Reza Pahlavi, the son of Iran’s deposed Shah, set out key policies he would put in place if he ever returned to rule the country. Pahlavi said he would recognise Israel and end Iran’s nuclear programme. Pahlavi, who lives in the US, has backed calls to overthrow Iran’s leaders.
After threatening to attack Iran for days in support of protesters challenging the government in Tehran, United States President Donald Trump appeared to dial back the rhetoric on Wednesday evening.
The killings in Iran, Trump said, had stopped, adding that Tehran had told his administration that arrested protesters would not be executed.
list of 4 itemsend of list
Trump did not rule out an attack on Iran, but in effect, negated the rationale for such an attack.
Still, as Trump closes in on the completion of the first year of his second term in office, his track record suggests the possibility of US military strikes against Iran in the coming days remains a real threat.
We take a look:
Since August, the US had positioned its largest military deployment in the Caribbean Sea in decades.
The US military bombed more than 30 boats that it claimed – without providing evidence – were carrying drugs to the United States, killing more than 100 people in these strikes. For months, Trump and his team accused Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro of leading mass-scale narcotics smuggling operations, again without evidence. Amid the boat bombings, Trump even said that the US might strike Venezuelan land next.
But in late November, Trump revealed to reporters that he had spoken to the Venezuelan leader. A few days later, the call was confirmed by Maduro himself, who described it as “cordial”.
The US then hit what Trump described as a docking facility for alleged drug boats in Venezuela. After that, on January 1, Maduro offered Trump an olive branch, saying he was open to talks with Washington on drug trafficking and even on enabling US access to oil. Trump appeared to be getting what he ostensibly wanted – access to Venezuelan oil and blocks on drugs from the country.
Yet only hours later, US forces targeted the capital, abducting Maduro and his wife on charges of narcotics trafficking and transporting them to the United States.
Venezuela was not the first time Trump launched a dramatic attack at a time when diplomacy appeared to be taking hold.
In June, Iran learned the hard way that Trump’s words and actions do not match.
Amid rising tensions over US accusations that Iran was racing towards enriching uranium for nuclear weapons, Washington and Tehran engaged in weeks of hectic negotiations. Trump frequently warned Iran that time was running out for it to strike a deal, but then returned to talks.
On June 13, he wrote on Truth Social that his team “remain committed to a Diplomatic Resolution to the Iran Nuclear Issue.”
His “entire” administration, he said, had been “directed to negotiate with Iran”.
But barely hours later, US ally Israel struck Iran. Most experts believe Israel would not have attacked Iran without Trump’s approval.
As Israel and Iran traded fire in the subsequent days, Trump faced questions over whether the US would bomb Iran.
On June 20, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt quoted Trump as saying that he would “make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks”.
Far from utilising the full two weeks he gave himself, Trump made his decision in two days.
In the early hours of June 22, US B-2 Spirit bombers dropped fourteen bunker-busting bombs on Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility, buried deep inside a mountain near Qom. The US also bombed nuclear facilities in Natanz and Isfahan using the most powerful conventional bombs in the US arsenal.
The attack shocked many observers, in part because of what appeared to have been an elaborate diplomatic ruse preceding it.
Now, all eyes are on Iran again, where demonstrations against the government have been under way for the past two weeks, before calming down earlier this week.
As the unrest turned deadlier last week, Trump urged Iranians to continue demonstrating.
“Iranian Patriots, KEEP PROTESTING – TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!!… HELP IS ON ITS WAY,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social on January 13, without elaborating on what form that help might take.
But within 24 hours, during a meeting with reporters in Washington, DC, Trump said he had been assured that the killing of protesters in Iran had stopped.
“They’ve said the killing has stopped and the executions won’t take place – there were supposed to be a lot of executions today, and that the executions won’t take place – and we’re going to find out,” Trump said on Wednesday.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, in an interview with Fox TV, also denied that Tehran planned to execute antigovernment protesters. “Hanging is out of the question,” he said.
Beyond Iran and Venezuela, longstanding US rivals, Trump’s aggression has increasingly extended towards Washington’s own allies, including Canada and Greenland.
The most striking example is Trump’s eagerness to take over Greenland, a Danish territory, which has evolved from a campaign talking point into a focal element of his administration’s Western Hemisphere strategy.
On January 5, the State Department posted a black-and-white image of Trump on social media, declaring: “This is OUR Hemisphere, and President Trump will not allow our security to be threatened.”
The president has refused to rule out the use of military force, with administration officials openly discussing US interest in Greenland’s strategic location and mineral resources.
Denmark has categorically rejected any sale, while Greenland’s leadership insists the territory is not for sale.
But experts such as Jeremy Shapiro, research director at the European Council on Foreign Relations, argue that Trump uses threats to intimidate adversaries and typically employs force only against weaker targets.
In a paper published last May titled, The bully’s pulpit: Finding patterns in Trump’s use of military force, Shapiro suggested that Trump frequently invokes military threats but often fails to follow through.
According to Shapiro, Trump is more likely to act when threats carry “low escalation risk”, while threats against nuclear-armed or militarily strong states largely serve rhetorical purposes. The most extreme or theatrical warnings, he argues, tend to function as tools of “political signalling rather than precursors to real military action”.
“Trump often deploys grandiose threats but only accepts limited, low-risk military operations. He uses foreign policy as political theatre, aiming threats as much at his domestic base and media cycle as at foreign adversaries,” Shapiro writes.
Some analysts believe Trump’s approach offers tactical advantages.
“The intent is to keep opponents off balance, heightening psychological pressure and extracting maximum strategic leverage,” a Pakistani government official told Al Jazeera, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorised to speak to the media. “Even his European allies are not always certain what to expect.”
Others remain sceptical. Qandil Abbas, a specialist on Middle East affairs at Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad, described Trump’s behaviour as erratic, citing his repeated threats against multiple countries.
“Look at his threats against Cuba, or Iran, or Venezuela, and yet this is the same president who also wants to win a Nobel prize and is desperate for it,” Abbas told Al Jazeera.
So is Trump actually pulling back from the prospect of attacking Iran – or is he bluffing?
According to Abbas, Trump’s apparent change in tone might be the result of feedback from US allies in the region “that attacking Iran is not smart”.
Transcendent moments in geopolitics that reverberate around the world are no longer just forged in the streets or inside situation rooms. They are increasingly engineered in the digital sphere, where actors, often with a self-serving agenda, compete to control the narrative, define its meaning and decide who speaks for whom.
In recent weeks as protests erupted in Iranian cities, the hashtag #FreeThePersianPeople trended on X. The campaign was accompanied by a flood of posts heralding an imminent “decisive moment” in Iran’s history and presenting themselves as the authentic voice of the Iranian people.
list of 4 itemsend of list
However, an extensive data analysis by Al Jazeera reveals a different picture.
Tracking the sources of this interaction and its dissemination paths uncovers that the digital campaign did not originate organically from within Iran.
Instead, it was spearheaded by external networks – primarily accounts linked to Israel or pro-Israel circles – that played a central role in manufacturing momentum and steering the discourse toward specific geopolitical goals.
The data associated with the campaign reveals a striking anomaly in how the hashtag spread, indicative of artificial amplification.
Al Jazeera’s analysis found that 94 percent of the 4,370 posts analysed were retweets compared with a negligible percentage of original content.
More significantly, the number of accounts producing original content did not exceed 170 users, yet the campaign reached more than 18 million users.
This massive gap between the limited number of sources and the vast reach is a hallmark of coordinated influence operations, often referred to as “astroturfing”, in which pre-packaged messages are amplified to create the illusion of widespread public consensus.
A review of the content shows the hashtag was not merely an expression of social or economic grievances. Instead, it carried a rigid political framework designed to reframe and actually pour on the unrest.
The discourse portrayed developments inside Iran as a “moment of collapse” and relied on sharp binaries: “The People vs. The Regime”, “Freedom vs. Political Islam” and “Iran vs. The Islamic Republic”.
The campaign heavily promoted Reza Pahlavi, the son of Iran’s last shah, as the sole political alternative. Pahlavi himself engaged with the campaign, a move that was immediately amplified by Israeli accounts describing him as the “face of the alternative Iran”. But he is not thought of in those terms by a majority of Iranians, many of whom have memories of his father’s abuses and how the CIA restored him to power in 1953 in a United States-United Kingdom-orchestrated coup.
Translation: I am sharing my first call with you today and invite you to start chanting slogans this Thursday and Friday, 18th and 19th of Dey, simultaneously at 8 PM, all of you whether in the streets or even from your own homes. Based on the feedback from this action, I will announce the next calls to you.
The campaign was not limited to anonymous activists. It also involved direct participation from current and former Israeli officials during the campaign’s peak.
Israeli Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir posted a tweet in Persian addressed to the Iranian people, calling for the “fall of the dictator” and expressing support for the protests.
Translation: The people of Iran deserve a free life, liberated from the killer dictator, Khamenei. We stand with you!
Similarly, tweets by former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett were widely circulated within the hashtag’s network, repurposed to fit the “liberation” narrative.
One of the campaign’s most prominent features was its attempt to reframe the protests as a conflict against religion rather than against economic mismanagement and political repression.
Posts describing the Iranian government as an “oppressive Islamist regime” circulated alongside narratives portraying the “Persian people” as victims of Islam. This attempt to distinguish between “Persians” and “Muslims” appeared aimed at isolating the regime from Iranian society and framing the unrest as a civilizational clash.
Israeli activists, including Eyal Yakoby and Hillel Neuer, also pushed content accusing the Iranian authorities of excessive violence while attacking what they termed the “silence of international media”.
The discourse quickly evolved from solidarity to explicit calls for foreign military intervention. And this narrative was pushed by US President Donald Trump, who bombed Iran’s nuclear sites as part of Israel’s 12-day war against Iran in June.
The network amplified statements attributed to Trump regarding Washington’s readiness to intervene. Pahlavi publicly welcomed these statements, framing them as support for “change”.
Simultaneously, members of the US Congress, including Representative Pat Fallon, a member of Trump’s Republican Party, further amplified these sentiments while dozens of accounts within the network directed tweets at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, urging direct Israeli intervention.
Al Jazeera’s network analysis identified specific “central nodes”, or accounts that played a pivotal role in amplifying the hashtag.
![Network analysis exposes the Israeli fingerprint in exploiting the protests in Iran [Al Jazeera]](https://i0.wp.com/www.aljazeera.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Screenshot-2026-01-05-at-16.15.38-1768482501.png?w=696&ssl=1)
![The network analysis revealed an Israeli footprint in the exploitation of Iran protests [Al Jazeera]](https://i0.wp.com/www.aljazeera.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Screenshot-2026-01-05-at-16.35.12-1768482539.png?w=696&ssl=1)
The investigation concludes that the #FreeThePersianPeople campaign was not a spontaneous digital expression of internal Iranian anger.
Cricketers in Bangladesh have begun their boycott of the game across all formats and competitions in response to a top Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) official’s scathing remarks weeks ahead of the ICC Men’s T20 World Cup 2026.
Two Bangladesh Premier League (BPL) matches were indefinitely postponed on Thursday after the teams failed to turn up at the venue in Dhaka, setting off a boycott a day after BCB director Nazmul Islam lashed out at the country’s top-tier cricketers.
list of 4 itemsend of list
Islam was sacked by the BCB hours after the postponement of the first BPL match.
The move comes amidst uncertainty over the venues for Bangladesh’s fixtures at the February 7-March 8 T20 World Cup in India and Sri Lanka.
Here’s what we know about the trouble brewing in Bangladesh cricket:
The players, represented by the Cricketers Welfare Association of Bangladesh (CWAB), were acting in response to an outburst by BCB official Islam, who suggested the players should return the “crores of taka” (10s of millions of Bangladeshi currency) that the board has spent on them over the years, during which the team has not won any international tournament.
The first match to be affected by the boycott was a BPL fixture between Chattogram Royals and Noakhali Express at Sher-e-Bangla National Stadium in Dhaka.
The match was scheduled to begin at 1pm local time (07:00 GMT), but players from neither team arrived at the stadium, forcing tournament officials to postpone it.
The second match of the day, between the Rajshahi Warriors and Sylhet Titans and scheduled for a 6pm (12:00 GMT) start at the same venue, was also postponed.
The players were demanding Islam’s removal from the board.
Islam, who headed the BCB’s finance committee, was responding to questions about the possibility of paying compensation to the players should they miss the upcoming T20 World Cup due to Bangladesh’s refusal to play its games in India.
The official turned the query on its head and said “the question [of compensation] does not even arise” after the money spent on them by the board.
“We are spending so much money on them, they are not being able to do anything in different places,” he told the media.
“Have we got any international awards? What have we done at any level? Let us now ask them for the money back after every time they couldn’t play. Give us back. Why should there even be a question of compensating the players?”
The board initially distanced itself from Islam’s tirade, saying it regretted his remarks.
“Such comments do not reflect the values, principles, or official position of the Bangladesh Cricket Board, nor do they align with the standards of conduct expected from individuals entrusted with the responsibility of serving Bangladesh cricket,” the BCB said in a statement on Wednesday.
Following the players’ boycott of BPL games, the board gave in to the players’ demands and sacked Islam on Thursday.
“Following a review of recent developments and in the best interest of the organisation, the BCB president has decided to release Nazmul Islam from his responsibilities as Chairman of the Finance Committee with immediate effect,” the board said.
Neither the CWAB nor the players have made a statement on the status of their boycott since Islam’s sacking.
The BCB has asked the International Cricket Council (ICC) for Bangladesh’s fixtures at the T20 World Cup to be relocated from India, citing safety and security concerns for its players.
The ICC responded to BCB’s request by saying it deemed the venues – Wankhede Stadium in Mumbai and Eden Gardens in Kolkata – to be safe for the Bangladeshi team.
However, the BCB remained firm in its stance and asked the ICC to review its request once again.
The row between the BCB and the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) erupted after the latter instructed the Indian Premier League (IPL) franchise Kolkata Knight Riders to remove Bangladesh fast bowler Mustafizur Rahman from its squad for this year’s tournament.
The BCCI did not give any specific reason for the removal of the star left-arm paceman from the IPL, but it is believed it was done because of the recent political tensions between the two countries.
French double Olympic swimming gold medallist Yannick Agnel will face trial on charges of rape and sexual assault of a 13-year-old girl after his appeal was rejected on Thursday.
In May, the Frenchman’s lawyers appealed the decision for the 33-year-old to face the charges but the appeals court in Colmar, northeast France, turned down the claim and ordered the trial to go ahead.
list of 4 itemsend of list
Agnel, who won two golds at the 2012 London Games, is suspected of having had a relationship with the girl, who was then 13, in 2016.
Agnel has always insisted the relationship was consensual and loving.
According to prosecutors, the events in question took place between December, 31, 2015 and August 31, 2016 in various locations including Mulhouse, Thailand and Tenerife.
The investigation led to the indictment of the swimmer five months later, in December 2021.
Agnel has always denied he had any control over the teenager.
The public prosecutor at the time, Edwige Roux-Morizot, considered “the facts constitute rape and sexual assault due to the age difference, because the justice system considers that there is genuine moral duress”.
In July 2024, the swimmer, who had retired in 2016, attended a meeting with his accuser, now in her early 20s, that he had requested.
Agnel came to international prominence at the 2010 European championships when he won gold in the 400 metres freestyle, setting a new French and championship record.
Two years later, he starred at the London Olympics when he took gold in the 200m freestyle and the 4x100m freestyle relay as well as silver in the 4x200m freestyle relay.
He collected gold medals in the same two events in the 2013 world championships.
Israel’s military has carried out an attack on a village in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley, local media outlets are reporting, amid growing concerns of a wider Israeli escalation as the government pushes for the disarmament of Lebanese group Hezbollah.
In a social media post on Thursday, Israeli army spokesman Avichay Adraee told residents of the village of Sohmor to leave their homes ahead of a planned strike on a building he claimed contained “Hezbollah military infrastructure”.
list of 3 itemsend of list
The Israeli military later said it was attacking several “Hezbollah targets” across Lebanon, without specifying where exactly the strikes were being carried out.
The Hezbollah-affiliated Al-Manar TV said the Israeli army had targeted two residential buildings in Sohmor.
Israel has launched near-daily attacks on Lebanon despite a ceasefire agreement with Hezbollah that came into force in late 2024.
Those attacks have ramped up in recent months as Israel and its main ally, the United States, have been pushing the Lebanese government to disarm Hezbollah.
Later on Thursday, the Israeli army issued another evacuation threat for residents of the Bekaa Valley village of Mashghara, west of Sohmor, saying it planned to attack “Hezbollah infrastructure” there.
Last week, the Lebanese military said the first phase of its plan is to bring all the weapons held by non-state actors between the Litani River and the Israeli border, in southern Lebanon, under its control.
The army said on January 8 that it had established a state monopoly on arms in the south in an “effective and tangible way”, without specifically mentioning Hezbollah.
The Lebanese cabinet, meanwhile, has asked the army to brief it early next month on how it would pursue disarmament in other parts of the country.
A senior Hezbollah official warned the Lebanese government this week, however, that trying to disarm the group across Lebanon would trigger chaos and a possible civil war.
Hezbollah has insisted that the disarmament push only applies to the southernmost region of Lebanon that borders Israel, refusing to relinquish its weapons elsewhere.
In an interview with Russian state media outlet RT, senior Hezbollah political official Mahmoud Qmati said on Wednesday that pursuing a state monopoly on arms further north would be “the biggest crime committed by the state”.
“The path taken by the Lebanese government and state institutions will lead Lebanon to instability, chaos and perhaps even civil war,” Qmati said, though he added that Hezbollah would not be dragged into a confrontation with Lebanon’s army.
Hezbollah has argued that it must retain its weapons in order to deter Israel from occupying additional territories in southern Lebanon, where the Lebanese army is ill-equipped to respond.
Israel has maintained troops in five areas of southern Lebanon, in violation of the 2024 truce.
“There will be no talk or dialogue about any situation north of the Litani River before Israel withdraws from all Lebanese territory, liberates the south and the prisoners, and stops its violations against Lebanon,” said Qmati, the Hezbollah official.
Reporting from the Lebanese capital, Beirut, on Thursday, Al Jazeera’s Zeina Khodr explained that by targeting areas north of the Litani River for attack, the Israeli military is signalling that it has “shifted to phase two of the disarmament plan”.
But the Lebanese army has said “it needs time to put a plan together and that it will present it to the government next month”, Khodr said.
“Lebanese army sources [are] saying that this is very challenging, especially if Hezbollah refuses to cooperate with the army. And Hezbollah [is] making clear it will not cooperate with the army,” she explained.