Category World News

The United States and Iran are engaged in increasingly hostile rhetoric as US warships move into the Arabian Sea, despite regional nations seeking a diplomatic solution to prevent a military flare-up.

US President Donald Trump warned this week that “time is running out” for Iran to return to talks to reach a new deal on its nuclear programme.

Trump said the naval forces he was sending to Iran’s neighbourhood were even greater than those that he deployed to the coast of Venezuela before US special forces abducted the South American country’s president, Nicolas Maduro, in a military assault on Caracas on January 3.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi hit back at Trump’s threats, warning that his nation’s military was ready “with their fingers on the trigger”. He added that they would “immediately and powerfully respond” to any new US attack.

The escalation comes seven months after US bombers attacked Iranian nuclear facilities during Tehran’s 12-day war with Israel last year. Iran retaliated by striking Qatar’s Al Udeid Air Base, which is used by US forces. During its war with Israel, Iran also struck several Israeli cities with missiles.

Earlier this month, Trump told Iranian protesters who were clashing with security forces that “help” was on the way, threatening to bomb Iran. However, he has since walked back his warning, seemingly accepting Tehran’s assurances that arrested protesters would not be executed.

As Iran and the US appear to be headed towards a new military escalation, key demands from both sides appear to be primarily the same as they have been for years.

We unpack what they are:

What the US wants Iran to do

Historically, the US has imposed sanctions on Iran for a range of reasons, from punishment for the hostage crisis in 1979 – when, after the Iranian Revolution, students took over the US embassy with staff inside – to supposed concern for the human rights of Iranians.

But over the past two decades, US pressure against Iran, including through crippling economic sanctions that have devastated the country’s middle class, has largely focused on Tehran’s nuclear and ballistic missiles programme.

Nuclear programme

The US and some of its Western allies insist that Iran’s programme is aimed at building nuclear weapons, even though Tehran has insisted that it is only developing a civilian programme to meet energy needs.

Under a nuclear deal that Iran agreed with the US during the Obama administration – known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – Tehran capped its uranium enrichment at 3.67 percent and its enriched uranium stockpile at 300kg (660lb). This was enough for Iran to use for nuclear power plants, but far from adequate for weapons. In exchange, the US lifted most sanctions previously imposed on Iran.

At 60 percent enrichment, uranium is considered ready to be developed for weapons. At 90 percent, it is considered fully weapons-grade.

But Trump withdrew the US from this deal in his first term as president, in May 2018, and reimposed sanctions against Tehran. Iran appeared to try to stick to its end of the agreement for a while, along with European powers, Russia and China, who were all co-signatories to the Obama deal. Trump’s successor, Joe Biden, however, kept most of Trump’s sanctions in place, even though he had been Obama’s vice president.

In his second term as president, Trump has further ramped up economic coercion against Iran, which also began rapidly enriching its uranium.

In May 2025, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) warned that Iran had stockpiled more than 400kg (880lb) of uranium enriched to 60 percent. Though weapons need uranium that’s more than 90 percent enriched, no non-nuclear weapons state is known to keep uranium enriched to levels as high as 60 percent.

The US and Israel cited the IAEA warning as justification for bombing Iran in June.

“There has been a consistent lobby in Washington arguing that Iran achieving nuclear weapon capability is an enormous threat to the US and the wider world, and the US government knows that this fear is widely held in America,” Christopher Featherstone, associate lecturer at the Department of Politics, University of York, told Al Jazeera.

The US now demands that:

• Iran must not build nuclear weapons, and it must abandon even a civilian nuclear programme.
• Iran must not enrich uranium at all – not even to very low levels that would be useless for military purposes.
• Iran must hand over any enriched uranium it already has.

Ballistic missiles

Israeli bombs and missiles killed more than 1,000 Iranians during the June war. But while far fewer – 32 – Israelis died in retaliatory Iranian attacks, Tehran’s ballistic missiles frequently managed to breach Israel’s vaunted Iron Dome, hitting several cities.

Since then, US and Israeli concerns about Iran’s ballistic missiles have grown. Iran’s Emad, Khorramshahr, Ghadr, Sejjil and Soumar ballistic and cruise missiles have ranges between 1,700km and 2,500 km (1,056-1,553 miles).

That puts Israel and all US military bases in the Middle East within the range of these missiles.

The US now demands that:

• Iran must curb the number and range of its ballistic missiles.

Regional influence

The US’s third key demand involves Iran’s influence in its region, stitched together through alliances with governments, religious movements and armed resistance groups.

That so-called “axis of resistance” has suffered body blows over the past two years. In Syria, Bashar al-Assad’s regime, a close partner, fell in December 2024; in Lebanon, Israel decimated the leadership of Hezbollah; while Hamas in Gaza and the Houthis in Yemen have also been bloodied in wars since 2023.

Still, many of these and other groups that Iran has traditionally supported remain active and alive. Earlier this week, the Iraq-based Kataib Hezbollah, for instance, warned of a “total war” if the US were to attack Iran.

The US demands that:

• Iran must end its support and links with armed resistance groups across the region.

What Iran wants the US to do

Iran, meanwhile, has its own set of demands of the US.

Economic sanctions

US sanctions, first imposed on Iran in 1979, have grown increasingly harsh in recent years, leading to shortages, inflation and economic decline.

Iran’s oil exports fell by 60-80 percent after Trump reimposed sanctions in 2018, robbing the government in Tehran of tens of billions of dollars in annual revenues.

The currency has crashed, hitting a record low of 1,500,000 rials to the dollar this week and leading to soaring inflation and a surge in the prices Iran must pay for everything it imports.

As a result, Iran’s middle class has shrunk dramatically in recent years.

Iran demands that:

• The US must end economic sanctions, including the secondary sanctions that, in effect, coerce other nations from doing business with Tehran.

Nuclear programme

Iran has consistently argued that its nuclear programme is civilian in nature.

But since the joint attacks by Israel and the US last year, and the reimposition of sanctions on Tehran in recent months by the United Nations and European nations, hardliners in the country have been pressuring the government to instead race towards producing a nuclear bomb.

While the Iranian establishment has officially not shifted its position on the subject, it wants:

• Iran to continue to have a nuclear programme, even if with some limits.
• Iran to continue to be able to enrich uranium, even if with some limits.
• A new understanding before allowing IAEA inspectors back into the country. Iran believes that the IAEA’s report on its enriched uranium last year was designed to provide the US and Israel with justification for their attacks.

Ballistic missiles

Iran believes its ballistic missiles offer it much-needed protection against regional threats, especially Israel.

That these missiles have the capacity to batter Israeli cities and reach US bases in the region gives Tehran leverage.

Iran wants:

• To be allowed to keep its ballistic missiles programme.

Regional influence

Iran’s alliances and partnerships in its neighbourhood are embedded in a complex web of ideological affiliations, political commitments – such as to the Palestinian cause – and strategic calculations.

It has lost al-Assad as an ally, and Hezbollah has been weakened. But Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei alluded in December 2024 to Tehran’s belief that:

How close are we to a war?

This all depends on Trump, and how back-channel negotiations that are ongoing between the US and Iran proceed.

US allies in the region, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, have stated that they will not allow their airspace to be used for any attack on Iran. Qatar has been leading efforts to find a diplomatic solution.

Still, the US has been beefing up its military presence off Iran. The USS Abraham Lincoln, a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, is now in the Arabian Sea.

Over the past seven months, Trump has bombed Iran, including deeply buried nuclear facilities like Fordow.

And while Trump has called for talks, Featherstone from the University of York said “it will take an enormous diplomatic effort to see a negotiation of any real meaning.”

When Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo was released in 1999, the renowned film critic Roger Ebert wrote, “It’s the kind of picture those View n’ Brew theaters were made for, as long as you don’t view.” When the sequel Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo came out in 2005, Ebert was harsher still, describing it as “aggressively bad, as if it wants to cause suffering to the audience.”

Playing the title role of a tropical fish tank-cleaner-turned-gigolo was Rob Schneider. For the sequel, Schneider won the Golden Raspberry Award for “Worst Actor”, and in 2010, he was nominated for “Worst Actor of the Decade”.

Some 15 years later, Schneider might have been expected to resurface in an even worse third instalment of the Bigalow franchise, or in another lowbrow Hollywood comedy. Instead, he appeared in a far more unlikely setting: a campaign video endorsing Hungary’s far-right Prime Minister, Viktor Orban.

Schneider’s entry into local politics may have surprised Hungarian fans of Deuce Bigalow, but it did not come out of nowhere.

Over the past few years, Schneider has worked to establish himself as a leading conservative voice, railing against Hollywood’s supposed liberal bias. A frequent guest on Fox News, he has spoken publicly against diversity, equity, and inclusion policies and is vocally anti-trans and anti-vaccine. In a recent opinion piece, he claimed, “Since the rise of the ‘woke’ movement, and its total domination of the creative industries, anyone with a conservative point of view has been punished and even blacklisted.”

The video also includes endorsements from other right-wing figures, including Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, Argentinian President Javier Milei, Jean-Marie Le Pen of France’s National Rally, Italian Deputy Prime Minister and Lega leader Matteo Salvini, and German parliamentarian and Alternative for Germany leader Alice Weidel.

Why would this global cohort of far-right figures care about the political future of Hungary? The answer lies in the central role Hungary has played as an incubator for the global rise of the far right.

I saw the rise of the far right in the central European country unfold firsthand. Within a week of moving to Budapest in 2008 to pursue my graduate studies at Central European University (CEU), I was attacked by neo-Nazis. In the months that followed, amid a severe economic crisis, I encountered several neo-Nazi rallies and gatherings.

There was a sharp increase in violence targeting the country’s Roma population. In February 2009, a Roma man and his five-year-old son were shot dead in a village outside Budapest while fleeing their home, which had been set on fire in an arson attack. In September of that year, a Roma woman and her 13-year-old daughter were fired upon by armed men who had broken into their house in a village near the Ukrainian border. The mother was killed, while her daughter was admitted to the intensive care unit.

Hungary also saw a rise in anti-Semitism. In June 2009, vandals desecrated a Holocaust memorial with pigs’ feet. The memorial commemorates Jewish victims who were stripped, shot, and then thrown into the Danube River by the fascist militia Arrow Cross Party during the second world war.

Against this backdrop of rising racist violence and far-right mobilisation, Viktor Orban, having previously been in office between 1998 and 2002, returned as prime minister in 2010. He was then re-elected in 2014, 2018, and 2022, consolidating his hold on power. He used his electoral mandate to systematically take control of state institutions and suppress opposition.

Under Orban, press freedom has witnessed a significant downturn. According to Reporters Without Borders, oligarchs close to Orban’s Fidesz party have bought out media outlets and turned them into government mouthpieces. Currently, an estimated 80 percent of Hungary’s media is concentrated in the hands of Orban-friendly figures. Regulatory bodies have been weaponised to shut down independent media outlets. The government and pro-government media regularly accuse critical outlets of spreading disinformation and being financed by Hungarian-born American financier George Soros, the founder of the Open Society Foundation.

The institutions and laws of the state have also been weaponised to clamp down on educational bodies, civil society groups, and cultural institutions that Orban views as a hindrance to the country’s authoritarian far-right tilt. In 2018, the Soros-affiliated CEU, seen by Orban as a liberal bulwark, was forced to shut down most of its operations in Budapest and relocate to Vienna after the Orban government refused to sign an agreement that would allow it to operate as a degree-awarding university in Hungary.

In 2019, the Hungarian parliament passed a bill that allowed the Orban government to take control of the 200-year-old Hungarian Academy of Sciences. This was the first step towards 15 scientific institutes being incorporated into the Eotvos Lorand Research Network (ELKH), which is led by a board appointed by Orban. While the formal justification for this move was to “boost the funding and efficiency of Hungary’s underperforming research and development sector”, critics have maintained that this was yet another way for the government to suppress opposition.

According to civil society groups, artistic freedom and cultural institutions have also been under attack. Orban has used his “cultural approach” to advance his anti-democratic agenda, well aware that cultural and artistic spaces can play a “role in advancing pluralistic political discourse”. This has involved centralised control over the National Culture Fund and the National Cultural Council, as well as the appointment of Fidesz-friendly administrators at the helm of the Petofi Museum of Literature and the National Theatre. Notably, before his dismissal, the artistic director of the National Theatre was publicly rebuked by the Orban government “for his political views and his homosexuality”.

More recently, the Orban government established the “Sovereignty Protection Office” (SPO) to investigate critical journalists and civil society groups, under the pretext of combating threats to national sovereignty. Justifying the establishment of the SPO, Fidesz parliamentary group leader Mate Kocsis said, “We want to nettle left-wing journalists, fake civilians, and dollar politicians.”

As the Orban government’s efforts to consolidate right-wing control continue at home, elsewhere around the world, its tactics are being replicated. Its successes in Hungary have served as an inspiration for other far-right autocrats who see Orban as a first mover in establishing a conservative utopia, with far-right hegemony over all aspects of political, social, cultural, and economic life.

The Orban leadership takes this role as an inspiration and far-right instigator for others seriously. Well-funded Hungarian think tanks like the Mathias Corvinus Collegium (MCC) are making moves in Brussels to bring the Orban-brand of xenophobia, transphobia, and climate scepticism to the political mainstream in the European Union. MCC claims that it is building an alternative conservative agenda and political culture that challenges the “centrist outlook on public life”.

This agenda is particularly evident in a conference organised by MCC Brussels titled “Battle for the Soul of Europe.” The event brought together right-wing politicians, academics, public intellectuals, literary figures, and journalists from across Europe, alongside prominent American conservative thinkers and commentators.

Hungary also eagerly plays host to conservatives from around the world as a way of “spreading the knowledge”. Through visiting fellowships, book talks, and public panel discussions, institutions like MCC, the Hungary Foundation, and the Danube Institute in Budapest are nurturing a globally connected intelligentsia working towards crafting a conservative future.

Indeed, today, Hungary has become an important pit stop for world-touring conservative figures, from Nigel Biggar to the likes of Jordan Peterson and Tucker Carlson. In 2026, the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) will return to Hungary for a fifth time.

The announcement of the 2026 edition of CPAC Hungary declares proudly, “We were Trump before Trump after all, and at CPAC Hungary, the key phrase: ‘No migration! No gender! No war!’ was first spoken. This has become official policy in the United States.”

As the authors of World of the Right: Radical Conservatism and Global Order argue, the global nature of the far right is well established. Nonetheless, within this interconnected movement, Orban’s Hungary has played a defining role. Recent polls show that, for the first time since 2010, Orban will face a tough challenge from the opposition. Orban’s right-wing friends around the world know this, and they are coming to the rescue of the first mover in this global tilt to the right.

United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer is on a three-day state visit to China as he seeks to deepen economic and security ties with the world’s second-largest economy after years of acrimonious relations.

This is the first trip by a UK prime minister to China since Theresa May met Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2018.

Here’s what you need to know about the trip aimed at mending ties at a time of global uncertainties:

What’s on Starmer’s agenda for China?

The UK PM met Xi and Chinese Premier Li Qiang in Beijing on Thursday. He will next head to Shanghai to meet British and Chinese business leaders, according to his official itinerary.

After their meeting on Thursday, Starmer and Xi called for a “comprehensive strategic partnership” between the two nations.

“China-UK relations experienced setbacks in previous years, which were not in the interests of either country,” Xi said. “In the current complex and ever-changing international situation … China and the UK need to strengthen dialogue and cooperation to maintain world peace and stability.”

In his opening remarks, Starmer told Xi the two nations should “work together on issues like climate change, global stability during challenging times”.

The prime minister is accompanied by a delegation of nearly 60 representatives of businesses and cultural organisations, including banking conglomerate HSBC, pharmaceutical giant GSK, carmaker Jaguar Land Rover and the UK’s National Theatre.

Starmer told Bloomberg there will be “significant opportunities” for UK businesses in China in an interview this week in the run-up to his trip.

His trip is also expected to mark a reset in UK-China relations, which have been strained in recent years. Starmer underlined his intentions during his meeting with Xi on Thursday.

“China is a vital player on the global stage, and it’s vital that we build a more sophisticated relationship where we can identify opportunities to collaborate, but of course, also allow a meaningful dialogue on areas where we disagree,” Starmer told Xi, according to the Reuters news agency.

Why does the UK want to reset its relationship with China?

Starmer has framed his trip to China as a pragmatic move despite ongoing concerns back home about Beijing’s human rights record and potential national security threat.

“Like it or not, China matters for the UK,” Starmer said in advance of his trip to Beijing.

“As one of the world’s biggest economic players, a strategic and consistent relationship with them is firmly in our national interest. That does not mean turning a blind eye to the challenges they pose – but engaging even where we disagree,” he said.

China has rejected the allegations of human rights violations in parts of the country.

While few details have been released yet, Jing Gu, a political economist research fellow at the UK’s Institute of Development Studies, said reviving economic ties would require expanded “market access, predictable regulation and fair treatment of UK firms” alongside clear “guardrails”.

“This is not a question of being ‘pro-China’ or ‘anti-China’,” she said in a statement.

China offers a potential economic lifeline to the UK, whose economy has struggled in the decade since it embarked on its departure from the European Union in 2016.

A report by the nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) in the United States estimated last year that Brexit reduced UK gross domestic product (GDP) by 6 to 8 percent, with the impact accumulating gradually over time. Investment is also down 12 to 18 percent, according to NBER estimates, and employment is down 3 to 4 percent.

The UK’s GDP is estimated to grow 1.4 percent in 2026, according to Goldman Sachs, as it faces new economic challenges from US President Donald Trump’s decisions and announcements.

The UK was not exempt from Trump’s tariff war despite its decades-long “special relationship” with the US. As a NATO member, the UK has also watched with alarm as Trump recently threatened to annex Greenland and impose up to 25 percent tariffs on any country that opposed him.

Starmer is not the only US ally looking to diversify economic ties. His trip to China follows in the footsteps of French President Emmanuel Macron, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, South Korean President Lee Jae Myung, Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney.

What strained the UK’s relationship with China?

The UK has longstanding concerns with China’s human rights record, but its relationship with Beijing took a turn for the worse after mass antigovernment protests swept Hong Kong, a former British colony, in 2019.

The UK was alarmed by the political crackdown that followed the 2019 protests and Beijing’s decision to impose legislation in 2020 that criminalised “secession, subversion, terrorist activities, and collusion with a foreign country or with external elements to endanger national security”.

In the aftermath, the UK opened a special immigration scheme for the citizens of Hong Kong born before the city’s 1997 return to Chinese sovereignty. British officials have continued to criticise Hong Kong’s national security trials, including the prosecution of pro-democracy businessman Jimmy Lai, who is a UK citizen.

Allegations of Chinese spying in the UK and China’s support for Russia in the Ukraine war have also frayed the ties.

Steve Tsang, director of the SOAS China Institute in London, told Al Jazeera that he did not expect any concessions in this area during Starmer’s visit. “Beijing will work to support Starmer to present the visit as a success, but it will not make any concession in areas that matter to China, such as human rights,” he said.

What about security concerns?

Concerns about Chinese spying have been a front-page issue in the UK over the past year, with the head of the domestic intelligence agency MI5 recently saying “Chinese state actors” pose a national security threat “every day”.

Despite these worries, Starmer’s government this month approved Beijing’s plan to open a “mega embassy” in London that critics say could become a hub for espionage in Europe.

The embassy’s approval also follows the collapse of a legal case against two British men charged with spying for China. The decision by prosecutors to withdraw charges at the eleventh hour remains highly controversial in the UK.

China has denied the spying claims, with its Ministry of Foreign Affairs calling them “unfounded” accusations.

Starmer’s trip, however, emphasised areas of potential security cooperation between China and the UK.

Following his meeting with Xi, the Prime Minister’s Office announced that law enforcement would cooperate with Chinese authorities to stem the flow of synthetic opioids into the UK and cut off the supply of small boat engines to criminal gangs.

Engine-powered boats are used to smuggle people across the English Channel, according to Starmer’s office.

The agreement will include “intelligence sharing to identify smugglers’ supply routes and direct engagement with Chinese manufacturers to prevent legitimate businesses being exploited by organised crime”, his office said.

Palestinians in Gaza are waiting with uncertainty for the partial Israeli reopening of Gaza’s Rafah border crossing, a vital link between the Strip and the outside world. Al Jazeera’s Hani Mahmoud has been speaking to those hoping to be reunited with family members after two years of genocide.