returned to Beirut’s skies in the last few days.

“I wouldn’t rule out [Hezbollah’s intervention] entirely,” said Blanford. “But for now, it looks like they will stand on the sidelines and keep an eagle eye on what is going on.”

The Israel-Iran conflict is bringing more instability to the Middle East, a region with extensive United States interests.

They’ll be central to shaping President Donald Trump’s strategy.

So what’s at stake for Washington, and what are the pros and cons for Trump of further involvement?

Presenter: Nick Clark

Guests: 

Trita Parsi – executive vice president at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft

PJ Crowley – a former US assistant secretary of state

Niall Stanage – White House columnist at The Hill newspaper

As protesters in Los Angeles denounced United States President Donald Trump’s deportation policies, sometimes leading to clashes with law enforcement, Republican and Democratic politicians sparred over who has the bigger crime problem: blue states or red states.

California Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, took to X to challenge three elected Republican officials who had offered posts critical of California and Newsom’s handling of the recent protests.

🚨JUST IN: Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) calls for Governor Gavin Newsom to be arrested.

“Lock him up.”

“LA looks like a third world country — anarchists are in charge, law enforcement is being attacked, and the rule of law is nonexistent.” pic.twitter.com/v718Yau6wh

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) June 9, 2025

• On June 9, Senator Tommy Tuberville of Alabama said Los Angeles “looks like a third world country – anarchists are in charge, law enforcement is being attacked, and the rule of law is nonexistent”. Later that day, Newsom posted: “Alabama has 3X the homicide rate of California. Its murder rate is ranked third in the entire country.”
• On June 10, Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma posted: “America is sick of illegal immigration and weak, lawless liberal leadership.” He called it “rich” that Newsom was suing Trump to reverse the president’s federalisation of California’s National Guard. Later that day, Newsom posted: “If you want to discuss violence, let’s start with your state’s murder rate – which is 40 percent higher than California’s.”
• Also on June 10, Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders posted: “What’s happening in California would never happen here in Arkansas because we value order over chaos.” The next day, Newsom responded, “Your homicide rate is literally DOUBLE California’s.”

Newsom’s comparisons are close to accurate because he worded his assertions carefully to refer to the homicide rate. California has more homicides than any state, but it also has by far the largest population, and using the rate – which refers to homicides per 100,000 people – makes it possible to compare states on an even footing.

Stop reporting crime then your crime rate will be lower. So convenient for you. Unfortunately for you, we know the truth. https://t.co/AoCNo0FG5f

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) June 11, 2025

Some Newsom critics replied to his post by arguing that the numbers the governor used are unreliable because California has some of the lowest rates of reporting crimes to the FBI’s data collectors.

But this argument is a red herring: Newsom’s political office confirmed to PolitiFact that his data are from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). That means his statistics are not subject to concerns about low reporting rates (a problem that commentators have exaggerated).

California fares less well against these three states when measuring overall violent crime, which includes homicides, rapes, aggravated assaults and robberies.

What does the CDC data show?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention publishes data showing the number of homicides per state as well as the rate of homicides per 100,000 people. The latter metric allows a comparison of bigger states to smaller states.

According to 2022 data, the latest available, Alabama ranks third in the nation for its homicide rate with 14.9 per 100,000 people. (It trails Mississippi and Louisiana and also the District of Columbia, which generally isn’t considered comparable to the 50 states because it is essentially a city rather than a state.)

Arkansas ranks sixth with a rate of 11.8 homicides per 100,000 people. Oklahoma ranks 20th with a rate of 8.3 per 100,000.

And California? It ranks 30th with a rate of 5.9 per 100,000.

Alabama’s rate is about 2.5 times higher than California’s rate; Newsom said it was triple. Oklahoma’s rate is 41 percent higher than California’s; Newsom said it was 40 percent higher. And Arkansas’s rate is double California’s, which is what Newsom said.

California’s homicide rate is lower than Alabama’s, Arkansas’s and Oklahoma’s

“The CDC data are very reliable when it comes to death and mortality data because these come directly from coroners’ records and state health departments,” said Alex R Piquero, a University of Miami criminologist and former director of the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics. “They are among the most respected of all health data collections.”

Although the CDC’s data are from 2022, the 2023 FBI data show the same general ranking pattern. The FBI collects data from law enforcement agencies rather than coroners’ offices.

In its statistics, Alabama ranked third among the 50 states with 10.3 homicides per 100,000 people. Arkansas ranked fifth with 9.4 per 100,000, and Oklahoma ranked 16th with 6.1 per 100,000. California ranked 25th with 5 per 100,000.

“There is a lot of research on the variation of homicides across states in the United States, and both the CDC and FBI show” that Newsom is generally accurate, Piquero said.

One technical note: In his posts, Newsom flipped back and forth between referring to the “homicide” rate and the “murder” rate. For the CDC data, he should have exclusively used the term “homicide” because the CDC doesn’t use the term “murder”.

What about violent crime overall?

The data on violent crime are less favourable for California.

The data the FBI collected for 2023 show that Arkansas’s violent crime rate ranked fourth among the states, about 620 incidents per 100,000 people. California ranked sixth with 508 per 100,000 people. That was higher than either Oklahoma (15th with 414 per 100,000) and Alabama (19th with 404 per 100,000).

Our ruling

Newsom said California has lower homicide rates than Alabama, Arkansas and Oklahoma.

Data for 2022 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which criminologists consider a reliable source, show that California has a lower homicide rate than Alabama, Arkansas and Oklahoma and roughly in the proportions that Newsom said.

Data from 2023 collected by the FBI generally mirror the CDC data.

Looking at violent crime more broadly – a category that includes rape, aggravated assault and robbery in addition to homicide – California fares less well, notching rates higher than either Oklahoma and Alabama.

The statement is accurate but needs additional information, so we rate the statement Mostly True.

Sao Paulo, Brazil – In the far north of Brazil, where the Amazon River collides with the sea, an environmental dilemma has awakened a national political debate.

There, the Brazilian government has been researching the possibility of offshore oil reserves that extend from the eastern state of Rio Grande do Norte all the way to Amapá, close to the border with French Guiana.

That region is known as the Equatorial Margin, and it represents hundreds of kilometres of coastal water.

But critics argue it also represents the government’s conflicting goals under Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula Da Silva.

During his third term as president, Lula has positioned Brazil as a champion in the fight against climate change. But he has also signalled support for fossil fuel development in regions like the Equatorial Margin, as a means of paying for climate-change policy.

“We want the oil because it will still be around for a long time. We need to use it to fund our energy transition, which will require a lot of money,” Lula said in February.

But at the start of his term in 2023, he struck a different stance. “Our goal is zero deforestation in the Amazon, zero greenhouse gas emissions,” he told Brazil’s Congress.

As the South American country prepares to host the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30) later this year, those contradictions have come under even greater scrutiny.

Nicole Oliveira is one of the environmental leaders fighting the prospect of drilling in the Equatorial Margin, including the area at the mouth of the Amazon River, known as Foz do Amazonas.

Her organisation, the Arayara Institute, filed a lawsuit to block an auction scheduled for this week to sell oil exploration rights in the Equatorial Margin. She doubts the government’s rationale that fossil-fuel extraction will finance cleaner energy.

“There is no indication of any real willingness [from the government] to pursue an energy transition,” Oliveira said.

“On the contrary, there is growing pressure on environmental agencies to issue licenses and open up new areas in the Foz do Amazonas and across the entire Equatorial Margin.”

Last Thursday, the federal prosecutor’s office also filed a lawsuit to delay the auction, calling for further environmental assessments and community consultations before the project proceeds.

A government reversal

The fate of the Equatorial Margin has exposed divisions even within Lula’s government.

In May 2023, the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) — the government’s main environmental regulator — denied a request from the state-owned oil company Petrobras to conduct exploratory drilling at the mouth of the Amazon River.

In its decision, the IBAMA cited environmental risks and a lack of assessments, given the site’s “socio-environmental sensitivity”.

But Petrobras continued to push for a licence to drill in the region. The situation escalated in February this year when IBAMA again rejected Petrobras’s request.

Lula responded by criticising the agency for holding up the process. He argued that the proceeds from any drilling would help the country and bolster its economy.

“We need to start thinking about Brazil’s needs. Is this good or bad for Brazil? Is this good or bad for Brazil’s economy?” Lula told Radio Clube do Para in February.

On May 19, the director of IBAMA, a politician named Rodrigo Agostinho, ultimately overruled his agency’s decision and gave Petrobras the green light to initiate drilling tests in the region.

Petrobras applauded the reversal. In a statement this month to Al Jazeera, it said it had conducted “detailed environmental studies” to ensure the safety of the proposed oil exploration.

It added that its efforts were “fully in line with the principles of climate justice, biodiversity protection, and the social development of the communities where it operates”.

“Petrobras strictly follows all legal and technical requirements established by environmental authorities,” Petrobras wrote.

It also argued that petroleum will continue to be a vital energy source decades into the future, even with the transition to low-carbon alternatives.

Roberto Ardenghy, the president of the Brazilian Petroleum and Gas Institute (IBP), an advocacy group, is among those who believe that further oil exploitation is necessary for Brazil’s continued growth and prosperity.

“It is justified — even from an energy and food security standpoint — that Brazil continues to search for oil in all of these sedimentary basins,” he said.

Ardenghy added that neighbouring countries like Guyana are already profiting from “significant discoveries” near the Equatorial Margin.

“Everything suggests there is strong potential for major oil reservoirs in that region. The National Petroleum Agency estimates there could be around 30 billion barrels of oil there. That’s why we’re making such a major effort,” he said.

A ‘risk of accidents’

But critics have argued that the area where the Amazon River surges into the ocean comprises a delicate ecosystem, lush with mangroves and coral reefs.

There, the pink-bellied Guiana dolphin plies the salty waters alongside other aquatic mammals like sperm whales and manatees. Environmentalists fear exploratory drilling could further endanger these rare and threatened species.

Indigenous communities at the mouth of the river have also resisted Petrobras’s plans for oil exploration, citing the potential for damage to their ancestral fishing grounds.

In 2022, the Council of Chiefs of the Indigenous Peoples of Oiapoque (CCPIO) formally requested that the federal prosecutor’s office mediate a consultation process with Petrobras, which has not taken place to this date.

The federal prosecutor’s office, in announcing Thursday’s lawsuit, cited the risk to Indigenous peoples as part of its reasoning for seeking to delay the auction.

“The area is home to a vast number of traditional peoples and communities whose survival and way of life are directly tied to coastal ecosystems,” the office said.

However, in its statement to Al Jazeera, Petrobras maintains it had a “broad communication process” with local stakeholders. It added that its studies “did not identify any direct impact on traditional communities” resulting from the drilling.

But some experts nevertheless question the safety of oil exploration in the region, including Suely Araujo, who used to chair IBAMA from 2016 to 2018.

Now the public policy coordinator for the advocacy coalition Observatório do Clima, Araujo pointed to practical hurdles like the powerful waters that gush from the Amazon River into the ocean.

“The area is quite complex, with extremely strong currents. Petrobras has no previous exploration experience in a region with currents as strong as these,” Araujo said. “So it’s an area that increases the risk of accidents even during drilling.”

Still, she fears there is little political will within the Lula government to stop the oil exploration — and that awarding drilling licences could be a slippery slope.

“All the evidence is there for this licence to be approved soon,” she said, referring to the project planned near the river mouth.

“The problem is that if this licence gets approved — let’s say, the 47 new blocks in the Foz do Amazonas that are now up for auction — it will become very difficult for IBAMA to deny future licences, because it’s the same region.”

Oliveira, whose organisation is leading the legal fight against the exploration licences, echoed that sentiment. She said it is necessary to stop the drilling before it starts.

“If we want to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees [Celsius], which is where we already are,” she said, “we cannot drill a single new oil well”.

Israel has carried out strikes across Iran while Tehran returned fire with missiles as the foes traded attacks for a fifth straight day.

The ongoing violence on Tuesday came after United States President Donald Trump struck an ominous note, calling for the immediate evacuation of Tehran. Concerns that the US could spark a wider regional war should it enter direct conflict with Iran continue to build.

The Israeli military reported early on Tuesday that it carried out “several extensive strikes” on what it said were missile sites and other military targets in western Iran, striking dozens of missile and drone facilities.

Iranian media reported that loud explosions were heard in the northwestern city of Tabriz, home to an air force base that Israel has repeatedly targeted since it launched a surprise assault on Iran’s military and nuclear facilities on Friday.

Three people were killed and four injured in strikes on the central city of Kashan, Iran’s state-run Nour News reported.

A residential building was struck in Tehran, and three people were rescued from the rubble, the reports added.

Israel’s military said Iran had also fired more missiles, reporting that its forces were working to intercept them.

Explosions were heard over Tel Aviv and Jerusalem among other areas. Images showed plumes of dark smoke rising from the site of a strike in Herzliya as emergency services were deployed at the scene.

Israel’s national emergency service said 10 people were injured while running to shelters after air raid sirens sounded in Tel Aviv.

Israel claims another general

Amid the strikes, the Israeli military claimed that it had assassinated another senior Iranian military official.

General Ali Shadmani was killed in a strike by the Israeli air force in central Tehran through the use of precise intelligence, the military said, describing him as Iran’s wartime chief of staff, “senior-most military official” ​​and the closest military adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

Shadmani was reportedly appointed to his new post after Israel assassinated the former commander of the Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, Gholam Ali Rashid, on Friday.

Iran did not immediately comment on the claim, which came days after Israel assassinated a slew of Iran’s top generals as well as nuclear scientists.

‘Evacuate Tehran’

The attacks unfolded in the face of growing calls internationally for the bitter foes to de-escalate.

However, Trump, who left the Group of Seven summit in Canada on Monday, one day early, due to the situation in the Middle East, appears to be increasingly backing Israel, issuing ominous messages.

In a post on social media overnight, he warned that “everyone should evacuate Tehran immediately,” lamenting the “waste of human life” in the conflict and reiterating that Iran could not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.

He denied his exit from the G7 was to arrange a ceasefire.

“Publicity seeking President Emmanuel Macron, of France, mistakenly said that I left the G7 Summit, in Canada, to go back to D.C. to work on a ‘cease fire’ between Israel and Iran,” he wrote.

“Wrong! He has no idea why I am now on my way to Washington, but it certainly has nothing to do with a Cease Fire. Much bigger than that.”

Macron had said, in light of Trump’s early departure from the summit, that talks were under way and stated that an offer for a ceasefire had been made, but he did not specify by whom.

In a statement agreed at the summit before Trump’s departure, G7 leaders described Iran as “the principal source of regional instability and terror”, adding that Israel “has a right to defend itself”.

Israel said its attacks are necessary to prevent its longtime adversary from getting any closer to building a nuclear weapon. Iran has retaliated by launching hundreds of missiles and drones at Israel.

Another 26 are injured in blast near the city of Changde, Hunan Province, Xinhua News Agency says.

An explosion at a fireworks factory in southern China has killed nine people and injured 26 others, state media has reported.

The blast occurred at Shanzhou Fireworks Co, located near the city of Changde, Hunan Province, shortly before 8:30am on Monday, state-run Xinhua News Agency said on Tuesday.

During rescue efforts, 28 water tankers and two drainage vehicles were dispatched to the scene, Xinhua said.

Firefighters at the site of the blast reported “secondary hazards” and the risk of further explosions, adding to the difficulty of rescue efforts, according to the state news outlet.

“During more than 20 hours of uninterrupted and ongoing rescue work, firefighters used remote-controlled water cannons to extinguish flames at the site to prevent rescue personnel from approaching closely and reduce risks of secondary hazards,” Xinhua said.

The Hunan provincial government has established an inquiry panel to determine the cause of the explosion and “pursue accountability according to the law,” according to the report.

The incident is the latest industrial accident to draw attention to workplace safety standards in China.

Last month, at least five people were killed and 19 others injured in a chemical plant explosion in Weifang, Shandong province.

In April, at least 22 people were killed when a fire broke out at a restaurant in the northern city of Liaoyang.

US President Donald Trump left the G7 summit in Canada early, warning people in Tehran they should evacuate immediately. His departure fuelled speculation about US involvement in the Israel-Iran war. Al Jazeera’s Phil Lavelle unpacks what may lie ahead.

Oklahoma have one hand on the trophy after a win 120-109 over Indiana, whose star player Haliburton struggled in Game 5.

Jalen Williams erupted for 40 points as the Oklahoma City Thunder held off the Indiana Pacers to score a 120-109 victory and move to within one win of clinching the NBA Finals.

An enthralling Game 5 battle in Oklahoma on Monday saw the Pacers climb out of an 18-point first-half hole to get within two points of the Thunder in the fourth quarter.

But just as Indiana threatened the latest in a series of trademark comebacks, the Thunder found an extra gear with Williams and NBA Most Valuable Player Shai Gilgeous-Alexander steering the team to a pivotal victory.

The win leaves the Thunder 3-2 up in the best-of-seven series, meaning they can seal the NBA crown with victory in Game 6 in Indianapolis on Thursday.

Williams finished with 40 points, six rebounds and four assists while Gilgeous-Alexander co-starred with 31 points and 10 assists, four blocks and two steals.

“My teammates instil a lot of confidence in me to go out and be me,” Williams said. “And [coach] Mark [Daigneault] has done a good job of telling me to just be myself.”

Williams said Oklahoma City’s experience in Game 1 – when they blew a 15-point fourth-quarter lead to lose – had helped them close out victory.

“Tonight was the exact same game as game one, to be honest,” Williams said. “Learning through these finals is what makes this team good and we were able to do that.”

Pascal Siakam led the Indiana charge with 28 points but the Pacers were left sweating on the health of star point guard Tyrese Haliburton after the loss.

Haliburton, whose fitness has been under a cloud since game two of the series, left the game in the first quarter with a right calf problem before returning later in the contest.

The Pacers talisman finished with just four points from a bitterly disappointing outing – all of them coming from free throws – as the Thunder’s vaunted defence clamped down on the Pacers.

“He’s not 100 percent, it’s pretty clear,” Pacers head coach Rick Carlisle said. “But I don’t think he’s going to miss the next game.

“We were concerned at half-time and he insisted on playing … but he’s not 100 percent. There’s a lot of guys in the series that aren’t.”

Washington, DC – United States President Donald Trump has surrounded himself with a cabinet and inner circle that is markedly less hawkish on Iran than during his first term.

But analysts told Al Jazeera that it remains unclear whether the composition of Trump’s new cabinet will make a difference when it comes to how the administration responds to the escalating conflict between Iran and Israel.

Last week, fighting erupted when Israel launched surprise strikes on Tehran, prompting Iran to retaliate. That exchange of missiles and blasts has threatened to spiral into a wider regional war.

“I think there are fewer of the traditional Republican hawks in this administration,” said Brian Finucane, a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group, a think tank. “And you do have more prominent restraint-oriented or restraint-adjacent people.”

“The question is: How loud are they going to be?”

So far, the Trump administration has taken a relatively hands-off approach to Israel’s attacks, which Secretary of State Marco Rubio stressed were “unilateral”.

While the US has surged military assets to the region, it has avoided being directly involved in the confrontation. Trump also publicly opposed an Israeli strike on Iran in the weeks leading up to the attacks, saying he preferred diplomacy.

However, on Sunday, Trump told ABC News, “It’s possible we could get involved,” citing the risk to US forces in the region.

He has even framed Israel’s bombing campaign as an asset in the ongoing talks to curtail Iran’s nuclear programme, despite several top negotiators being killed by Israeli strikes.

Iran’s foreign minister, meanwhile, accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of “playing” Trump and US taxpayers for “fools”, saying the US president could end the fighting with “one phone call” to the Israeli leader.

‘Our interest very much is in not going to war with Iran’

Analysts agree that any course of action Trump takes will likely transform the conflict. It will also reveal how Trump is responding to the deep ideological rift within his Republican base.

One side of that divide embraces Trump’s “America First” ideology: the idea that the US’s domestic interests come before all others. That perspective largely eschews foreign intervention.

The other side of Trump’s base supports a neoconservative approach to foreign policy: one that is more eager to pursue military intervention, sometimes with the aim of forcing regime change abroad.

Both viewpoints are represented among Trump’s closest advisers. Vice President JD Vance, for instance, stands out as an example of a Trump official who has called for restraint, both in terms of Iran and US support for Israel.

In March, Vance notably objected to US strikes on Yemen’s Houthis, as evidenced in leaked messages from a private chat with other officials on the app Signal. In that conversation, Vance argued that the bombing campaign was a “mistake” and “inconsistent” with Trump’s message of global disengagement.

During the 2024 presidential campaign, Vance also warned that the US and Israel’s interests are “sometimes distinct… and our interest very much is in not going to war with Iran”.

According to experts, that kind of statement is rare to hear from a top official in the Republican Party, where support for Israel remains largely sacrosanct. Finucane, for instance, called Vance’s statements “very notable”.

“I think his office may be a critical one in pushing for restraint,” he added.

Other Trump officials have similarly built careers railing against foreign intervention, including Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who testified in March that the US “continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon”.

Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, who had virtually no previous diplomatic experience, had also floated the possibility of normalising relations with Tehran in the early days of the US-led nuclear talks.

By contrast, Secretary of State and acting National Security Adviser Marco Rubio established himself as a traditional neoconservative, with a “tough on Iran” stance, during his years-long tenure in the Senate. But since joining the Trump administration, Rubio has not broken ranks with the president’s “America First” foreign policy platform.

That loyalty is indicative of a wider tendency among Trump’s inner circle during his second term, according to Brian Katulis, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute.

“I think Trump 2.0 has a cabinet of chameleons whose primary qualification is loyalty and fealty to Trump more than anything else,” he told Al Jazeera.

Katulis noted that the days of officials who stood up to Trump, like former Secretary of Defense James Mattis, were mostly gone — a relic of Trump’s first term, from 2017 to 2021.

The current defence secretary, former Fox News host Pete Hegseth, has shown an appetite for conducting aerial strikes on groups aligned with Iran, including the Houthis in Yemen.

But Hegseth told Fox News on Saturday that the president continues to send the message “that he prefers peace, he prefers a solution to this that is resolved at the table”.

‘More hawkish than MAGA antiwar’

All told, Trump continues to operate in an administration that is “probably more hawkish than MAGA antiwar”, according to Ryan Costello, the policy director at the National Iranian American Council, a lobby group.

At least one official, US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, has sought to equate Iran’s retaliation against Israel with the targeting of US interests, highlighting the large number of US citizens who live in Israel.

Costello acknowledges that Trump’s first term likewise had its fair share of foreign policy hawks. Back then, former National Security Adviser John Bolton, his replacement Robert O’Brien and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo all advocated for militarised strategies to deal with Tehran.

“But there’s a big difference between Trump’s first term, when he elevated and very hawkish voices on Iran, and Trump’s second term,” Costello said.

He believes that this time, scepticism over US involvement in the Middle East extends throughout the ranks of the administration.

Costello pointed to a recent conflict between the head of US Central Command, General Michael Kurilla, and Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby. The news outlet Semafor reported on Sunday that Kurilla was pushing to shift more military assets to the Middle East to defend Israel, but that Colby had opposed the move.

That schism, Costello argues, is part of a bigger shift in Trump’s administration and in the Republican Party at large.

“You have many prominent voices making the case that these wars of choice pursued by neoconservatives have been bankrupting Republican administrations and preventing them from focusing on issues that really matter,” Costello said.

Finucane has also observed a pivot from Trump’s first term to his second. In 2019, during his first four years as president, Finucane said that Trump’s national security team gave an “apparently unanimous recommendation” to strike Iran after it targeted a US surveillance drone.

Trump ultimately backed away from the plan in the final hours, according to multiple reports.

But a year later, the Trump administration assassinated Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in a drone strike in Iraq, another instance that brought the US to the brink of war.

Who will Trump listen to?

To be sure, experts say Trump has a notoriously mercurial approach to policy. The last person to speak to the president, observers have long said, will likely wield the most influence.

Trump also regularly seeks guidance from outside the White House when faced with consequential decisions, consulting mainstream media like Fox News, breakaway far-right pundits, social media personalities and top donors.

That was the case ahead of the possible 2019 US strike on Iran, with then-Fox News host Tucker Carlson reportedly among those urging Trump to back away from the attack.

Carlson has since been a leading voice calling for Trump to drop support for the “war-hungry government” of Netanyahu, urging the president to let Israeli officials “fight their own wars”.

But Carlson is not the only conservative media figure with influence over Trump. Conservative media host Mark Levin has advocated for military action against Iran, saying in recent days that Israel’s attacks should be the beginning of a campaign to overthrow Iran’s government.

Politico reported that Levin visited the White House for a private lunch with Trump in early June, just days before the US president offered his support for Iran’s strikes.

But Katulis at the Middle East Institute predicted that neither Trump’s cabinet nor media figures like Levin would prove to be the most consequential in guiding the president’s choices. Instead, Trump’s decision on whether to engage in the Israel-Iran conflict is likely to come down to which world leader gets his ear, and when.

“It’s a favourite Washington parlour game to pretend like the cabinet members and staffers matter more than they actually do,” Katulis told Al Jazeera.

“But I think, in the second Trump administration, it’s less who’s on his team formally and more who has he talked to most recently – whether it’s Netanyahu in Israel or some other leader in the region,” he said.

“I think that’s going to be more of a determining factor in what the United States decides to do next.”

At the start of the G7 Summit, Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney said the world is facing a historic turning point. He warned that it is becoming more dangerous and divided, and urged world leaders to strengthen cooperation.

It’s been several days now since Israel launched its surprise attack on Iran.

The conflict has since escalated with each side launching dozens of strikes.

And because the warring sides don’t share a border, the attacks have largely been focused on air strikes.

While Iran may have the largest stock of missiles and drones in the Middle East, Israel’s air force is considered one of the most powerful in the world – and its air defence system, one of the most advanced.

And more crucially, Israel has the backing of the United States.

So is one military at a clear advantage?

Will the length of the conflict make a difference?

And are there other factors at play in this conflict?

Presenter: Nick Clark

Guests:

Mamoun Abu Nowar – retired Jordanian air force general

Marina Miron – military analyst and researcher in the War Studies Department at King’s College London

Justin Bronk – senior research fellow for airpower and technology at the Royal United Services Institute

The suit, brought by 55 attorneys general, will help compensate victims and fund addiction treatment programmes.

The attorneys general of all 50 US states, Washington, DC, and four US territories have agreed to a $7.4bn settlement with drugmaker Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin – the pain medication that allegedly fuelled a nationwide opioid addiction crisis in the United States.

The group, led by New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, announced the deal on Monday.

“While we know that no amount of money can erase the pain for those who lost loved ones to this crisis, this settlement will help prevent future tragedies through education, prevention, and other resources,” Platkin said in a news release.

“The Sacklers put greed and profit over human lives, and with this settlement, they will never be allowed to sell these drugs again in the United States,” Platkin added, referring to the family who owns Purdue Pharma.

The company’s payment is intended to resolve thousands of lawsuits against the drugmaker. The group of attorneys general said most of the settlement funds will be distributed to recipients within the first three years.

Payouts would begin after the drugmaker wins sufficient creditor support for its Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan. Money would go to individuals, state and local governments, and Native American tribes and the Sackler family would cede control of Purdue.

According to several attorneys general, Monday’s agreements do not include Oklahoma, which in 2019 reached a $270m settlement with Purdue Pharma and the Sacklers to resolve opioid-related claims.

Platkin said members of the Sackler family have confirmed their plan to proceed with the settlement.

The settlement will also help fund addiction treatment, prevention and recovery programmes over the next 15 years, according to the attorney general.

“This settlement in principle is the nation’s largest settlement to date with individuals responsible for the opioid crisis,” his office said.

Purdue has been the subject of a backlash for years over accusations that it fuelled the US opioid epidemic. The bankrupt Stamford, Connecticut-based pharmaceutical company was known for aggressively marketing its drug to doctors and patients and calling it nonaddictive although it is highly addictive.

Purdue responded to the settlement by calling it a “milestone”.

“Today’s announcement of unanimous support among the states and territories is a critical milestone towards confirming a Plan of Reorganization that will provide billions of dollars to compensate victims, abate the opioid crisis, and deliver opioid use disorder and overdose rescue medicines that will save American lives,” a Purdue spokesperson told Al Jazeera.

In June last year, the US Supreme Court rejected an earlier settlement that would have given the Sacklers broad immunity from opioid-related civil lawsuits. The Sacklers would have paid about $6bn under that settlement.

More than 850,000 people have died from opioid-related overdoses since 1999, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, although deaths have recently declined.

Washington, DC – A prominent Democratic senator has introduced a bill to require United States President Donald Trump to first seek authorisation from Congress before ordering military strikes against Iran.

The measure, put forward by Virginia Senator Tim Kaine on Monday, came amid growing calls by pro-Israel groups for the US to join the Israeli bombing campaign against Iran as the attacks between the two countries intensify.

“I am deeply concerned that the recent escalation of hostilities between Israel and Iran could quickly pull the United States into another endless conflict,” Kaine said in a statement.

“The American people have no interest in sending service-members to fight another forever war in the Middle East. This resolution will ensure that if we decide to place our nation’s men and women in uniform into harm’s way, we will have a debate and vote on it in Congress.”

The bill invokes the War Powers Resolution of 1973, passed during the Vietnam War to constrain unilateral presidential powers to engage in military hostilities.

The US Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, but successive US presidents have used their positions as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces to mobilise troops, initiate attacks and start conflicts without clear congressional authorisation.

Kaine’s proposal adds to the pressure Trump is facing from antiwar advocates in both major parties, advocates said.

Hassan El-Tayyab, legislative director for Middle East policy at the Friends Committee on National Legislation, said the bill sends a message to Trump against going to war with Iran and to the Israelis that “they’re not going to just get blank-cheque US support”.

It could also gauge the level of opposition to war with Iran in Congress, especially among Republicans. A growing contingency of right-wing lawmakers has been warning Trump against being dragged into a conflict that they said does not serve US interests.

‘De-escalatory signal’

While Trump’s Republican Party controls both houses of the US Congress, the resolution may pass if conservative lawmakers who oppose foreign military interventions join the Democrats in backing it.

To become law, the bill needs to pass in the Senate and House of Representatives and be signed by Trump, who would likely block it. But Congress can override a presidential veto with two-thirds majorities in the House and the Senate.

During his first term, Trump successfully vetoed two war powers resolutions, including a 2020 bill that aimed to curb his authority to strike Iran, which was also led by Kaine.

El-Tayyab said the 2020 push helped warn Trump against further strikes against Iran after the killing of top Iranian General Qassem Soleimani despite the presidential veto, adding that the current measure may have a similar effect.

“Even if it passes and Trump vetoes it, it still sends a de-escalatory signal, and it reminds the administration that only Congress can declare war,” El-Tayyab told Al Jazeera.

Trump has not ruled out US strikes against Iran. “We’re not involved in it. It’s possible we could get involved,” he told ABC News on Sunday.

At the same time, the US president has called for ending the war.

Israel launched a bombardment campaign against Iran on Friday, targeting military and nuclear sites as well as residential buildings and civilian infrastructure, killing dozens of people, including top military officials and nuclear scientists.

The assault came just days before US and Iranian negotiators were to meet for a sixth round of nuclear talks in Oman.

Iran has responded with hundreds of ballistic missiles, many of which have penetrated Israel’s air defences, causing widespread damage across the country.

Hawks urge Trump to ‘go all-in’

With Israel under fire and seemingly unable on its own to take out Iran’s nuclear programme – including facilities buried deep underground and inside mountains – the US ally’s supporters are calling on Trump to come to its aid.

“The US has the bombers to carry deep-penetrating bombs that Israeli jets can’t. … This will be a missed opportunity if some of Iran’s uranium enrichment capacity survives when US participation could have made a difference,” The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board wrote on Saturday.

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham also said the US should “go all-in to help Israel finish the job”.

However, many US politicians have cautioned against American involvement in the war. Trump ran last year as a “peace” candidate, slamming his Democratic opponents as “warmongers”.

Right-wing Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene said in a social media post on Sunday that Americans are “sick and tired of foreign wars”.

“We have spent TRILLIONS in the Middle East and we have dealt with the aftermath of death, blown apart bodies, never ending suicides, and disabling PTSD,” she wrote in a post on X.

“All because they told us propaganda as to why we must sacrifice our own to defend some other country’s borders and some other country’s borders.”

Some US lawmakers have also stressed that war with Iran without the approval of Congress would be illegal.

“The president cannot circumvent congressional war powers and unilaterally send US troops to war with Iran,” Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib said last week.

“The American people do not want another endless war in the Middle East that will cost lives and tear their families apart.”

‘Devastating regional war’

Antiwar advocates have long called on Congress to assert its powers over conflict. On Monday, several groups expressed support for Kaine’s proposed legislation.

“This is a critical moment for Congress to step in and exercise its constitutional authority to prevent the US from being dragged into another war,” Raed Jarrar, advocacy director at Democracy for the Arab World Now, told Al Jazeera.

“Democrats and Republicans should unite in rejecting any US involvement in a devastating regional war launched by a genocidal maniac – one that would needlessly risk American lives and squander national interest,” he added, referring to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Israel, which is carrying out a military campaign in Gaza that major rights groups have described as a genocide, has been warning for years that Iran is on the verge of acquiring a nuclear weapon.

While Israel has portrayed its strikes as “preemptive” to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, Tehran says the war was unprovoked and violates the United Nations Charter’s rules against aggression.

US intelligence chief Tulsi Gabbard had certified in March that Washington “continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon”. Last week, the International Atomic Energy Agency accused Iran for the first time in 20 years of breaching its nonproliferation obligations. Israel is widely believed to have an undeclared nuclear arsenal.

Chinese President Xi Jinping reached Kazakhstan on Monday to attend the second China–Central Asia Summit, a high-stakes diplomatic gathering aimed at deepening Beijing’s economic and strategic ties with the region.

The summit, which will be held on Tuesday in the Kazakh capital Astana, comes at a time when China is intensifying its outreach to Central Asian countries amid shifting global power alignments — and mounting tensions in neighbouring Iran, which is roiled in an escalating conflict with Israel.

The summit will bring together the heads of state from all five Central Asian nations — Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan — along with Xi.

The Astana summit also carries symbolic weight: it is the first time that the five Central Asian nations are holding a summit in the region with the leader of another country.

So, what is the importance of the China-Central Asia Summit? And is China battling both the United States and Russia for influence in the region?

What’s on Xi’s agenda in Astana?

On Monday, Xi was greeted by Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev and other senior officials at the airport in Astana. The Astana summit follows the inaugural May 2023 China–Central Asia Summit, which was held in Xi’an, the capital city of China’s Shaanxi province.

Xi is expected to be in Astana from June 16 to 18 and is scheduled to hold bilateral meetings with Kazakhstan’s leaders on Monday before the summit on June 17.

At the summit, he is expected to deliver a keynote speech and “exchange views on the achievements of the China-Central Asia mechanism, mutually beneficial cooperation under the framework, and international and regional hotspot issues,” said a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson.

The office of Kazakhstan’s president noted that both countries are “set to further strengthen bilateral ties” and Xi will also chair “high-level talks with President [Tokayev] focused on deepening the comprehensive strategic partnership”.

Tokayev, who has been in office since 2019, is a fluent Mandarin speaker and previously served as a diplomat in China.

Zhao Long, a senior research fellow at the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (SIIS), told Al Jazeera that Central Asian countries see their partnership with China as a deep, multifaceted cooperation grounded in shared strategic and pragmatic interests.

“The alignment with China helps Central Asian states enhance their regional stability, pursue economic modernisation, and diversify their diplomatic portfolios,” said Zhao. Where Central Asia has abundant energy resources, he said, China offers vast markets, advanced technology, and infrastructure expertise.

Last Friday, Lin Jian, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson, told a news briefing that establishing “the China-Central Asia mechanism was a unanimous decision among China and the five Central Asian countries, which dovetails with the region’s common desire to maintain stability and pursue high-quality development”.

Since China first formalised and chaired the China-Central Asia Summit in May 2023, Lin said, “China’s relations with Central Asian countries have entered a new era … injecting fresh impetus into regional development and delivering tangibly for the peoples of all six countries.”

“We believe through this summit, China and five Central Asian countries will further consolidate the foundation of mutual trust,” Lin added.

“During the summit, President Xi will also meet with these leaders and lay out the top-level plan for China’s relations with [the] five Central Asian countries,” said the spokesperson.

SIIS’s Zhao said Xi’s attendance at the second summit sends a clear message: “China places high strategic importance on Central Asia.”

What’s ‘C5+1’ – and is China racing the US for influence?

Experts are dubbing the China-Central Asia Summit as a C5+1 framework, because of the five regional nations involved.

The United States first initiated the concept of such a summit with all five Central Asian nations in 2015, under then-US President Barack Obama. But at the time, the conclave was held at the level of foreign ministers. Then-US Secretary of State John Kerry led the first meeting in September 2015 on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York.

In January 2022, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi held a virtual summit with the five Central Asian state heads, and then in June 2025, he invited them for a follow-up conclave in India.

Meanwhile, in 2023, Xi hosted the leaders in Xi’an. Four months later, then-US President Joe Biden hosted the C5 state heads on the sidelines of the UNGA in New York. It was the first time a US president met with Central Asian heads of state under this framework.

But current US President Donald Trump’s tariff policies could upset that outreach from Washington. Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan have all been tariffed at 10 percent.

Trump initially imposed an even higher 27 percent tariff on imports from Kazakhstan, the region’s largest economy, though as with all other countries, the US president has paused these rates, limiting tariffs to a flat 10 percent for now.

China has cited these tariff rates to project itself as a more reliable partner to Central Asia than the US. At the meeting with the foreign ministers of the region in April, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi criticised unilateralism, trade protectionism, and “the trend of anti-globalisation [that] has severely impacted the free trade system”.

The US, Wang said, was “undermining the rule-based multilateral trading system, and destabilising the global economy”.

Why does Central Asia matter to China?

The region, rich in uranium, oil, and rare earth metals, has become increasingly important to China as a key corridor for trade with Europe. Subsequently, China has increased its engagement with Central Asian countries.

Xi, who has curtailed his foreign visits since the COVID-19 pandemic, is visiting Kazakhstan for the third time since 2020. He visited in 2022, and then again in 2024.

Central Asia is also a critical part of Xi’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) — a network of highways, railroads and ports connecting Asia, Africa, Europe and Latin America — as a gateway to Europe.

Experts expect the BRI to figure prominently at the summit in Astana on Tuesday, with additional emphasis on collaboration in energy and sustainable development.

A planned $8bn railway connecting China’s Xinjiang region to Uzbekistan through Kyrgyzstan is likely to be on the agenda, the SIIS’s Zhao said. Construction on the project is scheduled to begin in July. Expected to be completed by 2030, the railway route will provide China with more direct access to Central Asia and reduce the three countries’ reliance on Russia’s transport infrastructure.

Additionally, Zhao said, the summit may feature agreements on reducing tariffs, streamlining customs procedures, and lowering non-tariff barriers to boost bilateral trade volumes.

How much does Central Asia depend on China?

A lot.

China is today the top trading partner of each of the five Central Asian republics.

• Kazakhstan imported goods worth $18.7bn from China and exported goods worth $15bn in 2023 — making up 30 percent of its total imports and 16 percent of exports.
• Tajikistan imported goods worth $3.68bn from China and exported goods worth $250m in 2023 — making up 56 percent of its total imports and 16 percent of exports.
• Kyrgyzstan imported goods worth $3.68bn and exported goods worth $887m in 2023 from China — constituting 29 percent of its total imports and 26 percent of exports.
• Uzbekistan imported goods worth $12.7bn and exported goods worth $1.82bn in 2023 from the world’s second-largest economy — representing 32 percent of its total imports and 6 percent of exports.
• Turkmenistan imported goods worth $957m and exported goods worth $9.63bn in 2023 from China — or 20 percent of its total imports and 62 percent of exports.

China is also ramping up its investments in the region. It has committed to an estimated $26bn in investments in Kazakhstan, for instance.

Is China replacing Russia in Central Asia?

It’s complicated.

Formerly parts of the Soviet Union, the five Central Asian republics have long belonged in Russia’s strategic sphere of influence. Millions of people from the five republics live and work in Russia, and since 2023, Moscow has become a supplier of natural gas to Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, which have faced energy shortages — even though Central Asia was historically a supplier of energy to Russia.

But though Russia remains a major economic force in the region, China has overtaken it as the largest trading partner of Central Asian republics over the past three years — a period that has coincided with Russia’s war on Ukraine. Some of that increased trade, in fact, is believed to be the outcome of China using Central Asia as a conduit for exports to Russia of goods that face Western sanctions.

Still, there are ways in which Russia remains the region’s preeminent outside ally. Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan — three of the region’s five nations — are part of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) — along with Russia, Armenia and Belarus. Like NATO, this bloc offers collective security guarantees to members. In effect, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan have the cover of Russia’s protection if they are attacked by another nation — something that China does not offer.