Iran releases mocking missile launch video after Trump threats
NewsFeed Iranian state media released footage showing the launch of missiles plastered with messages mocking Donald Trump following the US president’s threat to bomb Iran “back to the Stone Ages.” Published On 2 Apr 20262 Apr 2026 Click here to share on social media share2 Share googleAdd Al Jazeera on Googleinfo Adblock test (Why?)
US reinforcements are coming to the Gulf – but what does victory look like?
[unable to retrieve full-text content] Al Jazeera’s defence editor looks at how the US-Israeli attack on Iran has become a regional war
Can the US seize Iran’s enriched uranium – and what are the risks?
United States President Donald Trump is reportedly considering dispatching US special forces to Iran to seize the country’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium in what experts say would be a complicated and risky military operation. Ensuring that Iran has no nuclear weapons, nor the capacity to produce any using enriched uranium, has been one of the US’s main stated demands during talks with Iranian officials over the past year. It was also the central justification Washington used when it bombed Iranian nuclear facilities during Iran’s 12-day war with Israel last year and for starting the ongoing conflict in February, despite being in active talks with Iran at the time. Recommended Stories list of 3 itemsend of list Iran maintains that its nuclear programme is for civilian energy purposes only, despite having enriched uranium far beyond the threshold required for that. Iranian officials have stated they are open to discussing reducing the level of enrichment in past negotiations, but have refused to dismantle Iran’s nuclear programme entirely, a matter of national sovereignty, they say. In 2015, the former Obama administration negotiated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran and other nations. Under that, Iran agreed not to enrich uranium to high levels and to be subjected to frequent inspections. However, Trump withdrew the US from this agreement during his first term as president. Here is what we know about Iran’s uranium. What enriched uranium does Iran have, and where is it? Currently, Iran is believed to have about 440 kilograms (970 pounds) of uranium enriched to 60 percent – the level at which it becomes much faster to get to the 90 percent threshold needed to produce a nuclear weapon. That amount is enough, theoretically, to produce more than 10 nuclear warheads, International Atomic Energy Agency chief Rafael Grossi told Al Jazeera in early March. Advertisement At the time, Grossi said almost half of the 60-percent-enriched uranium was probably still being stored in the tunnel complex at Iran’s Isfahan nuclear facility. An unknown quantity is also believed to be stored at the Natanz facility. These two underground nuclear sites, along with a third at Fordow, were destroyed or badly damaged in US-Israeli air strikes in the 12-day war last year and have been targeted during the current conflict. Even if the US knows where the enriched uranium is, a military ground operation to extract it would face significant chemical, logistical, and tactical hurdles, however, experts say. How would US forces access the uranium? With great difficulty, military experts told Al Jazeera. Isfahan, where about half of the enriched uranium is believed to be stored, is more than 480 kilometres (about 300 miles) inland, hundreds of kilometres away from the nearest US naval ships. That means that US forces, possibly alongside Israeli troops, would need to be transported over a very long distance through an active warzone. They would also have to bring in heavy equipment, including excavators, as tunnel entrances are believed to be buried under rubble following US-Israeli aerial attacks. Once there, ground forces would have to secure a substantial perimeter around the site and then hold that territory for as long as the operation to dig the nuclear material out from the underground facilities may take. “To send advanced units to the cordon the area, to start an excavation project, the duration of which is impossible to quantify, all the while remaining safe from what would be nearly constant fire from Iran, this is risky and not feasible,” said Jason Campbell, senior fellow at the Middle East Institute. “I don’t see any senior planning military officer pursuing this,” Campbell, who was also a former senior US defence official in the Obama and Trump administrations, added. This image from an Airbus Defence and Space’s Pléiades Neo satellite shows a truck in the upper lefthand corner that analysts believe was carrying highly enriched uranium to a tunnel in the compound of the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center, in Isfahan, Iran, on June 9, 2025 [Airbus Defence and Space© via AP] Cheryl Rofer, a former radiochemist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, estimates that the uranium is most likely being stored in the form of hexafluoride gas. This gas is difficult to handle and reacts with water to produce extremely toxic and corrosive chemicals. Advertisement The uranium hexafluoride must be stored in small, separated canisters to prevent neutrons from multiplying out of control and causing an intense radiation burst. This means that the cylinders would have to be kept at a distance from each other and that any damage to them as a result of an air strike or an accident during hurried transport could trigger the release of toxic chemicals, posing a radiological hazard to nearby personnel, explained Francois Diaz-Maurin, editor for nuclear affairs at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, in an article earlier this month. There is also the option of destroying the cylinders on the spot, instead of transporting them. The US Army has three special units called Army Nuclear Disablement Teams, which are trained to dismantle and destroy nuclear equipment and materials. “But exploding the stockpile would chemically contaminate the immediate surroundings with toxic uranyl fluoride, creating a lasting environmental hazard,” explained Diaz-Maurin. Furthermore, it would be difficult to determine whether all cylinders had been destroyed, leaving the risk that Iran could retrieve enough to manufacture a nuclear weapon. “This is not a few helicopters and a couple of hours of activity – it is a much more complicated thing,” Ian Lesser, a distinguished fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, told Al Jazeera. “And you would [have to] have absolute confidence that you could get it all out, or you would give the Iranian authorities enormous incentive to move on next month or year with the nuclear programme to establish a deterrent against further aggression.” A much less risky approach would be for the US to strike a deal with Iran – something negotiators were attempting to do when the US and
FBI agents from US arrive in Cuba to probe lethal speedboat shooting
Trump administration has denied involvement after Cuban government says a boat of armed men tried to infiltrate island. By Reuters Published On 1 Apr 20261 Apr 2026 A technical team from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has arrived in Cuba to launch an “independent investigation” into a deadly shootout between local border patrol officers and a Florida-tagged speedboat. The United States embassy in Havana announced the FBI agents’ arrival on Wednesday, following pressure from officials to look into the incident. Recommended Stories list of 3 itemsend of list On the night of February 25, 10 Cuban nationals tried to enter Cuba by speedboat, armed with nearly 13,000 rounds of ammunition, 13 rifles and 11 pistols, according to authorities in Havana. Five were killed in the shootout that ensued. The others were wounded and were taken into custody, where they received medical attention, the Cuban government has said. The US embassy said in a statement the FBI trip to Cuba was part of a “thorough and independent investigation” into the incident. An embassy official told the Reuters news agency the US would verify Havana’s version of events. “Consistent with US policy, we do not make decisions in the United States on the basis of what Cuban authorities are saying,” the official said. “We will independently verify the facts and make decisions based solely on US interest, US law, and the protection of US citizens.” Tensions have soared between the two nations since January, when US President Donald Trump imposed a virtual oil blockade on the island after abducting and imprisoning Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, a crucial Cuban benefactor, on January 3. Cuba said the assailants were Cuban exiles who came from the US with the intent to sow chaos and attack military units. Advertisement A Cuban patrol of five border guard members on a nine-metre boat spotted the incoming vessel early that morning, about one nautical mile (equivalent to about 1.85km) off a remote channel on the Caribbean island’s northern coast, some 160km (100 miles) from Marathon, Florida. The infiltrators fired on the patrol from 185 metres away, striking the captain in the abdomen, Cuba said. Bleeding heavily, the wounded captain remained at the helm and steered towards the enemy vessel, leading to a firefight at a distance of about 20 metres. Trump’s Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the speedboat incursion was not a US operation and that no US government personnel were involved. Adblock test (Why?)
Iran war live: Trump claims goals nearing completion, vows to ‘finish job’
blinking-dotLive updatesLive updates, Iran denies seeking a truce and keeps up counterattacks, as US-Israeli raids cause deaths and damage across the country. Published On 2 Apr 20262 Apr 2026 Click here to share on social media share2 Share googleAdd Al Jazeera on Googleinfo Adblock test (Why?)
Magnitude 7.4 quake hits off Indonesia’s Ternate, tsunami warning triggered
The epicentre of the earthquake was about 120km (75 miles) from Ternate, in Indonesia’s North Maluku province. Published On 1 Apr 20261 Apr 2026 A magnitude 7.4 earthquake has hit the Northern Molucca Sea off the coast of the city of Ternate, in eastern Indonesia, triggering a tsunami warning for nearby islands. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) said Thursday’s quake, which was initially recorded at a magnitude of 7.8, struck at a depth of 35km (22 miles), greater than the early figure of 10km (six miles). There were no immediate reports of injuries. The epicentre of the earthquake was about 120km (75 miles) from Ternate, in Indonesia’s North Maluku province. Local authorities in some cities, such as Ternate and Tidore, were urged to prepare citizens for evacuation, while news channel Metro TV broadcast images of damaged buildings. According to the US Tsunami Warning System, dangerous tsunami waves were possible within 1,000km (621 miles) of the epicentre along the coasts of Indonesia, the Philippines and Malaysia. Waves of height ranging from 0.3 metres to 1 metre (0.98 feet to 3.28 feet) above the tide level could hit some coastal areas of Indonesia, the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center said. It also warned of the risk of waves less than 0.3 metres over tide levels for the coasts of Guam, Japan, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines and Taiwan.Japan may see waves of up to 0.2 metres (eight inches), but no damage is expected, the Japan Meteorological Agency said, as it warned a tsunami could occur in the Pacific. Indonesia straddles the so-called Pacific Ring of Fire, an area of high seismic activity where tectonic plates meet and earthquakes are frequen Advertisement Adblock test (Why?)
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?)