Argentina’s Milei sings and lights torch for Israeli national day
NewsFeed Argentine President Javier Milei sang and lit a ceremonial torch at Israel’s 78th Independence Day celebrations. Milei has doubled down on relations with Israel at a time when other leaders are distancing themselves. Published On 22 Apr 202622 Apr 2026 Click here to share on social media share-nodes Share googleAdd Al Jazeera on Googleinfo Adblock test (Why?)
FIFA unlocks more World Cup tickets and adds new, more expensive categories
Football’s governing body puts more tickets on sale but has introduced new premium-priced tiers that angered some fans. Published On 22 Apr 202622 Apr 2026 The International Federation of Association Football (FIFA) is putting more World Cup tickets on sale after angering some fans by adding new, more expensive categories. FIFA announced on Tuesday that it would make more tickets available at 11am EDT (15:00 GMT) on Wednesday for all 104 games in Categories 1, 2 and 3, in addition to the new “front category” pricing it added this month. Recommended Stories list of 3 itemsend of list The new category led to online complaints from fans, who said they had thought that the better seats in the categories they had bought tickets for were withheld, and they had been assigned less favourable locations. FIFA in December put tickets on sale at prices ranging from $140 for Category 3 in the first round to $8,680 for the final, then raised prices to as much as $10,990 when sales reopened on April 1. FIFA did not respond to an April 9 request for comment about the new ticket categories it added. Also on Tuesday, The Athletic reported that ticket sales are lagging for the US opener against Paraguay on June 12 at Inglewood, California. It said a document distributed to local organisers, dated April 10, said that 40,934 tickets had been bought for the US-Paraguay game, and 50,661 were bought for the Iran-New Zealand contest on April 15. FIFA projects the capacity at the Los Angeles SoFi Stadium, where the US-Paraguay and Iran-New Zealand games will be held, to be about 69,650, noting that it may change. FIFA’s December sale priced US-Paraguay tickets at $1,120, $1,940 and $2,735, and Iran-New Zealand seats at $140, $380 and $450. Advertisement Adblock test (Why?)
Tehran held military parades as ceasefire was set to end
NewsFeed Videos show large crowds attending a military parade in Tehran on Tuesday as the US-Iran ceasefire deadline approached. Donald Trump has since said the US was indefinitely extending it. Published On 22 Apr 202622 Apr 2026 Click here to share on social media share-nodes Share googleAdd Al Jazeera on Googleinfo Adblock test (Why?)
Global Sumud Flotilla disrupts cargo ship bound for Israel
NewsFeed Activists with the Global Sumud Flotilla have disrupted the MSC Maya, a cargo ship they believe was carrying materials used for Israeli weapons to the ports of Ashdod and Haifa. The vessel is operated by the Mediterranean Shipping Company, which Al Jazeera confirms has carried hundreds of shipments to and from illegal Israeli settlements. Published On 21 Apr 202621 Apr 2026 Click here to share on social media share-nodes Share googleAdd Al Jazeera on Googleinfo Adblock test (Why?)
Trump’s Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer latest to leave administration
Chavez-DeRemer is the third high-profile female official to leave the Trump administration after recent departures of Kristi Noem and Pam Bondi. Published On 21 Apr 202621 Apr 2026 US Secretary of Labour Lori Chavez-DeRemer will be leaving her post in the administration of President Donald Trump, the White House has said. Chavez-DeRemer is the third woman to leave the Trump administration since March, when the president fired Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in the wake of federal immigration raids in Minnesota that led to the deaths of two protesters. Trump also ousted Attorney General Pam Bondi earlier this month. Recommended Stories list of 4 itemsend of list Chavez-DeRemer has done a “phenomenal job” protecting American workers and is set to “take a position in the private sector”, White House Director of Communications Steven Cheung said in a post on X late on Monday, announcing the labour secretary’s departure. “Keith Sonderling will take on the role of Acting Secretary of Labor,” Cheung added, referring to the current deputy labour secretary. While Cheung did not give a reason for Chavez-DeRemer’s departure, the New York Post reported in January that she was under investigation for “pursuing an ‘inappropriate’ relationship with a subordinate” and drinking in her office during the work day. Al Jazeera was unable to independently verify the allegations. From the beginning of her tenure, Chavez-DeRemer had some notable differences with other members of Trump’s inner circle. She had voiced support for the pro-union Protecting the Right to Organize Act (PRO Act), earning support for her nomination from some Democrats. Her appointment was also seen as favoured by Sean O’Brien, the president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, who notably spoke in support of Trump’s re-election campaign at the Republican National Convention in July 2024. Advertisement However, as the labour secretary, Chavez-DeRemer’s positions have more closely aligned with the Trump administration’s overall anti-regulatory policies, according to US media outlets. During her tenure as secretary, the Labor Department stalled on responding to calls for limits on silica exposure from Appalachian coal miners suffering from the occupational black lung disease. Chavez-DeRemer is not the first top official to leave the Labor Department during Trump’s second term. In August 2025, Trump fired the director of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Erika McEntarfer, who was appointed by previous President Joe Biden, after a report showed that hiring had slowed in July and was worse in May and June than had previously been reported. Chavez-DeRemer had supported the president’s move at the time. “I support the President’s decision to replace Biden’s Commissioner and ensure the American People can trust the important and influential data coming from BLS,” Chavez-DeRemer said in a post on X following McEntarfer’s removal. Adblock test (Why?)
Cuba confirms talks with US officials, wants end to Trump’s energy blockade
A Cuban Foreign Ministry official said the exchange with Washington was ‘respectful and professional’ and devoid of threats. Published On 21 Apr 202621 Apr 2026 The Cuban government has confirmed that it held recent talks in Havana with officials from the United States, as tensions remain high between the two countries over Washington’s energy blockade of the Caribbean country. Alejandro Garcia del Toro, deputy director general in charge of US affairs at the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said on Monday that the US delegation included assistant secretaries of state, and the Cuban delegation included representatives at the level of deputy foreign minister. Recommended Stories list of 4 itemsend of list Garcia de Toro said that the US delegation did not issue any threats or deadlines as had been reported by some US media outlets. “The entire exchange was conducted with respect and professionalism,” he said. In comments reported by Cuba’s Communist Party newspaper Granma, Garcia del Toro emphasised that ending the three-month-old US oil blockade was “a top priority” for the Cuban government in the talks, and accused Washington of “blackmail” for threatening countries that export oil to Cuba with tariffs. “This act of economic coercion is an unjustified punishment for the entire Cuban population,” he said. “It is also a form of global blackmail against sovereign states, which have every right to export fuel to Cuba, in accordance with the principles of free trade,” he added. US news outlet Axios reported on Friday that officials from US President Donald Trump’s administration held multiple meetings in Havana on April 10, including with Raul Guillermo Rodriguez Castro, grandson of former President Raul Castro. The meetings marked the first time that American diplomats had flown into Cuba since 2016 in a new diplomatic push. According to reports, US officials laid out several conditions for negotiations with Cuba to continue, including the release of prominent political prisoners, an end to political repression, and liberalising the island’s ailing economy. Advertisement The Reuters news agency said that US proposals for Cuba also include allowing Elon Musk’s Starlink internet terminals into the country and providing compensation for Americans and US corporations for assets confiscated by Cuba after the 1959 revolution. Washington is also concerned about the influence of foreign powers on the island, a US official told the news agency. Trump has hinted at military intervention in Cuba and warned of tariffs on any country that sells or supplies oil to Cuba. The fuel blockade has aggravated Cuba’s economic and energy crisis, leading to warnings of a humanitarian disaster. Cubans have also braced for a possible attack following Trump’s repeated warnings that the country will be “next” after his war on Iran and the US military’s abduction of Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro in January. Last week, Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel said that his country was prepared to fight if the US carried through on its threats. The leaders of Mexico, Spain and Brazil on Saturday voiced concern over the “dramatic situation” in Cuba and urged “sincere and respectful dialogue”. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said on Monday there was no evident justification for the US to attack Cuba. “The ability to defend oneself does not mean the right to intervene militarily in other states when their political systems do not match what others might have in mind,” he said. Adblock test (Why?)
Tight security in Islamabad as US-Iran talks set to go ahead
NewsFeed Security is on lockdown in Islamabad where preparations are being made for new US‑Iran talks despite questions over Iran’s participation. Al Jazeera’s Kimberly Halkett reports from the Pakistani capital, where an expanded police presence is tightly controlling access around the talks venue. Published On 20 Apr 202620 Apr 2026 Click here to share on social media share-nodes Share googleAdd Al Jazeera on Googleinfo Adblock test (Why?)
Powerful states are trying to sabotage decarbonisation of shipping
The global fallout of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz may create the impression that the world cannot function without fossil fuels. Nothing could be further from the truth. Every single industry can and must decarbonise. For global shipping, this process would be relatively easy because technological solutions exist and a single United Nations agency can set legally binding rules for all ships. The first steps have already been made. In 2025, member states of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) agreed on a policy mechanism to cut shipping emissions: the Net-Zero Framework (NZF). But they opted to postpone a decision on formal adoption of this landmark agreement. This delay is emblematic of obstructive tactics used by countries opposing climate action. The IMO Framework – the world’s first global carbon price on any international polluter – took years of compromises and watering-down. As it stands, it is the lowest possible bar Pacific Island states like the one I represent can accept. We cannot give in another inch. While I join the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels in Santa Marta, Colombia, next week, delegates will gather again at the IMO in London to decide whether to uphold their unanimous commitment to phase out fossil fuels in a just and equitable way. The delegates of Vanuatu who travel to London have a mandate to push for the adoption of the NZF this year. Should anyone reopen the framework to water it down, our position is clear: We will revert to our original Pacific demand for a universal levy on emissions of $150 per tonne of carbon dioxide. Advertisement Last year my country abstained from the vote on the NZF agreement. We reached that decision because the mechanism is not nearly ambitious enough. Even so, it is a starting point we can work with. But since then, the tide has shifted dramatically. After the delay in adoption, a small group of countries is now suggesting further weakening the ambition in the framework to meet the demands of particularly influential states whose current policy positions are not aligned with climate ambition. This strategy is problematic as reducing our collective actions to align with those that want no climate action at all is incompatible with our people’s continued survival. The world’s poorest countries, and the planet, simply cannot afford anything less than what is already on the table. The framework, as it is, gives the world and the industry some chance of meeting the climate obligations that IMO countries committed to in 2023, namely reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 in a just and equitable way. The NZF introduces penalty fees – eg emission pricing for noncompliance with the regulation. This provides the regulation with a “stick” to ensure ships comply or else they must pay. The penalties also represent revenues, up to $10bn to $12bn a year, to both incentivise industry transition and enable a fair transition for all. This fund is a lifeline for developing – and especially least developed – states to be able to afford clean maritime energy upgrades and compensate for the rising trade costs because of this transition. Some claim that revenues raised by the NZF will blow out transport costs. This is preposterous. The penalties charged through this framework come down to less than $1.50 per year for every living human being – although the biggest polluters should pay this cost. If the richest 10 percent of the world’s population foots this bill, it adds up to less than $15 per person. That’s a few coffees a year, which the world’s richest can easily spare. Losing both financial penalties for noncompliance and financial support for countries like mine in the name of a political compromise with rich oil-producing states is a bad deal. Not just for all climate-vulnerable states but also for the industry that demands and deserves clarity. If anything, we need more action and more ambition in the framework. For years, Pacific states have pushed for the IMO regulation to be in the form of a universal levy on emissions, by pricing all emissions. We managed to get the majority of IMO member states on board, including the European Union, South Korea and Japan, as well as important Global South states, such as Panama and Liberia. However, the US has been very effective in exerting its influence in this area, which is resulting in shifts to some positions to the detriment of us all. Advertisement Our position was always backed by the best available scientific evidence. A levy on all shipping emissions is the best way to send an unambiguous signal to the industry: Invest in the future now! The revenues, up to 10 times more than those from the NZF, serve as both a bigger stick for polluters and a bigger carrot for first movers and cash-poor countries. This is not a handout: Hitting net zero by 2050 is not possible if our countries cannot invest in clean ships. The bridge we have built in the form of the NZF through years of compromise and evidence is still standing. Let us cross it together by adopting it as agreed without any further dilution. Pacific states stand ready to fight for what science and justice demand, and we call on our partners to stand with us. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance. Adblock test (Why?)
Cloud over US-Iran talks: What are the key sticking points?
United States President Donald Trump has claimed a second round of negotiations with Iran will take place in Pakistan on Tuesday as mediators try to revive negotiations before the end of an ongoing yet fragile two-week ceasefire. The announcement on Sunday came alongside a sharp escalation in rhetoric. Trump warned that Iran must agree to a deal “one way or another – the nice way or the hard way” and threatened to target key infrastructure if negotiations fail. He also renewed his threat of striking “bridges and power plants”, which experts said could amount to war crimes under international law. Recommended Stories list of 3 itemsend of list Iran, however, has so far denied it will participate in the talks, accusing the US of “armed piracy” after US forces struck and seized an Iran-linked tanker on Sunday, further heightening tensions between the longtime adversaries. What has the US said? On Sunday, Trump announced that US negotiators would travel to the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, on Monday for talks aimed at ending the US-Israel war on Iran. In a social media post, the president did not say which officials would be sent to the talks. Last weekend’s first round of talks, at which Vice President JD Vance led the US delegation, ended without a deal. Trump accused Iran of violating their two-week ceasefire, which is due to expire on Wednesday, by opening fire on Saturday in the Strait of Hormuz. The US president threatened to destroy civilian infrastructure in Iran if it doesn’t accept the terms of the deal being offered by the US. Advertisement “We’re offering a very fair and reasonable deal, and I hope they take it because, if they don’t, the United States is going to knock out every single power plant, and every single bridge, in Iran,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. In a further escalation, Trump said an Iranian-flagged ship called the Touska was “stopped” by US forces in the Gulf of Oman “by blowing a hole in the engine room”. He said it was trying to get past the US naval blockade of Iranian ports. US forces boarded the ship and took physical control of the vessel. How has Iran responded? Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya military headquarters confirmed the US attack on the Iranian-flagged tanker and said it would “respond soon”. Then, Iran’s Tasnim News Agency reported that Iranian forces had sent drones in the direction of US military ships. Ebrahim Azizi, the head of the Iranian parliament’s National Security Committee, told Al Jazeera that Iran’s actions during talks with the US are strictly guided by national interests and security. When asked if Tehran intends to participate in the talks in Islamabad, he said, “Iran acts based on national interests.” “We see the current negotiations as a continuation of the battlefield, and we see nothing other than the battlefield in this,” he said. “If it yields achievements that sustain those of the battlefield, then the negotiation arena is also an opportunity for us … but not if the Americans intend to turn this into a field of excessive demands based on their bullying approach.” What are the key points of friction now? Since the start of the war on February 28, a number of new sticking points have emerged – alongside old challenges: Strait of Hormuz A central dispute is over the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global shipping route linking the Gulf to the Arabian Sea. One-fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies were shipped through the strait before the war began. Iran insists on sovereignty over the waterway, which lies within the territorial waters of Iran and Oman and does not fall into international waters, and stated that only “nonhostile” ships could pass. It has also floated the idea of levying tolls while Washington demands full freedom of navigation. After the war began, Iran in effect closed the strait by forbidding transits, attacking ships and reportedly laying sea mines. Shipping traffic has since dropped by 95 percent. A week ago, the US implemented a blockade of its own. Its Navy has been blocking Iranian ports to pressure Tehran to reopen the vital waterway, adding another obstacle to the talks. Advertisement According to Rob Geist Pinfold, a lecturer in international security at King’s College London, Trump’s stance on the strait has shifted during the conflict and remains unclear. “We’ve had Trump say that he would be open to jointly controlling the Strait of Hormuz with Iran, where both sides collect a toll for shipping,” Geist Pinfold noted, calling this “completely different to the demands of the US on paper but also the demands of the US’s regional allies like the Gulf states and Israel, … who would regard any deal that entrenches Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz … as a stab in the back”. “This isn’t just between the US and Iran. It’s about the US having to keep its regional allies on side,” Geist Pinfold told Al Jazeera. Enriched uranium Another core issue is Iran’s nuclear programme, particularly its stock of enriched uranium. The US and Israel are pushing for zero uranium enrichment and have accused Iran of working towards building a nuclear weapon while providing no evidence for their claims. Iran has insisted its enrichment effort is for civilian purposes only. It is a signatory to the 1970 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). In 2015, the US was a signatory to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) under then-US President Barack Obama. In that agreement, Iran pledged to limit its uranium enrichment to 3.67 per cent, which is substantially below weapons grade, and to comply with inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to insure it wasn’t developing nuclear weapons. In return, international sanctions on Iran were lifted. However, in 2018, during his first term, Trump withdrew the US from the JCPOA despite the IAEA saying Iran had complied with the agreement up to that point. In March 2025, Tulsi Gabbard,
Displaced Lebanese woman returns to find home destroyed after ceasefire
NewsFeed A displaced woman returned to southern Lebanon after a ceasefire to find her house reduced to rubble by Israeli attacks. Zahra Eid had fled Tayr Debba with her daughters at the start of the war. Published On 19 Apr 202619 Apr 2026 Click here to share on social media share-nodes Share googleAdd Al Jazeera on Googleinfo Adblock test (Why?)