Lebanese civilians flee amid deadly Israeli strikes on Beirut suburbs
Published On 2 Mar 20262 Mar 2026 Click here to share on social media share2 Share plus2googleAdd Al Jazeera on Googleinfo Lebanese civilians have fled southern Lebanon and Beirut’s southern suburbs as a deadly escalation erupts between Israel and Hezbollah. Many are seeking sanctuary in makeshift shelters across Lebanon’s capital. At least 31 people were killed and 149 wounded in overnight Israeli strikes on Beirut’s suburbs and southern Lebanon, according to Lebanon’s Health Ministry. Highways became gridlocked as people evacuated following Israel’s deadliest assault on Lebanon in over a year. The strikes came shortly after Hezbollah fired missiles into Israel for the first time in more than 12 months. “I don’t know how long it will take us to reach Beirut,” said Ali Hamdan, who had been travelling for seven hours on what should have been a 30-minute journey from his village to Sidon. “I’m headed towards Beirut, but I don’t know where yet. We don’t have a place to stay.” In Beirut, public schools transformed into emergency shelters. Families arrived with mattresses and belongings, while volunteers registered names as classrooms and courtyards filled with displaced people. Hussein Abu Ali, who fled with his family from a southern Beirut suburb, recounted the strikes: “My son began shaking and crying. Where are you supposed to go? I stepped outside, then back in because I was afraid of shooting in the air. I gathered my children and went down to the street.” Nadia al-Salman, displaced from Majdal Zoun in the south, declared: “They do not intimidate or frighten us, and they will not make us retreat even an inch from the path of resistance.” Advertisement During the 2024 Israel-Hezbollah war, over one million Lebanese were displaced. Many remain unable to return to their destroyed border villages. Hezbollah stated Monday’s attacks were retaliation for the killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and “repeated Israeli aggressions”, calling them “a legitimate defensive response”. The Israeli military warned residents in approximately 50 communities across southern and eastern Lebanon to evacuate. Military spokesman Brigadier General Effie Defrin stated Israel is considering “all options,” including a potential ground invasion, warning that “Hezbollah will pay a very heavy price”. He added that Israel has mobilised over 100,000 reservists since the war with Iran began on Saturday. Adblock test (Why?)
‘Speed, surprise, and violence of action’: how US launched attack on Iran
NewsFeed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, US General Dan Caine detailed how American forces launched a “massive, overwhelming attack across all domains of warfare” targeting Iran. Published On 2 Mar 20262 Mar 2026 Click here to share on social media share2 Share plus2googleAdd Al Jazeera on Googleinfo Adblock test (Why?)
Starmer lets US use bases for Iran clash: UK’s military, legal quagmire
Early on Monday, a suspected Iranian drone crashed into the runway at the United Kingdom’s RAF Akrotiri base in southern Cyprus. British and Cypriot officials said the damage was limited. There were no casualties. Hours later, two drones headed for the base were “dealt with in a timely manner”, according to the Cypriot government. Recommended Stories list of 4 itemsend of list The incidents came after Prime Minister Keir Starmer signalled on Sunday that the UK was prepared to support the United States in its confrontation with Iran – raising the prospect that the UK could be drawn deeper into a war it did not choose by its closest ally. In a joint statement with the leaders of France and Germany, Starmer said the European group was ready to take “proportionate defensive action” to destroy threats “at their source”. Later, in a televised address, he confirmed that Westminster approved a US request to use British bases for the “defensive purpose” of destroying Iranian missiles “at source in their storage depots, or the launches which are used to fire the missiles”. But his agreement did little to placate US President Donald Trump, who said the decision came too late. UK-based military analyst Sean Bell cautioned against reading too much into the Akrotiri incident. “I understand the projectile that hit Cyprus was not armed, it hit a hangar [with] no casualties, and appears to have been fired from Lebanon,” he said, citing sources. Al Jazeera was not able to independently verify the claim. The broader context, he argued, is more consequential. Advertisement The US has taken the action “and everybody else is having to deal with the fallout”, he said. Iran’s military strength lies in its extensive ballistic missile programme, he said, adding that while some have the range to threaten the UK, they do not extend far enough to strike the US. “I don’t think [US] President Trump has yet made the legal case for attacking Iran, and … international law makes no discrimination between a nation carrying out the act of war and a nation supporting that act of war, so you’re both equally complicit,” he said. Bell said that Washington likely reframed the issue, communicating to London that, whatever triggered the escalation, US forces were now effectively defending British personnel in the region. That shift, he suggested, provided a legal basis to “not to attack Iran, but to protect our people”, allowing the UK to approve US operations from its bases under a “very, very clear set of instructions” tied strictly to national interest and defence. UK officials ‘tying themselves in knots’ However, concerns of complicity had reportedly shaped earlier decisions, according to Tim Ripley, editor of the Defence Eye news service, who said the British government initially concluded that US and Israeli strikes on Iran did not meet the legal definition of self-defence under the United Nations Charter. When Washington requested the use of bases such as RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire, UK, and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, Starmer is understood to have consulted government lawyers, who advised against participation. Up until Starmer’s televised address, in which he approved the US request, the UK had not considered the campaign a war of self-defence, said Ripley. While Washington’s legal reasoning has not changed, the war’s trajectory has. Iranian retaliatory strikes – which have seen drones and missiles targeting Gulf states – have placed British expatriates and treaty partners under direct threat. “The basis of our decision is the collective self-defence of longstanding friends and allies, and protecting British lives. This is in line with international law,” Starmer said. According to Ripley, several Gulf governments, which maintain defence relationships with the UK, sought protection, allowing London to focus on protecting British personnel and partners rather than endorsing a broader campaign. However, with memories of the Iraq War hanging over Westminster, British ministers have stopped short of explicitly backing the US bombing campaign. Advertisement British officials are “tying themselves in knots” trying to describe a position that is neither fully participatory nor detached, he said. US-UK: A strained relationship Starmer on Monday told Parliament that the UK does not believe in “regime change from the skies” but supports the idea of defensive action. But Ripley warned that any arrangement allowing US warplanes to operate from British air bases carries significant risks. Iran’s missile systems are mobile and launchers mounted on trucks, he said. From RAF Fairford or Diego Garcia, US aircraft face flight times of seven to nine hours to reach Iranian airspace, necessitating patrol-based missions. Once airborne, pilots may have only minutes to act. The idea that a US crew would pause mid-mission to seek fresh British legal approval is unrealistic, he said. London must rely on Washington’s assurance that only agreed categories of “defensive” targets will be struck. If an opportunity arose to eliminate a senior Iranian commander in the same operational zone, the temptation could be strong. Yet such a strike might fall outside Britain’s stated defensive mandate. The aircraft would have departed from British soil, and any escalation could implicate the UK, Ripley said. Bell highlighted another weakness: Britain has no domestic ballistic missile defence system. If a ballistic missile were fired at London, he said, “We would not be able to shoot it down.” Intercepting such weapons after launch is notoriously difficult, reinforcing the argument that the only reliable defence is to strike before launch. The UK, therefore, occupies a grey zone: legally cautious, operationally exposed and strategically dependent on US decisions, it does not fully control. Beyond the legal and military dilemmas, Starmer must also contend with a sceptical public. A YouGov poll conducted on February 20 found that 58 percent of Britons oppose allowing the US to launch air strikes on Iran from UK bases, including 38 percent who strongly oppose. Just 21 percent support such a move, underscoring limited domestic backing for deeper involvement. Adblock test (Why?)
Balen Shah: Rapper, mayor, Nepal’s next prime minister?
Kathmandu, Nepal – Facing thousands of raucous supporters, 35-year-old Balendra Shah lifted his signature black rectangular sunglasses, asked his audience to look him in the eye, and said: “I love you.” It is a sentiment that millions of young Nepalis appear to reciprocate. Balen – as he is popularly known – was a nobody until 2013, when he almost overnight became a rap sensation. Nearly a decade later, in May 2022, he stunned Nepal’s deeply entrenched mainstream political parties by winning the post of mayor of Kathmandu, the country’s capital, while contesting as an independent. When the Himalayan nation of 30 million people erupted in popular protests against the government of then-Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli in September 2025, Balen emerged as a high-profile backer of the protesters. He was the first choice of many Gen Z activists to take over as interim leader after Oli was forced to resign. But he instead supported former Supreme Court Chief Justice Sushila Karki for the post. It is now that this was a tactical move. As Nepal heads to its first election since the protests last year, and Karki’s brief term ends, Balen is positioning himself as the future prime minister the country needs. And true to style, he is doing it with a bang: He is contesting the parliamentary elections from Jhapa-5, a seat about 300km (186 miles) southeast of Kathmandu, against Oli, the man protesters deposed just five months ago. On the surface, the odds appear stacked against him. The region is a stronghold of Oli and the Communist Party of Nepal – Unified Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML), which the former prime minister heads. Balen is contesting as a candidate of the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), a centrist party formed less than four years ago, which won 10 percent of the national vote in the last elections in 2022. Advertisement Balen’s volatile public communication – he has abused mainstream parties, India, China and the United States, and threatened to burn down symbols of power in Nepal – has sparked criticism and questions over whether he is ready for high office. But Balen defied the pundits when he won the Kathmandu mayoralty. And observers and analysts say that for many Nepalis, he represents a breath of fresh air in a country where more than 40 percent of the population is under the age of 35, but where the leadership of all major parties is in its 70s. “Young Nepalis see him as a decisive actor, who is not beholden to traditional political or business interests,” Pranaya Rana, a journalist who writes for the Kalam Weekly newsletter, told Al Jazeera. “Many admire his macho public persona and his willingness to take on entrenched political patronage networks.” Supporters of Balendra Shah, a former Kathmandu mayor popularly known as ‘Balen’, gather for a campaign rally in Janakpur, Nepal, January 19, 2026 [Navesh Chitrakar/Reuters] The craze If young Nepal burned with anger in September, when protesters clashed with security forces and attacked senior politicians after a crackdown by authorities under Oli, Balen was still seething with rage two months later. In a midnight post on Facebook in November, he lashed out: “F*** America, F*** India, F*** China, F*** UML, F*** Congress, F*** RSP, F*** RPP, F*** Maobaadi. You Guys all Combined can do nothing”, venting against the popular political parties and even nations that have close ties to Nepal. Being the Kathmandu mayor at the time, he deleted the post less than half an hour later. Then in January, he quit as mayor and joined the RSP, one of the parties he cursed in the Facebook post. More recently, after Oli called on Facebook for a public debate among prime ministerial candidates of major parties, Balen rejected the suggestion and asked the ex-prime minister to take responsibility for the dozens of civilians killed during the Gen Z protests in September. He asked Oli to acknowledge that he was a “terrorist”. Over the top? Not to many Nepalis. The rapper-turned-politician’s confrontational style and rhetoric appear to have only endeared him to large sections of the youth. His beard and dandy, all-black clothing style – he occasionally wears the traditional Newari dress of the ethnic inhabitants of the Kathmandu valley – coupled with his trademark dark glasses, have become fashion symbols. Kathmandu shops once ran out of the kind of black rectangular glasses he wears. Many online stores, including Daraz, the most popular seller in Nepal, still carry multiple choices of these shades, calling them “Balen Shah glasses”. Advertisement Unlike traditional politicians, Balen mainly stays away from mainstream media. Instead, he communicates with the wider public through podcasts, television shows where he is a judge, or through his favourite platform: social media. His 3.5 million followers on Facebook, 1 million on Instagram, 400,000 on X and nearly 1 million on YouTube give him an online audience unmatched in Nepal. This is valuable capital with a generation constantly on their phones. Yet Balen first made waves not as a politician, but as an upstart musician who shook Nepal. Balendra Shah, a rapper-turned-politician and the prime ministerial candidate for the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), along with Rabi Lamichhane, RSP president, takes part in an election campaign in Kirtipur, Kathmandu, Nepal, February 28, 2026 [Navesh Chitrakar/Reuters] Big cars, bigger songs The youngest of four siblings, Balen was born in 1990 in Kathmandu. Balen’s father, Ram Narayan Shah – who passed away in December – was a government practitioner of ayurveda, the ancient Hindu healing system. In an interview with Al Jazeera in September – three months before his death – Shah recalled Balen as a “bright and simple” child. The father’s work took him away from home frequently, but one clear memory from Balen’s childhood stuck out for Shah: “He wrote poems. I remember that, because I also wrote poems.” Balen graduated with a civil engineering degree from Himalayan Whitehouse International College in Kathmandu and received a postgraduate degree in structural engineering from Visvesvaraya Technological University (VTU) in Karnataka, India. Then, in 2013, he
Israel bombs Beirut after Hezbollah fires rockets in Iran war retaliation
NewsFeed Israel has carried out heavy strikes in the southern suburbs of Lebanon’s capital Beirut after Hezbollah launched an attack on northern Israel in retaliation for the killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Published On 2 Mar 20262 Mar 2026 Click here to share on social media share2 Share plus2googleAdd Al Jazeera on Googleinfo Adblock test (Why?)
Al Jazeera reports from Beirut as residents flee following Israeli strikes
NewsFeed Tens of thousands of Lebanese civilians are leaving areas in Beirut following Israeli strikes and forced displacement orders. Earlier Hezbollah launched a retaliatory attack on Israel. Al Jazeera’s Zeina Khodr is amid the heavy traffic. Published On 2 Mar 20262 Mar 2026 Click here to share on social media share2 Share plus2googleAdd Al Jazeera on Googleinfo Adblock test (Why?)
New Yorkers protest US strikes on Iran
NewsFeed New York City residents converged on Times Square on Saturday hours after US President Donald Trump ordered a wave of deadly strikes on Iran. Mayor Zohran Mamdani called the strikes “a catastrophic escalation in an illegal war of aggression”. Published On 1 Mar 20261 Mar 2026 Click here to share on social media share2 Share plus2googleAdd Al Jazeera on Googleinfo Adblock test (Why?)
US strikes on Iran lead to renewed demands for war powers legislation
Democratic lawmakers have largely condemned the strikes on Iran, emphasizing the lack of congressional approval. Listen to this article Listen to this article | 3 mins info Published On 1 Mar 20261 Mar 2026 Click here to share on social media share2 Share plus2googleAdd Al Jazeera on Googleinfo Lawmakers from the Democratic Party have condemned the US attacks on Iran as a “dangerous” and “unnecessary” escalation, and called on the Senate to immediately vote on legislation that would block the president’s ability to take further military action without congressional approval. Senator Tim Kaine, a member of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees and the primary author of the war powers resolution, called President Donald Trump’s order to attack Iran a “colossal mistake”. Recommended Stories list of 3 itemsend of list “The Senate should immediately return to session and vote on my War Powers Resolution to block the use of US forces in hostilities against Iran,” Kaine said in a statement on Saturday. “Every single Senator needs to go on the record about this dangerous, unnecessary, and idiotic action.” House of Representatives Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries echoed Kaine, saying that House Democrats are committed to forcing a floor vote on a measure to restrict Trump’s war powers regarding Iran. “Donald Trump failed to seek Congressional authorisation prior to striking Iran. Instead, the President’s decision to abandon diplomacy and launch a massive military attack has left American troops vulnerable to Iran’s retaliatory actions,” he said in a statement. “The Trump administration must explain itself to the American people and Congress immediately.” The push for a legislative check on Trump’s executive power has gained significant bipartisan momentum in the Senate, of which the Republican Party maintains a slim majority. Advertisement Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer demanded on Saturday that Congress be briefed immediately about the Iran attacks, including an all-senators classified session and public testimony, criticising the administration for not providing details on the threat’s scope and immediacy. “The administration has not provided Congress and the American people with critical details about the scope and immediacy of the threat,” he said in a statement. Senator Mark Warner, vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, described the strikes in a statement posted on X as “a deeply consequential decision that risks pulling the United States into another broad conflict in the Middle East”. He questioned the urgency and intelligence behind the attack, warning of repeating “mistakes of the past”, like the Iraq war. “The American people have seen this playbook before – claims of urgency, misrepresented intelligence, and military action that pulls the United States into regime change and prolonged, costly nation-building,” he said. Not just Democrats While the push to curb executive military authority is largely driven by the Democratic caucus, a growing contingent of Republican lawmakers has signalled a rare break from the White House to join the effort. Republican representative Thomas Massie, one of the most outspoken critics, described the strikes as “acts of war unauthorised by Congress”. “I am opposed to this War. This is not America First,” he wrote on X. In the Senate, Republican Senator Rand Paul, who also co-sponsored the war powers resolution, said his opposition to the war is based on constitutional principles. “My oath of office is to the Constitution, so with studied care, I must oppose another Presidential war,” he said on X. Adblock test (Why?)
Netanyahu’s war? Analysts say Trump’s Iran strikes benefit Israel, not US
President Donald Trump stood in front of regional leaders during a visit to the Middle East in May and declared a new era of US foreign policy in the region, one that is not guided by trying to reshape it or change its governing systems. “In the end, the so-called nation-builders wrecked far more nations than they built, and the interventionists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves,” the US president said in rebuke of his hawkish predecessors. Recommended Stories list of 3 itemsend of list Less than a year later, Trump ordered an all-out assault on Iran with the stated goal of bringing “freedom” to the country, borrowing language from the playbook of interventionist neoconservatives, like former President George W Bush, whom he spent his political career criticising. Analysts say the war with Iran does not fit with Trump’s stated political ideology, policy goals or campaign promises. Instead, several Iran experts told Al Jazeera that Trump is waging a war, together with Israel, that only benefits Israel and its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. “This is, once again, a war of choice launched by the US with [a] push from Israel,” said Negar Mortazavi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy in Washington, DC. “This is another Israeli war that the US is launching. Israel has pushed the US to attack Iran for two decades, and they finally got it.” Mortazavi highlighted Trump’s criticism of his predecessors, who had waged regime-change wars in the region. “It is ironic, because this is a president who called himself the ‘president of peace‘,” she told Al Jazeera. History of warnings of the Iranian ‘threat’ Netanyahu, who promoted the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, has been warning for more than two decades that Iran is on the cusp of acquiring nuclear weapons. Advertisement Iran denies seeking a nuclear bomb, and even Trump administration officials have acknowledged that Washington has no evidence that Tehran is weaponising its uranium enrichment programme. After the US bombed Iran’s main enrichment facilities in the 12-day war in June last year – an attack that Trump says “obliterated” the country’s nuclear programme – Netanyahu pivoted to a new supposed Iranian threat: Tehran’s ballistic missiles. “Iran can blackmail any American city,” Netanyahu told pro-Israel podcaster Ben Shapiro in October. “People don’t believe it. Iran is developing intercontinental missiles with a range of 8,000km [5,000 miles], add another 3,000 [1,800 miles], and they can get to the East Coast of the US.” Trump repeated that claim, which Tehran has vehemently denied and has not been backed by any public evidence or testing, in his State of the Union address earlier this week. “They’ve already developed missiles that can threaten Europe and our bases overseas, and they’re working to build missiles that will soon reach the United States of America,” he said of the Iranians. Trump has been building the case for a wider war with Iran since the June conflict, repeatedly threatening to bomb the country again. But the US president’s own National Security Strategy last year called for de-prioritising the Middle East in Washington’s foreign policy and focusing on the Western Hemisphere. Meanwhile, the US public, wary of global conflict after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has also been largely opposed to new strikes against Iran, public opinion polls show. Only 21 percent of respondents in a recent University of Maryland survey said they favoured a war with Iran. The first day of the war saw Iran fire missiles against bases and cities that host US troops and assets across the Middle East in retaliation for the joint US-Israeli strikes, plunging the region into chaos. Trump acknowledged that US troops may suffer casualties in the conflict. “That often happens in war,” he said on Saturday. “But we’re doing this not for now. We’re doing this for the future. And it is a noble mission.” ‘Ignoring the vast majority of Americans’ The Trump administration had appeared to step back from the brink of conflict earlier this month by engaging in diplomacy with Tehran. US and Iranian negotiators held three rounds of talks over the past week, with Tehran stressing that it is willing to agree to rigorous inspections of its nuclear programme. Omani mediators and Iranian officials had described the last round of negotiations, which took place on Thursday, as positive, saying that it yielded significant progress. Advertisement The June 2025 war, initiated by Israel without provocation, also came in the middle of US-Iran talks. “Netanyahu’s agenda has always been to prevent a diplomatic solution, and he feared Trump was actually serious about getting a deal, so the start of this war in the middle of negotiations is a success for him, just like it was last June,” Jamal Abdi, the president of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), told Al Jazeera. “Trump’s embrace of regime change rhetoric is a further victory for Netanyahu, and loss for the American people, as it suggests the US may be committed to a long and unpredictable military boondoggle.” While announcing the strikes on Saturday, Trump said his aim is to prevent Iran from “threatening America and our core national security interests”. But US critics, including some proponents of Trump’s “America first” movement, have argued that Iran – more than 10,000km (6,000 miles) away – does not pose a threat to the US. Earlier this month, US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee told conservative commentator Tucker Carlson that “if it were not for Iran, there wouldn’t be Hezbollah; we wouldn’t have the problem on the border with Lebanon”. Carlson said, “What problem on the border with Lebanon? I’m an American. I’m not having any problems on the border with Lebanon right now. I live in Maine.” On Saturday, Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib stressed that the US public does not want war with Iran. “Trump is acting on the violent fantasies of the American political elite and the Israeli apartheid government, ignoring the vast majority of Americans who say loud
Peace ‘within reach’ as Iran agrees no nuclear material stockpile: Oman FM
Oman’s Foreign Minister says most recent indirect talks between US, Iran ‘really advanced, substantially’ and diplomacy must be allowed do its work. Listen to this article Listen to this article | 3 mins info Iran agreed during indirect talks with the United States never to stockpile enriched uranium, said Oman’s top diplomat, who described the development as a major breakthrough. Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi also said on Friday that he believed all issues in a deal between Iran and the US could be resolved “amicably and comprehensively” within a few months. Recommended Stories list of 4 itemsend of list “A peace deal is within our reach … if we just allow diplomacy the space it needs to get there,” Al Busaidi said in an interview with CBS News in Washington, DC, after Oman brokered the third round of indirect talks between the US and Iran in Geneva on Thursday. “If the ultimate objective is to ensure forever that Iran cannot have a nuclear bomb, I think we have cracked that problem through these negotiations by agreeing [on] a very important breakthrough that has never been achieved any time before,” Al Busaidi said. “The single most important achievement, I believe, is the agreement that Iran will never ever have nuclear material that will create a bomb,” he said. “Now we are talking about zero stockpiling, and that is very, very important because if you cannot stockpile material that is enriched, then there is no way that you can actually create a bomb,” he added. There would also be “full and comprehensive verification by the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency]”, he said, referring to the UN’s nuclear watchdog. Oman’s top diplomat also said Iran would degrade its current stockpiles of nuclear material to “the lowest level possible” so that it is “converted into fuel, and that fuel will be irreversible”. Advertisement “This is something completely new. It really makes the enrichment argument less relevant, because now we are talking about zero stockpiling,” Al Busaidi said. Regarding recent US demands regarding Iran’s missile programme, Al Busaidi said: “I believe Iran is open to discuss everything”. Asked if he thought enough ground was covered in the most recent talks in Geneva to hold off a US attack on Iran, the minister said, “I hope so.” “We have really advanced substantially, and I think, obviously, there remains various details to be ironed out, and this is why we need a little bit more time to really try and accomplish the ultimate goal of having a comprehensive package of the deal,” he said. “But the big picture is that a deal is in our hands,” he added. The foreign minister’s comment followed after he met earlier on Friday with US Vice President JD Vance and as US President Donald Trump continued to sabre-rattle while at the same time declaring he favoured a diplomatic solution with Tehran. Trump said on Friday that he was not happy with the recent talks that concluded in Geneva. “We’re not exactly happy with the way they’re negotiating,” Trump told reporters in Washington, adding that Iran “should make a deal”. “They’d be smart if they made a deal,” he said. Trump later said that he would prefer it if the US did not have to use military force, “but sometimes you have to do it”. The US and Iranian sides are expected to meet again on Monday in Vienna, Austria, for more indirect negotiations. Adblock test (Why?)