US Supreme Court to hear constitutional test of birthright citizenship
Washington, DC – If you are born on United States soil, are you automatically a citizen of the country? This is the question that will be put before the US Supreme Court on Wednesday, a response to President Donald Trump’s extraordinary effort to change longstanding interpretations of the country’s constitution amid his wider hardline immigration drive. Recommended Stories list of 3 itemsend of list Advocates challenging Trump’s efforts to do away with so-called birthright citizenship – in which any infants born in the US, regardless of their parents’ immigration status, concurrently become US citizens – hope to present what they see as an open-and-shut case to a nine-justice panel of the country’s top court. “This is one of the biggest issues for American society,” said Aarti Kohli, who will be present at Wednesday’s hearing as executive director of the Asian Law Caucus, one of several groups that brought the challenge. “It’s not just about what the executive order does, but it’s about the power that the president has to rewrite the Constitution.” Advocates have not shied from the difficult context of the highly consequential case, which they say risks transforming the cultural fabric of the US, inflating the number of people living in the US not afforded equal rights, and creating a “permanent underclass” for some immigrant groups. It will be brought before a US Supreme Court dominated by a 6-to-3 conservative supermajority. The panel has recently handed Trump a handful of major defeats, but it has largely leaned in the president’s favour on immigration. Advertisement “Every judge in the lower courts, regardless of which party appointed that judge, has ruled in our favour,” Kohli said. Trump’s executive order and the 14th Amendment Wednesday’s case before the Supreme Court represents the culmination of a months-long challenge to an executive order signed by Trump just hours after taking office on January 20, 2025. The order sought to effectively end birthright citizenship, long interpreted as established under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, ratified in 1868, three years after slavery was officially outlawed in the US. The amendment overturned the 1857 Dred Scott v Sandford Supreme Court ruling, which maintained that Black slaves born in the US were not US citizens. Instead, the 14th Amendment stated: “All persons born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Trump’s executive order argued the 14th Amendment “has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States”. It singled out the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to argue the constitutional amendment does not apply to those in the United States without documentation or on temporary visas. If further ordered, “no department or agency” is to issue or accept citizenship documents for individuals born to parents of those categories. The executive order said it would take effect for those born after 30 days of its signing, but its enforcement has been widely blocked amid ongoing legal challenges. What will challengers argue? At least 10 legal challenges have been launched against Trump’s order, but Trump v Barbara is the first to be heard before the Supreme Court. The case is named after one of the plaintiffs, “Barbara”, a Honduran citizen who was expecting her fourth child while living in New Hampshire in October 2025, awaiting the processing of her asylum application. Her co-plaintiffs include a woman from Taiwan – in the US on a student visa – who gave birth to a child in Utah in April 2025 and a Brazilian national, whose wife gave birth in March 2025. Because the case is a class action, it is brought on behalf of all people in the same “class” as the plaintiffs: children who would be denied citizenship under Trump’s order. Kohli, whose organisation brought the case alongside the ACLU, the Legal Defence Fund, and the Democracy Defenders Fund, said the arguments put forward on Wednesday will be relatively straightforward: Trump’s order directly runs counter to the “clear language” of the 14th Amendment. Advertisement A subsequent US Supreme Court ruling, 1898’s United States v Wong Kim Ark, further affirmed that a child born to non-citizen parents was a US citizen, the lawyers will argue. The concept was then codified in the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, which said: “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof … shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth”. The practice had previously been English common law. “If you look at the legislative history, it’s very clear that Congress understood it to mean that it’s any child who is born in the United States. Nowhere in the Constitution or in the [1952] statute does it say anything about the domicile of the parents,” Kohli said. “It’s very clear settled law,” she said. The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” has long been applied only to a very limited group of individuals, including the children of foreign diplomats, those born to invading armies while on US soil and those born on sovereign Native American territory, she added. Trump admin claims ‘misreading’ Beyond Trump’s executive order, Department of Justice lawyers have argued that more than a century of US practice has been predicated on a fundamental “misreading” of the US Constitution. In court filings, they argued the 14th Amendment was drafted for “newly freed slaves and their children, not on the children of aliens who are temporarily present in the United States or of illegal aliens”. They further argued that the Supreme Court ruling in the Ark case related only to non-citizens “enjoying a permanent domicile and residence” in the US, which, they said, precludes some categories of people living in the country. The lawyers, led by Solicitor General John Sauer, argued that the 1952 law’s language, which “transplants” directly from the 14th Amendment, should also be reinterpreted. While once considered a fringe legal perspective, the position broadly follows an argument laid out in the Heritage
UK PM says war on Iran will impact Britain’s future
NewsFeed UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer says the war on Iran will shape Britain’s future, warning it could have long-term economic and security impacts, but insists the UK will not be drawn into the conflict. Instead, he says London will seek de-escalation and more cooperation with European allies. Published On 1 Apr 20261 Apr 2026 Click here to share on social media share2 Share googleAdd Al Jazeera on Googleinfo Adblock test (Why?)
How are NATO allies pushing back against Trump’s Iran war demands?
EXPLAINER Trump says he is considering a NATO exit as allies resist cooperation in US-Israel war on Iran. Here are the fractures emerging within the alliance. United States President Donald Trump’s already fraught relationship with NATO allies is fraying further as the US-Israel war on Iran is in its second month. A growing number of partners are resisting Washington’s requests for support in the conflict, deepening a transatlantic rift. From the deployment of naval forces to the Strait of Hormuz to the use of military bases in Europe, Trump wants more support from US allies. But their responses remain lukewarm and so does the Trump administration’s enthusiasm for them. Recommended Stories list of 3 itemsend of list “I always knew they were a paper tiger,” Trump lashed out in an interview published on Wednesday in The Telegraph newspaper, saying he was strongly considering pulling out of NATO. The same sense of disdain towards the allies was echoed a day earlier by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who told Al Jazeera that if the transatlantic alliance was “just about defending Europe” but not the other way around, that’s “not a very good arrangement”. That, Rubio said, is going “to have to be re-examined”. Let’s get into the details of the growing rift. What allies have denied access to their military bases? Spain, the most vocal European opponent of the war, said on Monday that the country’s airspace is closed to US military planes involved in the conflict. “I think everyone knows Spain’s position. It’s very clear,” Defence Minister Margarita Robles said. Spain said last month that the US could not use jointly operated military bases in the war, which Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has described as “unjustifiable” and “dangerous”. In response to that, Trump threatened to cut trade with Madrid. On Tuesday, Italy’s newspaper Corriere della Sera reported that the Italian government denied US bombers the use of a military base in Sicily. The Italian government, though, rushed to make it clear there were no tensions with Washington and that each US request would be considered on a case-by-case basis. The United Kingdom has allowed US bombers to use military bases on its territory but only for defensive missions, such as striking Iranian military sites involved in attacks on British interests. On Wednesday, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said in an address to the nation: “This is not our war. We will not be drawn into the conflict. That is not in our national interest.” The US president has also hit out at France, saying it was “VERY UNHELPFUL” after Paris refused to allow planes “loaded up with military supplies” and “headed to Israel” to fly over French territory. Sources told the Reuters news agency the refusal was made as Israel wanted to use France’s airspace to transport US weapons to be used in the war against Iran. And Poland‘s defence minister, Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz, said on Tuesday that his country, which borders Ukraine, had “no plans” to relocate its Patriot air defence systems to the Middle East. “Poland’s security is an absolute priority,” he wrote on X. Advertisement The split over the Strait of Hormuz Reluctance in joining the war efforts among US allies was also evident after Trump’s repeated requests to help Washington in securing the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, a key waterway through which about a fifth of global oil and gas exports pass. Thanks to its geography, Iran has been able to bring traffic through the narrow chokepoint to a near-total halt by carrying out relatively few attacks on vessels there. Italy, the UK, France, Greece and other countries have all responded with a flat no to the request of joining a naval coalition to open the strait. German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius gave his country’s reasoning behind such a position: “This is not our war. We have not started it.” “Does … Trump expect a handful or two handfuls of European frigates to do in the Strait of Hormuz what the powerful US Navy cannot do?” Still, some countries do have the capacity to help, such as support in minesweeping. Starmer said London was discussing with other allies the possibility of using its mine-hunting drones already in the region. But that’s not what Trump wants. “All of those countries that can’t get jet fuel because of the Strait of Hormuz, like the United Kingdom, which refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran, I have a suggestion for you: Number 1, buy from the U.S., we have plenty, and Number 2, build up some delayed courage, go to the Strait, and just TAKE IT,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social account this week. Experts warned that comments from Trump and his cabinet members suggest mounting anger that could also take hold of the followers of the president’s Make America Great Again, or MAGA, movement. “These things can accumulate momentum in Trump’s mind within the MAGA community,” Samir Puri, a visiting lecturer on war studies at King’s College London, told Al Jazeera, referring to what he described as “visceral anger voiced by Trump towards the UK and other European allies but also by [Defense Secretary] Pete Hegseth.” As a result of the tensions over the war on Iran, he said, “The bond of NATO weakens further.” Could NATO allies really say no? Trump’s suggestion that allies should solve the de facto blockade in the Strait of Hormuz has added to concerns that he might be willing to end the war with Iran in control of the waterway. “What happens in the strait, we’re going to have nothing to do with,” Trump said. Should that happen, NATO allies along with the rest of the world would face even greater economic repercussions. Advertisement Already, the slowdown in marine traffic through the waterway has caused major disruptions to the global economy with shipping companies afraid of attacks if they send their vessels through. Oil and gas prices have gone up by up to 60 percent in
Venezuela’s ‘Chavismo’ movement faces a crossroads after US attack
A new economic partner? Libertad Velasco, a Chavista who grew up in the 23 de Enero neighbourhood, was only a teenager when Chavez came to power. She went on to become one of the founding members of the youth wing of Chavez’s party, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV). Eventually, she became the head of a government agency to expand access to higher education to members of vulnerable communities. Still, Velasco described the period after Maduro’s abduction as a sort of awakening. “It’s like we’re looking at ourselves without makeup,” Velasco said. “Now, everything is laid bare, revealed in its purest state, and we are beginning to recognise ourselves again.” Since the US attack and Maduro’s removal, Velasco has thought deeply about her “red lines”: the ideals she feels should not be violated under the new government. Standing up against invasive foreign powers remains one of her top priorities. “I refuse to be colonised,” Velasco said. “For me, we shouldn’t have relations with Israel, and abandoning anti-imperialism is non-negotiable.” Yet Velasco does not believe that the Venezuelan government has crossed that line yet. Rather, she is open to the prospect of the US as a trading partner to Venezuela, paying for access to its natural resources. “It is a customer who should pay market price for the product they need. If Venezuela must act as a market player to lift people out of suffering, I can go along with that,” Velasco said. Delia Bracho of Caricuao, Venezuela, says she has grown disillusioned with the Chavismo movement [Catherine Ellis/Al Jazeera] But it is unclear whether that is happening. Critics point out that the Trump administration has demanded greater control over Venezuela’s natural resources. It has even claimed that Chavez stole Venezuelan oil from US hands. Already, Venezuela has surrendered nearly 50 million barrels of oil to the US, with the Trump administration splitting the proceeds between the two countries. Rodriguez, Venezuela’s interim president, has also agreed to submit a monthly budget to the US for approval. Among Chavistas, there remains debate about whether the relationship with the US is beneficial or exploitative. But economic recovery is an overwhelming priority for many Venezuelans of all political leanings. Under Maduro, Venezuela entered one of its worst economic crises in history. Inflation is currently at 600 percent, and living standards remain low. Many Chavista loyalists blame US sanctions for their economic woes. Yet, analysts credit a combination of factors, including declining oil prices, economic mismanagement and pervasive corruption. Delia Bracho, 68, lives in a district of Caracas called Caricuao, where water is delivered just once a week. Once a committed Chavista, she said her faith in the movement has faded. Today’s movement, she explained, has been “ruined”, and she no longer wants anything to do with it. “It’s like when you put on a pair of shoes,” she said. “They break, and you throw them away. Are you going to pick them up again, knowing they are no longer useful?” Despite her initial fear after the US intervention, Bracho said she now feels cautiously optimistic that Venezuela might change for the better. “It’s not that everything is fixed, but there is a different atmosphere — one of hope.” Adblock test (Why?)
LIVE: Bosnia vs Italy – World Cup 2026 qualifying final
blinking-dotLive MatchLive Match, Follow our live build-up with full team news coverage before our text commentary stream of the FIFA decider. Published On 31 Mar 202631 Mar 2026 Click here to share on social media share2 Share googleAdd Al Jazeera on Googleinfo Adblock test (Why?)
Cuba crisis explained: Who holds power, and could Diaz-Canel be replaced?
Cuba is facing one of its worst crises in decades, as the Caribbean island contends with nationwide blackouts, fuel shortages and growing political uncertainty. The crisis comes as the United States increases pressure on the communist government in Havana. Recommended Stories list of 3 itemsend of list As recently as Friday, US President Donald Trump hinted that he might attack Cuba, following military operations in Venezuela and Iran. “I built this great military. I said, ‘You’ll never have to use it.’ But sometimes you have to use it. And Cuba is next,” he said. Trump’s threats have raised questions about the future of Cuba’s leadership and whether political change could be on the horizon. Here is what to know about the US campaign against Cuba’s government and the powerful figures who lead Havana: What is happening in Cuba? Nearly every aspect of Cuban society is under strain amid a de facto US oil blockade. The island relies on imported oil to generate electricity and run public transport. But fuel shipments have largely stopped since January. On January 11, Trump announced that no more oil or funding would come from Cuba’s close ally Venezuela, following a US attack on that country. Then, on January 29, he issued an executive order threatening tariffs against any country that supplies Cuba with fuel. Since then, only one tanker has reached the island: On Tuesday, a Russian vessel carrying 730,000 barrels of oil arrived in Havana’s harbour. But it is unclear how far one ship will go in addressing the island’s oil crisis. The depletion of the island’s fuel supply has pushed the nation’s already fragile infrastructure past its breaking point. Advertisement In March alone, Cuba faced two island-wide blackouts, as well as regional power outages. Analysts have blamed both US policy and ongoing problems with Cuba’s ageing power grid. But the result has left nearly 10 million Cubans in complete darkness. Residents walk down a street during a national power outage in Havana, Cuba, on March 21 [Ernesto Mastrascusa/EPA] The effects are being felt across daily life. The fuel shortage is disrupting water systems and food distribution across the island. Litter is piling up in Havana because rubbish trucks lack fuel. Hospitals are limiting surgeries. Public transport has been reduced. And many people have resorted to using wood fires to cook and heat water. Reporting from Havana, journalist Ed Augustin told Al Jazeera’s The Take that the crisis is “absolutely eviscerating every part of life”. In Havana, residents face blackouts lasting up to 15 hours a day, while in some rural areas, outages can last far longer, sometimes stretching into more than a full day without electricity. “Cubans are living in unbearable conditions, and that is clearly part of what this policy is designed to do,” Augustin said. A person shines a torch during a power outage in Havana, Cuba, on March 4, 2026 [Ernesto Mastrascusa/EPA] What is the human cost of the fuel shortage? The United Nations has warned of a possible humanitarian “collapse” in Cuba as a result of the fuel shortages. Journalists like Augustin warn that there is a human cost to steep economic sanctions like those the US has imposed on Cuba. “It’s worth pointing out: Sanctions kill,” Augustin said. “There’s a lot of academic literature that show that sanctions kill.” He pointed to a 2025 study in The Lancet Global Health journal, which estimated that 564,000 excess deaths each year were linked to economic sanctions. Augustin added that children are especially vulnerable. “I’ve been going to various Cuban hospitals, and the Cuban doctors are telling me that the infant mortality rate this year is rising,” Augustin said. “And it’s rising because staff can’t get to work, because there are no buses. It’s rising because cleaners can’t get to work, so more children and mothers are getting sepsis. It’s because prenatals [vitamins] and folic acid are not getting to mothers. Milk is not getting to children.” Faced with international criticism, Trump in recent weeks has signalled he may loosen the oil embargo, allowing a Russian vessel to reach Havana. Mexico too has indicated it may resume oil shipments to Cuba. Advertisement How long have Cuba and the US been at odds? Current tensions with Cuba stretch back to the Cold War, when the US took an adversarial stance against left-wing governments throughout the Americas. The Cuban Revolution in the 1950s led to the overthrow of a US-backed, military-led government, and by the early 1960s, the US had placed the island under a comprehensive trade embargo, designed to weaken Havana’s new communist leadership. “No country in modern history, at least since the French Revolution, has been sanctioned as long as Cuba has been sanctioned,” Augustin said. But the pressure has intensified under President Trump, who tightened economic restrictions on Cuba during his first term, from 2017 to 2021. Since returning to office in 2025, Trump has labelled Cuba an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to US security and has threatened a “takeover” of the island. The energy blockade is part of that campaign, Augustin explained. “The US is purposely de-industrialising Cuba,” Augustin said. “By targeting energy, it’s targeting all of the infrastructure on which life depends.” Who holds power in Cuba? Although Miguel Diaz-Canel is Cuba’s president, power in Cuba does not sit with the presidency alone. Cuba is a one-party state, and the most powerful institution in the country is the Communist Party of Cuba, which is defined in its constitution as the “leading force of the state and society”. In practice, this means the party — not the government — sets the country’s political direction. While Diaz-Canel is the secretary-general of Cuba’s Communist Party, analysts say there are signals he might not be the one deciding the country’s future. The US and Cuba are currently in negotiations, and reports have emerged that the Trump administration is pressuring other powerful Cuban leaders to remove Diaz-Canel from power. “Politically, I think what is happening is that we are seeing the real
Pentagon denies that Hegseth’s broker sought investment before Iran war
US Department of Defense demands retraction of report alleging broker sought multimillion-dollar investment for Hegseth. Published On 31 Mar 202631 Mar 2026 The United States Department of Defense has demanded the retraction of a newspaper report alleging that a broker for defence chief Pete Hegseth attempted to make a large investment in weapons companies in the run-up to the war on Iran. Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell demanded the “immediate” retraction on Monday after The Financial Times reported that a wealth manager for the defence secretary contacted BlackRock about making a multimillion-dollar investment in a defence-related fund in the weeks leading up to the war. Recommended Stories list of 4 itemsend of list Hegseth’s broker at Morgan Stanley ultimately did not go ahead with the investment in the exchange-traded fund, whose holdings include Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, because it was not yet available for purchase at the time, The Financial Times reported, citing three unnamed sources. “This allegation is entirely false and fabricated. Neither Secretary Hegseth nor any of his representatives approached BlackRock about any such investment,” Parnell said in a post on social media. “This is yet another baseless, dishonest smear designed to mislead the public.” Hegseth and his department “remain unwavering in their commitment to the highest standards of ethics and strict adherence to all applicable laws and regulations,” Parnell said. Al Jazeera could not independently confirm the Financial Times report. The Defense Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment sent outside of usual business hours. The Financial Times and Morgan Stanley also did not immediately respond to inquiries. Advertisement BlackRock declined to comment. The report comes amid scrutiny of well-timed trades in financial and prediction markets that have fuelled speculation that figures with insider knowledge may be profiting off of US President Donald Trump’s war plans. While The Financial Times reported that the attempted investment by Hesgeth’s broker did not go ahead, the defence chief would not have made money on such a purchase in the month since the war began. While the iShares Defense Industrials Active ETF has risen more than 25 percent over the past year, it has fallen nearly 13 percent since the US and Israel launched strikes on Iran on February 28. Adblock test (Why?)
Activist Nerdeen Kiswani: ‘I feel more threatened than ever before’
NewsFeed Days after the FBI foiled an alleged assassination plot, Palestinian-American activist Nerdeen Kiswani says she feels ‘more threatened than ever before’. But she’s vowed to continue her advocacy because the Palestinian ‘struggle for justice and liberation matters’. Published On 31 Mar 202631 Mar 2026 Click here to share on social media share2 Share googleAdd Al Jazeera on Googleinfo Adblock test (Why?)
What we learned from Al Jazeera’s interview with Marco Rubio
NewsFeed US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Al Jazeera that the US war on Iran will be over in a matter of ‘weeks’, but some experts cast doubt on that timeframe along with other claims he made in our exclusive interview. Published On 31 Mar 202631 Mar 2026 Click here to share on social media share2 Share googleAdd Al Jazeera on Googleinfo Adblock test (Why?)
Rubio tells Al Jazeera that Strait of Hormuz to reopen ‘one way or another’
United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio has told Al Jazeera that the Strait of Hormuz will “reopen one way or another” in the wake of the eventual end of the US-Israeli war with Iran. The exclusive interview on Monday came as speculation has grown over a possible US troop deployment in Iran and as the effective closure of the strait continues to roil global oil markets. US boots on the ground would represent a new phase in the grinding conflict, which began on February 28 with US-Israeli strikes, even as US President Donald Trump has repeatedly said that the US is pursuing diplomacy with Iran. Rubio again maintained there were “messages and some direct talks going on between some inside of Iran and the United States, primarily through intermediaries, but there’s been some conversation”. Iran has repeatedly denied that talks were ongoing. Pakistan on Sunday said it would host direct talks “in the coming days for a comprehensive and lasting settlement of the ongoing conflict”. Rubio added that Trump “always prefers diplomacy, always prefers an outcome..and we could have done this before”. The Trump administration had previously pursued indirect talks with Iran to curtail its nuclear programme. One round of talks was derailed last year with Israel’s 12-day war against Iran, which ended with US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facility. A second round of diplomacy was under way when the US and Israel began the latest war. Rubio again indicated the US administration’s preference for regime change in Iran, which the US and Israel have so far been unable to achieve despite several high-profile assassinations, including the killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Advertisement “We would always welcome a scenario in which Iran was led by people that had a different view of the future and had a different view,” he said. “And if that opportunity presents itself, we’re going to take it”. “The people of Iran are incredible people, very resourceful, very entrepreneurial,” he added. “But it’s their regime that’s been a problem. And instead, they’ve chosen to spend the wealth of their country to support Hezbollah and Hamas and Shiite militias inside of Iraq, and to try to destabilise Syria when [Bashar al-Assad] was there,” he said. Nuclear and ballistic weapons Rubio further called on Iran to end its nuclear programme and to curtail its drone and missile programme. He accused Iran of seeking nuclear weapons to “threaten and blackmail the world”, a claim Tehran has for years denied, maintaining its nuclear programme was only for civilian purposes. On Monday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump was considering a US Special Forces operation to seize enriched uranium stored in Iran. Military experts have warned throughout the war that US and Israeli air strikes alone would not be able to destroy Iran’s capabilities. In a statement to Al Jazeera, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt did not deny the report, but said: “It’s the job of the Pentagon to make preparations in order to give the Commander-in-Chief maximum optionality. It does not mean the President has made a decision.” Rubio said Iran “need to stop sponsoring terrorism, and they need to stop building weapons that can threaten their neighbours,” adding that the “short range missiles that they’re launching, they only have one purpose, and that is to attack Saudi Arabia and the UAE and Qatar and Kuwait and Bahrain.” Turning to the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has effectively closed to open traffic, Rubio voiced optimism it would be reopened when the conflict ends. “The Strait of Hormuz will reopen one way or another once our military operation in Iran is over,” Rubio said. “The strait will reopen either with Iran’s consent or through an international coalition including the US.” He threatened “severe consequences” if Iran closes the strait after the fighting ends. The US has previously sought to raise a coalition to protect ships in the Strait of Hormuz, but has faced wariness from many traditional allies concerned over tacit entry into the conflict. ‘Our objectives in Iran are clear’ Rubio’s statements on Monday broadly reflected a list of demands put forth by Washington to end the war. Advertisement Iran has rejected the proposal, with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian releasing its own list of demands, including “recognising Iran’s legitimate rights, payment of reparations, and firm int’l guarantees against future aggression”. For his part, Trump told the Financial Times in an interview published on Sunday that he hopes to “take the oil in Iran” including by possibly seizing the key export hub of Kharg Island. “Maybe we take Kharg Island, maybe we don’t. We have a lot of options,” he added. “It would also mean we had to be there [on Kharg Island] for a while.” The Trump administration has presented a carousel of objectives in the war, including degrading Iran’s military capability, preventing it from ever developing a nuclear weapon, and helping to foment regime change. However, its endgame has remained unclear, with its final goals possibly diverging from Israel, which has pushed for more comprehensive regime change. To date, at least 1,937 people have been killed in Iran since the war began, with at least 20 killed in Israel, 26 killed across the Gulf states and 13 US soldiers killed. Rubio told Al Jazeera that the administration did not expect the war to drag on indefinitely. “Our objectives in Iran are clear, and we will achieve them within weeks, not months,” he said. Adblock test (Why?)